dpny

Flies just fine for me.

If I were a serious MSFS user, this would make me very, very nervous. And the part which would scare me the most is the last section.

X-Plane will use all available cores to load scenery.

Looks like Javier did a 737, to me.

This has been discussed much on the various Flight forums. The common view I believe is that:- 1) Flight is a enhanced version of FSX (thus not 'arcade'). The 'not arcade' aspect has also been confirmed by the official Flight website. 2) The Flight 'store' means exposure to a vast market for Flight developers, with vendors paying Microsoft a commission on each store sale (similar to how Steam works). 3) Vendors do not need to go through the store. And thus the freeware 'market' and 3rd party stores will continue to operate. Additionally from what I've read PMDG and vendors such as ORBX are already under NDA with regard to Flight, so presumably they are already developing (or considering) products for Flight. Since Flight is closely related to FSX it should be relatively easy for vendors to 'port' products to Flight. I think you'll see Flight released with the Flight marketplace already populated with some big name FSX vendors. As with all things MS, wait and see.

You should go read the Flight site and/or the Flight forums over at AVSIM. Flight is for PC and not X-Box. There's no reason for MS to can FS and start an entirely new project unless they intend to change the way they're monetizing the product. I expect Flight will be much more game-like, and all add-ons will have to go through MS.

See my comments elsewhere about Flight: I think it's going to be aimed primarily at X-Box/online, and MS will control all add ons. It doesn't look good for PMDG.

To be fair, I don't think that's the issue here. The argument presented was PMDG is a priori superior to X-Plane, and always will be. Clearly that is, prima facie, ridiculous. Personally I have no opinions about MSFS aside from financial/strategic ones; namely that MS killed FS to increase their monetization, and this bodes very ill for PMDG and the FS add on community. But that's another thread.

If in doubt go visit the PMDG forums on AVSIM. You will be pleased to know that PMDG does have vast experience in developing airliner simulations in addition to numerous NGX pilots on the beta team (with tens of thousands of NGX hours in total). The PMDG NGX is licensed by Boeing and in addition PMDG have access to Boeing NGX engineers. So that's a "yes" to parroting PMDG's marketing material.

You say this based on your programming experience? Your thousands of hours in the cockpit of airliners? Your experience as an aeronautical engineer? Your intimate knowledge of the flight characteristics of the planes in question? Or are these just PMDG's words coming out of your mouth? You're offering no proof other than, "I say so!" You'll have to excuse us if we think you look ridiculous.

I am trying to tell you, and you're not interested in listening. As you've decided that no one can do better than PMDG, why waste your time here at all?

I bet though the generic VNAV modelling in UFMC/vasFMC doesn't match the intended aircraft's vertical profile very closely. Why don't you use it and find out rather than assume? First of all, VNAV in the UFMC isn't generic: performance is based on how well the UFMC config file is set up, and the config file is pretty comprehensive. Second, performance is also predicated on how well the .acf is modeled. Used with Heinz's 787, the plane climbs right on the numbers. Used with the x737, the plane flies right on the numbers. Used with a plane whose .acf file isn't accurate, the performance will be off. Set up a config file improperly, and performance will be off. As in all things computationally based, garbage in, garbage out. edit: I also have to laugh, at little, when using PMDG as an example of well-modeled performance. These are the same people who admitted X-Plane's flight modeling was too complicated for them to figure out.

Since we're comparing third-party add ons, any plane which can be used with the UFMC does VNAV, with both cost index and reduced climb and thrust schedules. That said, the UFMC also has an option to disable VNAV, so when used with something like the ER-140 (which, like the CRJ, has neither VNAV nor ATHR) it can be flown more realistically. Additionally, the latest version of vasFMC does VNAV.

Should probably wait until XP10 comes out to do any of this. As of now, we don't know what the bottleneck will be with the next version. Ben's said it may actually be the PCI bus, which isn't really upgradable.

Perhaps the 1.1.2 release should show a huge, flashing sign on loading the CRJ which says, "FOR GOD'S SAKE, QUIT CHROME!"

I already wrote about that: Chrome uses hardware acceleration for CSS transformations and fontrendering. So the chrome processes (one per tab) compete with the CRJ threads (one per display) about font access. http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=2434.msg23331#msg23331 http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=2098.msg20802#msg20802 Cameron, we should think about selling an CRJ+IPad combo package so people will have their browser on a separate display Philipp I'd read those threads, but I had no idea the results would be so dramatic.

That only makes sense if you think it's a zero sum game: it's not. I own both the A-4 (which is enormously fun to fly) and the CRJ, which is fun in its own way.

Guy in the last video is so busy pressing buttons he doesn't notice he's about 30 knots overspeed. Sometimes you need to stop messing with systems and just fly. That said, the cockpit looks like photo textures and 2D instruments layered on 3D, which makes sense when you consider that FSX was released in 2006. Also explains the terrible reflections.

Figured it out: I had Chrome running in the background. Quit Chrome, quit X-Plane, relaunch, and everything is fine. I don't know what Chrome is doing to my system, but the combo of it and the CRJ is deadly.

I have a suspicion about what may be causing it, but I can't check until after work.

Nothing changed, but I will do some more tests.

Javier, I have a 3.33 GHz, six-core Mac Pro with a 5870. I usually get 50-100 fps with the CRJ. If doing this slows down my machine this much, it's going to destroy anyone with a lesser machine.

The 1.1.1 update seems to have introduced a crippling new bug. When starting from cold and dark, and following the checklist/tutorial, clicking on the AC power button to cycle it from available to in use drops the frame rate so low X-Plane is essentially frozen. This only happens when starting from cold and dark. If I start with all systems running, everything is fine. The first time it happened, the frame rate dropped to about 1 fps. I was eventually able to get back to the AC power button and click it back to available, which restored the frame rate. Quitting X-Plane and restarting resulted in the same bug, only this time the frate rate was so low I couldn't even pan. I had to force quit. X-Plane's memory usage and CPU usage does not change at all. This seems to be a graphical bug. Nothing has changed in my X-Plane configuration. The only difference is the newer version of the CRJ.

I'm running 10.6.7 and haven't had any font related problems. However, because of my job, I tend to do a very thorough cleaning of my machine's fonts and have a very small set active at any one time. Both Adobe and MS apps install literally hundreds of fonts in multiple places, so it's very easy to have font conflicts just because of the messy installs. Additionally, Adobe has done a very poor job of moving to 64-bit on the Apple side, and many of their plugins still run in 32-bit land. This causes some problems as well.

Look at the DEST on the FMS... Your machine is telling you it doesn't have the info to display those characters.