dpny

If you guys ever wonder why the X-Pilot community is tiny, and will remain so, remember posts like this. A post like that coming from you doesn't mean much here when you're part of the development team for the product in discussion. Sorry. End of story. I'm not about to give my $0.02 on the 787 right now, but don't try and act like a credible source when you have a natural bias. See my reply to Indi. I don't care if people like or don't like the 787. Never have never will. I am, however, talking about the way in which the comments are delivered. To elaborate on what I said to Indi, if you have a board which encourages comments which read as if they come from angry teenagers, expect a board populated with angry teenagers, or people who act like them. And, for the record, I was not part of the development team. I offered to act as a middleman between Heinz and Javier to develop a UFMC config file for the 787. That's where my involvement began and ended.

First of all, I don't see the X-Plane community as suffering. There are more new users, and more new developers, than I can keep count of. Second of all, comments such as the one I highlighted sound as if they come from a spoiled 16-year old. Surely you can think of a more coherent way to express your opinions about an X-Plane project you don't like? The real issue, in my opinion, is that comments like that, and the atmosphere they create, will drive people away from here and to the .org, which will only serve to undercut your stated mission.

If you guys ever wonder why the X-Pilot community is tiny, and will remain so, remember posts like this.

GoodWay hasn't officially killed XCoPilot, but I'd assume it's dead. They've been updating GoodWay, but that seems to be it. Just for the record, GodoWay isn't a company as you might think. It's more of a loose collective.

You're assuming perfect knowledge on the part of JCS. In all likelihood the plane's been under construction for many months, and it's likely they started it before Greg began to announce his F-16.

Holding planes up to the quality of Greg's work means you probably won't buy any other planes, as his -104 is probably the most realistic jet aircraft for X-Plane, ever. Greg's background is, partly, making sims for military training, so he doesn't just model a plane, he really simulates it. The -104 includes a plugin which accurately calculates drag and engine performance in the trans- and supersonic range, something X-Plane doesn't do very well. And, as you (like me) own it, you know what an amazing thing it is. That said, I just bought the JCS F-16 and spent an hour flying it around Edwards. It's another great plane from them, and I enjoyed it immensely. Curiously, it is a little more of a fps hit than the -104.

Greg Hofer already makes the amazing CF-104, and is working on his own F-16.

By the end of the month.

Actually, I have no urge to 'protect' Heinz: he doesn't need protecting, and the comments on this site from a handful of people will have absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, on the success or failure of the 787. I explained my involvement to make a point: when I saw features in the 787 were lacking that I wanted--namely UFMC integration--I offered my time to Heinz to help him implement them. I did this because it seems to me this is part of the X-Plane community's spirit: we help each other out, whether it's with time, effort, writing guides, answering questions or undertaking large things like Dan Klaue's tutorials for plane developers. It is one of the most attractive things about the X-Plane community, and its spirit has seemed very lacking in this thread. As an aside, if Heinz has Boeing's backing, it's probably safe to assume that he might get the okay to get docs in question. Bedtime for me.

Like I said, I can guarantee you Boeing didn't give him anything that isn't already publicly available. Remember, we have a B787 flight engineer on our team. Further, he does not have the FCOM which means; 1. Flightmodel is 100% guesswork 2. Systems and avionics are mostly guesswork 3. Cockpit dimensions are mostly guesswork Assuming the above is true--and the only way you could know that was if you'd emailed Heinz and asked him what info he has and doesn't have--why did you not offer Heinz the info you think he's missing, or offer to help him get it?

Perhaps this is where the issue is. When I see "Officially licensed" and "no guesswork" I don't jump to the same conclusions you do. I think it means that Heinz is not having to scour the internet for info, because (within reason) Boeing has given it to him. For the record, I am helping Heinz with the autopilot, bug reporting and flight model, along with Javier Cortes (although, obviously, Javier is doing all the heavy lifting). As I said before, I am posting because I have been surprised and shocked at the attacks on Heinz in this thread, as I have never seen such vitriol directed at a plane designer before.

My interest in this thread isn't an eye candy/flight model debate: it's the severe nature of the attacks on Heinz, which have impugned his design abilities, his honesty and his character. To me, this is clearly not about the plane he's making, but about something else. I'm curious what it is. We're a community of very opinionated people, but I have never before seen those opinions clothed in attacks on someone's character.

From a post Heinz made today. Not a given price, but "much higher than my other planes" means it will be fairly upwards of 15-20 dollars. Not sure how much "much higher" is, but I'll guess we'll find out in a week. Actually, the quote is "The costs to produce is much higher than my other aircraft, but will be kept as low as possible." Completely different than what you implied.

He said nothing of the sort. On his website it says, " This will be a licensed by Boeing product." That's all it says. If those behind the .org newsletter have chosen to exaggerate, you need to separate the newsletter from Heinz. What is the proof for this? All I have seen is some speculation here, which has spiraled into personal attacks on him. Morten, if you really don't like putting down other designer's work, and are truly interested in a cohesive X-Plane community, you could always offer to help Heinz out with information he may not have.

MSFS is dead because development is stopped and the current version is as good as it will ever be. It will not be able to take advantage of any new technologies which evolve over the next few years, so any new eye candy or increases in performance other than those based solely on more efficient processor performance will bypass it altogether. X-Plane, on the other hand, will keep going. Given that Austin's stated changes to X-Plane 10 are a list of things X-Plane lacks that MSFS has--realistic ATC, AI planes at airports--or things which many claim MSFS does better--clouds, weather, etc.--I don't expect any huge move towards X-Plane in the next year or so. But, as X-Plane continues to develop, and the MSFS developers watch their market slowly shrink, the developer will have to decide to either develop for X-Plane, or to find another way to make money. Some will jump over to X-Plane. Some will go elsewhere. The situation is roughly analogous to the state of PPC-based Macs in the Apple world. There's still a large installed base of PPC Macs (typing this on one), and they are still perfectly useful for almost everything you can think of. But there is no more development for them, and as OS X marches forward they're slowly being left behind. I would expect the tipping point for MSFS developers to be X-Plane 11, which I expect will move solidly past MSFS in almost all areas.

REX may run smack into the new cloud/weather features coming in X-Plane 10.

At the moment the problem is solved, but not really: the developer of the Avanti told me that the XAP plugin he's using currently doesn't support PPC Macs, which I have, so I removed the XAP plugin from the Avanti folder. The plane is 95% flyable, with some odd error messages, and Gizmo is happy again. One of these days, if the economy improves, I may join the rest of you in Intel land.

Running Gizmo 10.3.8 on a G5, with X-Plane 9.45 and OX 10.5.8. I tried Gizmo with the new P180 Avanti Alterna, which I think is the first plane I've used which uses GIzmo. The result was X-Plane quitting with an illegal instruction error. However, every time I launched X-Plane after it quit, it would quit within a minute of launching with the same error, no matter which plane I was attempting to open. The only way to stop this was to remove Gizmo from my plugins folder, at which time X-Plane returned to normal. At first I thought it was the new Saitek control plugin, but removing that didn't solve the problem. The very last crash was me attempting to open the P180 without Gizmo installed. Relevant lines from system.log: [tt]Apr 9 14:48:44 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2d22d2].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6514]): Exited abnormally: Illegal instruction Apr 9 14:48:58 Macintosh [0x0-0x2d52d5].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6530]: <CFData 0x15ece700 [ Apr 9 14:48:58 Macintosh [0x0-0x2d52d5].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6530]: 0xa0257174]>{length = 6, capacity = 6, b Apr 9 14:48:58 Macintosh [0x0-0x2d52d5].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6530]: ytes = 0x000d932c9d14} Apr 9 14:49:00 Macintosh [0x0-0x2d52d5].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6530]: ^[[0;34m[x52control]^[[0m: Saitek X52 Flight Control System found (Product ID: 0x075C) Apr 9 14:49:00 Macintosh [0x0-0x2d52d5].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6530]: ^[[0;31m[x52control]^[[0m: can't read config file Apr 9 14:51:53 Macintosh ReportCrash[6533]: Formulating crash report for process X-Plane[6530] Apr 9 14:51:55 Macintosh ReportCrash[6533]: Saved crashreport to /Users/dpickett/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/X-Plane_2010-04-09-145145_Macintosh.crash using uid: 501 gid: 501, euid: 501 egid: 501 Apr 9 14:51:57 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2d52d5].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6530]): Exited abnormally: Illegal instruction Apr 9 14:56:45 Macintosh [0x0-0x2da2da].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6554]: <CFData 0x15ece700 [0xa0257174]>{len Apr 9 14:56:45 Macintosh [0x0-0x2da2da].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6554]: gth = 6, capacity = 6, bytes = 0x000d932c9d Apr 9 14:56:45 Macintosh [0x0-0x2da2da].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6554]: 14} Apr 9 14:56:47 Macintosh [0x0-0x2da2da].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6554]: ^[[0;34m[x52control]^[[0m: Saitek X52 Flight Control System found (Product ID: 0x075C) Apr 9 14:56:47 Macintosh [0x0-0x2da2da].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6554]: ^[[0;31m[x52control]^[[0m: can't read config file Apr 9 15:00:01 Macintosh ReportCrash[6557]: Formulating crash report for process X-Plane[6554] Apr 9 15:00:04 Macintosh ReportCrash[6557]: Saved crashreport to /Users/dpickett/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/X-Plane_2010-04-09-145954_Macintosh.crash using uid: 501 gid: 501, euid: 501 egid: 501 Apr 9 15:00:05 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2da2da].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6554]): Exited abnormally: Illegal instruction Apr 9 15:02:19 Macintosh [0x0-0x2de2de].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6570]: <CFData 0x15ece700 [0xa0257174]>{length = 6, capacity = 6, bytes = 0x000d932c9d14} Apr 9 15:02:20 Macintosh [0x0-0x2de2de].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6570]: ^[[0;34m[x52control]^[[0m: Saitek X52 Flight Control System found (Product ID: 0x075C) Apr 9 15:02:20 Macintosh [0x0-0x2de2de].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6570]: ^[[0;31m[x52control]^[[0m: can't read config file Apr 9 15:07:36 Macintosh ReportCrash[6579]: Formulating crash report for process X-Plane[6570] Apr 9 15:07:38 Macintosh ReportCrash[6579]: Saved crashreport to /Users/dpickett/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/X-Plane_2010-04-09-150728_Macintosh.crash using uid: 501 gid: 501, euid: 501 egid: 501 Apr 9 15:07:39 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2de2de].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6570]): Exited abnormally: Bus error Apr 9 15:07:53 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e02e0].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6582]: <CFData 0x15ece70 Apr 9 15:07:53 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e02e0].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6582]: 0 [0xa0257174]>{length = 6, capacity = 6, Apr 9 15:07:53 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e02e0].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6582]: bytes = 0x000d932c9d14} Apr 9 15:07:55 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e02e0].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6582]: ^[[0;34m[x52control]^[[0m: Saitek X52 Flight Control System found (Product ID: 0x075C) Apr 9 15:07:55 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e02e0].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6582]: ^[[0;31m[x52control]^[[0m: can't read config file Apr 9 15:12:23 Macintosh ReportCrash[6587]: Formulating crash report for process X-Plane[6582] Apr 9 15:12:25 Macintosh ReportCrash[6587]: Saved crashreport to /Users/dpickett/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/X-Plane_2010-04-09-151215_Macintosh.crash using uid: 501 gid: 501, euid: 501 egid: 501 Apr 9 15:12:27 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2e02e0].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6582]): Exited abnormally: Illegal instruction Apr 9 15:13:02 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e42e4].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6599]: <CFData 0x15ece720 [0xa0257174]> Apr 9 15:13:02 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e42e4].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6599]: {length = 6, capacity = 6, bytes = 0x000d93 Apr 9 15:13:02 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e42e4].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6599]: 2c9d14} Apr 9 15:13:04 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e42e4].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6599]: ^[[0;34m[x52control]^[[0m: Saitek X52 Flight Control System found (Product ID: 0x075C) Apr 9 15:17:19 Macintosh ReportCrash[6601]: Formulating crash report for process X-Plane[6599] Apr 9 15:17:21 Macintosh ReportCrash[6601]: Saved crashreport to /Users/dpickett/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/X-Plane_2010-04-09-151711_Macintosh.crash using uid: 501 gid: 501, euid: 501 egid: 501 Apr 9 15:17:22 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2e42e4].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6599]): Exited abnormally: Illegal instruction Apr 9 15:17:29 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e62e6].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6604]: <CFData 0x15ece720 Apr 9 15:17:29 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e62e6].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6604]: [0xa0257174]>{length = 6, capacity = 6, b Apr 9 15:17:29 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e62e6].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6604]: ytes = 0x000d932c9d14} Apr 9 15:17:31 Macintosh [0x0-0x2e62e6].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6604]: ^[[0;34m[x52control]^[[0m: Saitek X52 Flight Control System found (Product ID: 0x075C) Apr 9 15:21:09 Macintosh ReportCrash[6613]: Formulating crash report for process X-Plane[6604] Apr 9 15:21:11 Macintosh ReportCrash[6613]: Saved crashreport to /Users/dpickett/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/X-Plane_2010-04-09-152100_Macintosh.crash using uid: 501 gid: 501, euid: 501 egid: 501 Apr 9 15:21:13 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2e62e6].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6604]): Exited abnormally: Bus error Apr 9 15:21:37 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: <CFData 0x15ece720 [0xa0257174]>{len Apr 9 15:21:37 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: gth = 6, capacity = 6, bytes = 0x000d932 Apr 9 15:21:37 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: c9d14} Apr 9 15:21:39 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: ^[[0;34m[x52control]^[[0m: Saitek X52 Flight Control System found (Product ID: 0x075C) Apr 9 15:47:16 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: Symbol not found: _luaL_newstate Apr 9 15:47:16 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: Referenced from: /Volumes/X-Plane/X-Plane 9/Aircraft/Downloaded/General Aviation/P180 Avanti Alterna/plugins/xap/mac.xpl Apr 9 15:47:16 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: Expected in: flat namespace Apr 9 15:47:16 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: dyld: Symbol not found: _luaL_newstate Apr 9 15:47:16 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: Referenced from: /Volumes/X-Plane/X-Plane 9/Aircraft/Downloaded/General Aviation/P180 Avanti Alterna/plugins/xap/mac.xpl Apr 9 15:47:16 Macintosh [0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]: Expected in: flat namespace Apr 9 15:47:23 Macintosh ReportCrash[6651]: Formulating crash report for process X-Plane[6619] Apr 9 15:47:25 Macintosh ReportCrash[6651]: Saved crashreport to /Users/dpickett/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/X-Plane_2010-04-09-154716_Macintosh.crash using uid: 501 gid: 501, euid: 501 egid: 501 Apr 9 15:47:26 Macintosh com.apple.launchd[140] ([0x0-0x2ea2ea].com.laminar_research.X-Plane[6619]): Exited abnormally: Trace/BPT trap[/tt]

It's not just you: happened with the latest update. Already emailed Javier about it. He said the fix is non-trivial and will have to wait until the next versoin.

I'm with you. I'm much more interested in being able to correctly fly a tricky VOR approach, and that the plane hit the numbers, than I am in whether or not it's all shiny and pretty. I own a lot of Heinz's planes and love 'em all.

1) No plane in X-Plane has a "complete" FMS. And, let's face it, no plane in MSFS has a "complete" FMS. At best they will have an abstraction of an actual FMS which we pretend is the real thing. So, please, let us accurately define our terms. 2) What does he fill it with? Complete specs for the engines, modeled systems, graphs for take off V speeds, cruising and landing, V speeds for landing, tips on flight planning, etc. All the things you need to fly the thing accurately. I think I'm done with this thread, as it seems others here have made up their minds without ever having used any of Peter's planes.

I will disagree. As I said, I own Peter's A330s and find them wonderfully immersive to fly. Perhaps not everyone wants a plane you need to read a 125 page manual to fly, but I love it. I would buy his A380 in a heartbeat, but my machine is five years old and nowhere near fast enough. I think the idea X-Plane has to complete with MSFS in terms of good-looking planes is faulty logic: X-Plane has been around for years, and isn't going anywhere. It doesn't need to compete with MSFS, and I think trying to turn X-Plane into an MSFS workalike will damage a lot of the things I appreciate about it.

I'm sure it's great, just not worth $65 for what you get. But that's a personal call. I'd rather have someone put a lot of work into systems modeling and making sure the plane hits the numbers than wing flex. Which, I guess, is my point: a lot of the comments here are bordering on mean, which surprises me.

Really don't understand all of the negative comments: Flying Peter's A330s is an immersive experience, and I'm sure his 380 is even more so. Maybe it's different expectations: I don't care about things like wingflex, because I don't fly with an outside view, looking at the wings.

I was about to buy it until I looked at the system specs: • CPU 2,5 GHz Duo-Core or better (no single prozessor) • 4 GB RAM • 512 MB V-RAM It will have to wait until I get a new machine, whenever that is. edit: Wanted to say I've found the money spent on Peter's planes well worth it. He models systems like no one else.