guym-p

I've just carried out an experiment using DataRef Editor (part of the SDK) and observed the following: If you use a mouse as a joystick, clicking on the cross to enable it changes the dataref "sim/joystick/mouse_is_joystick" to 1 and the rudder moves in sync with roll input. If you do not enable the mouse as joystick, but simply enter a value of 1 for dataref "sim/joystick/yoke_roll_ratio", the ailerons move to their fullest extent but the rudder does not move. The rudder can be moved independently using "sim/joystick/yoke_heading_ratio".I don't know if you've followed my recommendation to try the demo yet, but it looks like your next step would be to download that and Dataref Editor and satisfy yourself that you could take control of the rudder yourself, which would get you closer to a decision about whether to invest in X-Plane. It looks encouraging to me. Guy.

I don't know anything about the XBox 360 controller, but X-Plane's joystick preferences can not merge two channels into one dataref. You would need to write a plugin for that. You'd also have to decide how the plugin should interpret when both triggers are partially depressed.

The first thing I'd recommend is that you download the demo and see whether you can get it to work the way you want it to before forking out. The demo is fully functional, just with the scenery restricted to a tiny paddling pool, and a 10 minute time limit on flights. Perfect for this kind of experimentation, though. The keyboard/joystick set-up will let you do quite a lot. You can adjust the main joystick inputs to give a "non-linear" response in the sim. I attach a screenshot showing this. Whether it's enough for you, you'll have to try it and see: Another screen gives you a panel of tick boxes. Push the triggers or switches on your joystick to see which ones they map to, then give them a function. You can either do this using the list on the RHS (as shown in the screenshot) or if you know the command path, enter that in the text box. If neither of these are sufficient, you might need to write your own extension to the simulator. As a software engineer, it would be right up your street anyway. You could create your own custom Datarefs (X-Plane's term for the public-access pointers to its internal variables) to receive the joystick inputs, then apply the appropriate maths before passing them to the actual control inputs. You could also create your own commands that way for use with joystick buttons (and you would enter your custom command path in the text box shown in the screenshot). The first two might well provide what you need anyway. If you want to know how customisable X-Plane really is, and you are proficient and fluent in C, I suggest you read the documentation for the Plugin SDK here: http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/mediawiki/Main_Page Guy.

You might be interested that Wayne is using the cut down, low-poly, low-resolution version. I made it specially for one of the beta-testers who is using a PowerMac G5. Originally, I had no intention of releasing it, but — thanks to Wayne — I've changed my mind. It could well be useful. The Comet is a big package, so the "economy" version could benefit people running older hardware, or when flying on line with other traffic. The latest work is here (hot off the press): http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/96eb54e98a365457e0c1de96d570b03b-100.html

Yes: London. Right underneath the flight path for approach to Heathrow 27R. The aircraft pass directly overhead at 3,000 feet, which is perfect for a bit of spotting in the garden on a nice summer's day, but not so noisy that it stops all conversation. Fly-pasts for the Queen's Tattoo (and other events) tend to whoosh overhead, too, which is fun (although they've usually begun to break formation by the time they reach here and scatter to their relevant bases). I regret not. I am purely an armchair pilot, although I benefit from my father having been in the aircraft industry from 1946-60. My early career was spent in the motor industry. I did a fair bit of test driving and developed procedures and test routines for other test drivers, so arranging relevant tests in X-Plane and analysing data is second-nature. That's also the view of my father's contemporaries at DH, two of whom were test pilots. They make astute observations about FSX and X-Plane, and polite comments, but say they would only consider them for familiarisation with instruments and navigation, or perhaps for illustrating a scenario during training, or a crash investigation. On the other hand, younger pilots tend to me more generous about how useful home simulators can be. There is at least one current, active, Airbus pilot who also "flies" the QPAC A320, and is impressed by it. Have you looked at that? Some are disappointed by it's lack of a 3D cockpit, but it's priority is accurate systems simulation. http://www.qpac.de/index1d9d.html?id=79〈=en You may find you have to take an existing aircraft and modify it to suit your needs. Perhaps you will find a beautifully modelled aircraft which lacks the right G1000 EFIS, and you have to borrow that from something else. If you engage the enthusiasm of the original developers of those aircraft, you might find them keen to help, or pleased to give you license to do it yourself. At least then you'd not be creating an aircraft from the ground up.

To lock a demo properly, so it really could not be pirated, there would have to be a way to encrypt the object files too. I don't think that would be to anyone's advantage. Instead, perhaps the thing to do is to persuade developers to publish clear references with any screen shots or videos (hardware used, plug-ins or scenery loaded). That way the watcher knows whether the aircraft is likely to run well and look good on their system, or struggle and stutter.

I forgot to answer this. I have a friend who has already developed a beautiful flight model for the Hawker Hunter. It's just the raw Plane Maker model at the moment. Having said I don't test anything other than airliners, I have to admit I spent several very happy hours scooting about the countryside at low altitude. It's lovely.

This discussion is not helped by being in different time zones! Thanks for your kind words about the dh-aircraft web-site. I've taken down a lot of pages about the X-Plane Comet because they were so out of date that they're not representative of the model at all. However, the news archive has much more recent screen shots, and it charts my journey along the learning curve. In retrospect, it was silly to start with something as complex as the Comet. I've enjoyed it (I still am) but it has taken so long that nobody else has been able to get their hands on it yet! Any free time I have is devoted to building and testing my own product, and very little time to downloading and trying other planes. I have bought many, but mostly airliners for benchmarking against the Comet, and no GA aircraft. My statement was simply that there is nothing to stop anyone from creating a model, good or bad. I am sure there will be people who fly GA aircraft who can give you a list, or at least a starting point. It is obvious to me that some developers are making a tremendous effort to achieve very high procedural accuracy. You only have to read posts from the authors to realise how knowledgeable they are, and how earnestly they are trying to simulate the whole aircraft accurately, from engine start procedures to navigation. These include aircraft sold here, such as the Mitsubishi MU-2 and CRJ-200 — both of which I have. They are superb. Personally, I can't wait for the IXEG Boeing 737. I think it will become the gold standard for the next few years. In the past, X-Plane has not attracted commercial development teams because it had a tiny market compared with MSFS and FSX. This is changing, and it's good news, because some of the FSX heavyweights have got involved. Perhaps you should talk to someone like Caranedo to see if they have anything that suits your needs. The world is provided by Laminar Research. Just as real aircraft designers have to accept the world and its atmosphere as it is, so do X-Plane developers. Actually, there probably are talented programmers who could write more complex weather, or more realistic modelling of hidden or ducted components, or whatever, but that's not my area of expertise. Also, it might be that you are over-thinking the problem. It is very simple to produce a flight model for X-Plane. The shape that X-Plane uses for the aerodynamic model is crude, but effective. All the highly detailed work you see on the latest creations is merely cosmetic fluff: beautiful, wonderful stuff, but totally invisible to the flight model. The only part that matters to X-Plane is the model in Plane Maker, known as the "ACF". Also, it's not strictly true to say X-Plane behaves like a virtual wind tunnel, or that FSX is entirely governed by tables of values. They each do a bit of the other, but they are strongly biassed one way or the other. I'll give you a broad-brush overview of my experience with the Comet. I had a lot of the correct information: I had dimensions, weights, CG, aerofoils, and a 160 page book containing tables and tables of performance data for almost every conceivable situation. I created the Comet in Plane Maker, I used JavaFoil to calculate lift, drag and moment curves for Airfoil Maker. Obviously, as well as simplifications and approximations in X-Plane, my work was subject to any inaccuracies or inadequacies in JavaFoil too. However, I was delighted when it flew very well straight out of the box. Obviously, I had no experience of actually flying a Comet, or even of flying in one, but I had performance figures and written accounts from pilots. When it comes down to it, we can only judge an X-Plane model's performance by measurable statistics. There are built-in tools to display development data on screen, plot it as a graph, or record data to a file, so that it can be analysed later. There is no satisfactory way to quantify subjective or abstract characteristics. Something that made me smile was that a handling vice of the Comet 1 was clearly evident in X-Plane. In other words, X-Plane's simulation might be a crude approximation of the real world, but it is realistic enough to reproduce some of the actual character of the aircraft. I didn't have to invent it, or program it; it wasn't faked or induced. What's more, by modifying the aerofoil in exactly the same way DH did for the Comet 4, with reference to a research document from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, I was able to dial it out, and have stall speeds and unstick speeds within 2% of the real thing. That really impressed me. As I started getting into it, I found many differences. The engines were particularly bad, but the aerodynamic model was pretty good. Fundamental characteristics, like stall speeds, were particularly accurate, and the behaviour on approach to the stall was as described by pilots. However, X-Plane could not "see" the Comet's ducted engines to calculate either the drag or the venturi effect, so I had to guess, increasing the drag curve for the wing root section in airfoil maker, until the performance figures were about right. There's a lot of that in developing something for X-Plane. It is an iterative process of test, feedback and change. Did you say "fudge"? Surely not! Even then, some aspects of performance are simulated better than others. For example, in order for the Comet to have accurate cruise performance, I have had to sacrifice low altitude (holding pattern) performance. It's not bad, but it's not great, either. These compromises are typical of X-Plane, and I have a list of things I shall come back to repeatedly to rework as I find new facts, learn new skills, or new versions of X-Plane offer better solutions. Fighters will need different qualities from airliners, different authors will have different priorities, so there is broad scope for interpretation. The X-Plane world is not a perfect one, but it is pretty good, and getting better all the time. Datarefs are like pointers, giving us "safe" access to variables in X-Plane. Some are writable (for example when pushing the yolk forwards, it will transfer your action via a dataref to X-Plane. Others are not writable. There is a full list of datarefs in every X-Plane installation, nested inside "X-Plane/Resources/plugins/DataRefs.txt" You'll find a list of commands there, too. I am only just getting into this myself, so I rely on experts like Sandy Barbour or Philipp Münzel to leap in when I get this wrong. Yes: there is a C API (by Sandy Barbour), further enhanced with useful C++ classes by Philipp, and other seriously clever stuff for other languages by others. Plugins can either perform a stand-alone function, or interact with X-Plane. They could, in a sense, "hijack" a writable dataref, overwriting it in a situation where the developer thought the simulation in X-Plane was too crude, or not adequate for their particular aircraft. Perhaps the engine start procedure for a particular aircraft requires a couple of extra steps, or the engine thrust curve should have a "flat spot" to simulate changing air bleeds. From that point of view, I have read about add-ons for FSX that make aircraft react to weather and air currents more like X-Plane, and an X-Plane plug-in could effectively force-feed a dataref with statistical data. With enough time and skill, X-Plane can be infinitely customised. It sounds to me like your priority is an aircraft that is procedurally accurate, and that is entirely possible in X-Plane. You just have to find someone who has done it! Yes: absolutely, but others will laugh because, at my current rate of progress, we will all be in our eighties before I've finished it! The DH-125 was a great little aeroplane, which developed into what we now think of as the Hawker (Beech) 900XP. It's the earliest examples I'm interested in. There's even a complete, beautifully restored one in the Science Museum, only 20 minutes tube ride from my home. I've already started collecting information about it. Do you know it's been in production for longer than any other jet aircraft ever made? I'm not talking about extensive refits, like the KC-135 (or still-born Nimrod MRA4) but brand new airframes rolling down the line. Major components are still produced in the former de Havilland Comet factory in Broughton (Chester), now the Airbus wing factory, so it counts as "continuous production". It's a shame that Hawker-Beechcraft became bankrupt last year. Lets hope they recover. If so, perhaps we can all celebrate 50 years in production later this year … Guy.

I am one of the aircraft modellers. What I like most about X-Plane, the quality that drew me to it in the first place, is how accessible all the modelling tools are. They do not require any programming skill, and someone with virtually no knowledge can build an aeroplane straight away. This is a double-edged sword, of course, because there is no guarantee that an aircraft you see available as a download has any real accuracy or authenticity. Models can range from something which is a bit of fun: a toy, to obsessively researched and painstakingly detailed facsimiles of the real thing. However, to criticise the toys would be to miss the point about X-Plane. I use both X-Plane and FSX. I regard FSX as much more of a "user" oriented platform, where X-Plane is for people who enjoy rolling their sleeves up and having a go themselves. This is where the fundamental building blocks of X-Plane comes in. It calculates aerodynamic forces based on the actual shape of an aircraft. If it's no good, it won't fly. Therefore, as well as getting a huge amount of pleasure out of it, by building one aircraft, the modeller will almost certainly have had to troubleshoot and solve some handling vice or other, and, gradually, we all learn. I always think X-Plane's value as an educational tool should be broadcast more effectively. So, to answer your questions in order: 1) Who are the Aircraft Modellers They could be anyone, or all of us. Some aircraft modellers are building and publishing their first model, with no previous aeronautical experience; while at the other end of the scale, there are modellers who have been at it for a serious amount of time, or real engineers enjoying a "busman's holiday". 2) What do they know about Aircraft Modeling to Scale Perhaps nothing, to start with. X-Plane is very much about learning by doing. Engineers, people with a technical background, or who just have an interest in engineering, will know about or take to scale modelling. Anyway, engineering is only part of it. The greatest amount of effort (in hours spent) is on 3D graphics, and a lot of X-Plane modellers are artists with an aptitude for engineering, rather than the other way round; or programmers with an interest in both. 3) Where do they obtain Planform & Geometry information for the Aircraft Model Some aircraft have information and drawings that are widely available on the internet, some don't. There are web sites that have tried to collate such information, but they don't have everything. It is possible to find flying manuals, technical manuals, even repair manuals for most aircraft. However, it is not necessary to know the precise height of the rudder to fly the aeroplane. Even for maintenance, the manuals might only define the maximum play or backlash before the component needs to be stripped for repair. Manuals will usually include a set of crude exterior projections with overall dimensions, and some components may well be drawn in detail, but not all. What they are extremely good for is the precise location of CG, for explaining and illustrating how the aircraft and systems function, and actual flight performance, often in extraordinary detail, with which to compare the model. It is possible to obtain detailed drawings from manufacturers, but (from my own experience) you need to know the drawing number in order to check it out of the manufacturer's archive, which requires (at the very least) an illustrated parts manual, and you won't be able to take it any further than to spread it out on a table in the archivists office. General arrangement drawings (which is closer to what the modeller actually needs) are usually vast, and impossible to copy. It's better, and a far more practical proposition, to look for aero-modellers plans. Then to correct or enhance those plans with hard facts from manuals, and one's own observations, measurements, and photographs (often hundreds) of the real aircraft. It's also important to understand that, although X-Plane functions a bit like a virtual wind-tunnel, even the most sophisticated industry models can not simulate real world physics with total accuracy. X-Plane has to be able to run at reasonable speed on a typical PC or Mac. Therefore there will be simplification, not only in the scenery you see through the windscreen, but also in the aerodynamic calculations. Part of Austin Meyer and Laminar's skill is in choosing what to do in detail, what to simplify, and what to leave out altogether. Therefore all models will involve some interpretation, or artistic license, to get them to perform well. To use your rudder analogy, perhaps the rudder of an aircraft in X-Plane must be slightly larger than in real life, in order to compensate for a dorsal fin not being part of the aerodynamic calculations. An arbitrary example, but those are the kind of issues that come up. Computers get faster all the time, allowing more computations per second. Therefore as they get better, so X-Plane develops and expands, and we can improve our aircraft. 4) How are they integrating the Aircraft Model Functions into the Flight Simulator This works on two levels: a functional level and a cosmetic level. The cosmetic level will be handled by animations for the 3D graphics. This requires a lot of research about how the real aircraft's components moved or worked. It's great fun. To understand how developers make things function, I must explain another difference between X-Plane and FSX. X-Plane gives the developer much more in terms of existing systems. In FSX, a developer has to design a gauge and the programming logic to go with it. In X-Plane, the outputs to waggle the needles of most flight gauges realistically is already there, including a number of interesting and exciting failure modes. If Laminar improve the realism of that gauge, all aircraft using it benefit automatically. So, when creating a simple aircraft, with analogue gauges, a modeller can simply draw from existing functions: there are "datarefs", which translate inputs, such as joystick movements, and outputs to waggle ailerons or gauge needles; and "commands" for most button clicks. That makes it sound easy: believe me, there is still a lot of work, research and understanding to do it well. The tools X-Plane, Plane Maker, Airfoil Maker, etc arm you with are like opening a box of lego. The developer still needs knowledge and imagination to build something good out of it — but it is much, much easier to develop for X-Plane than for FSX. With sophisticated aircraft, modellers might be more ambitious, and the basic set of datarefs and commands might not be enough. Then the developer will have to start programming, and there is a software developers kit for X-Plane, as there is for FSX. Potentially, the only limit is the developers imagination and the time they're prepared to spend on it. This has been a long and somewhat waffly answer with few specifics, but I hope it serves as a broad overview. I am sure many developers will pick up on some of the points, and agree or disagree vehemently! Without wanting to repeat the disaster on the .Org, I am actually going to echo one of their constant refrains, which is that a lot of your questions sound as if they are written by someone still paddling at the edges. I fully appreciate that you can only devote so much time, and you want to make the right choice of simulator, but the answer to a lot of your questions will become obvious when you have a go. Guy.

I use AC3D. The scripts aren't up to date for that either (they lack the latest lighting effects in v10) but extremely useful, also with the ability to preview animation smoothly. As a result I'm continuously passing geometry between AC3D and Blender: AC3D: Basic modelling, but only because I started in AC3D;99% of all unwrapping, because I can select multiple components and see them on the UV map at the same time;Animations;Manipulators;Dynamic lighting.Blender: Unwrapping that involves a convoluted shape, like a hose or a pipe run;Reflective textures;Shadow baking.Transfer between AC3D and Blender has to be with Blender 2.49 (or earlier). Shadow baking gets better all the time, so I use the latest version of Blender for that (whatever that might be). Guy.

No limits, please! By all means, impose a limit on your own work, then make the low number of polygons a key selling point; but a cap would deny other developers the freedom to make up their own mind. Computer hardware is improving so fast that any imposed cap would be out of date immediately. Also, the practical limit is not only determined by hardware, but also by the aircraft type and choices made by the developer. For example, mapping the Plane Maker panel to the cockpit object has a disproportionately high drain on resources. If you make an aircraft with purely analogue instruments (no VDU/LCD displays at all) and do without the Plane Maker panel altogether, the effect on frame rates is enormous. I switched from a 2048x2048 Plane Maker panel to 3D animations and gained 6.0 FPS instantly. On my system, I found that each 100,000 polygons "cost" 1.0 FPS, and that this was linear up to the overall limitation of VRAM. Without the Plane Maker panel I was able to add 600,000 polygons with no net change in FPS.

I've just finished tuning the performance of the Comet 4C for X-Plane 9.70. I've written an overview of results here: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/1fb6133dab05132c84561db743ab5dfa-99.html It's cause for a mini-celebration (at the very least, a cup of tea and some Marmite sandwiches), because it means the Comet model is now finished and ready to go for XP 9.70. XP 10 is another matter: I made some initial back-to-back comparisons this morning, and found that XP10 thrust is 11% short compared with the last iteration of XP 10. It could be a new setting in Plane Maker that I need to make use of properly, or it could be more serious. I shall start the changes necessary for XP10 next week ...

No, because, as we know full well with X-Plane, buying the basic app. is only the start of it. An awful lot of Microsoft Flight Simulator users have expanded it with add-ons and plug-ins, not to mention hardware, and are extremely happy with it. As Simmo W wrote, it will be some years before they really feel left behind. There is some concern that FSX might stop working if Windows goes completely 64-bit, but it seems more likely that dyed-in-the-wool FSX enthusiasts would pay for Prepar3d rather than jump ship to X-Plane.

I agree: Blender isn't hard, but you have to get some hours under your belt before it "clicks".

Blender and AC3D are the most popular. They have the advantage of support (via plugins) to import and export X-Plane files. Of the two, Blender is the most complex and sophisticated, and it's free. The snag with Blender is the interface, which is unlike anything else, therefore the learning curve is steeper than others. Well worth it, though. AC3D has a less-polished interface than Blender, but it works very well indeed. It's one of those programs that seems light on features, and yet when you start using it you realise it has exactly what you need: no more, no less. The X-Plane plugin is by Ben Supnik, and allows you to set up and preview X-Plane animations with slider controls. I use both: Blender has a much larger feature set. However, I prefer the workflow in AC3D from model to object, so I use AC3D most of the time, and Blender for special operations — e.g. rendering to texture. It is an extremely personal choice, though, and I have as many friends who prefer to use Blender throughout.

Airfighter has rightly pointed out something else. Copyright doesn't mean the door is forever closed, it means "Ask first!" Some authors are only too happy, as long as you take the trouble to ask first, give credit where credit is due, etc.

Yes, they are copyrighted material. Default aircraft have been made by a number of different people, not just Laminar Research themselves. If an author has decided to give permission to redistribute it, there will be a "ReadMe" or other license document in the aircraft package detailing what you may do.

Yes: search for "Performance Data" or "Flight Planning Data". For small aircraft, they tend to be a section in the Flight Manual, but for airliners they are usually a separate book. The good news is that a lot of people don't realise what they are. Flight manuals tend to fetch high prices on eBay because they are so obviously interesting or valuable. Planning data tends to be pages and pages of tabulated data that look dull unless you know what they are. I have bought several original copies on eBay for next to nothing. The basic assumption for a jet aircraft is to fly as high as possible, but weight, duration, weather, and traffic might force the pilot to choose a lower altitude. Even if you can not find planning data for the aircraft you are interested in, most flight manuals have charts showing maximum altitude against weight, or maximum Mach against weight and altitude. Having established the boundaries, you could then carry out test flights to see how much fuel is burned during a climb with different starting weights, also during cruise, and then decent. Armed with those and a spreadsheet, you should be able to create your own planning data, and work out the most economical altitude to climb to for a specific route. "Cruise climb" was popular with early jet airliners: the idea that it is economical to climb to FL320 (for example) and then to let the aircraft rise to FL350 or higher as fuel is burned off and it becomes lighter.

I have only just read this thread, and I was delighted that you found the solution in just over 24 hours. It's fascinating to have such a clear demonstration of the difference a powerful graphics card makes. A couple of questions came up: The demo is exactly the same as the full version, except that flying time is limited, and you are only given a tiny puddle of scenery to play in. In other words, what you've bought is the ability to go wherever you like ... X-Plane 10 is changing very fast, with new versions ready for download quite frequently. When you install from the DVDs, you might find it's an older version than the demo you downloaded. Just run the updater, and keep running it every so often, or whenever you read a good review about the latest version. X-Plane 10 has so many new graphics-bending features that it will be a couple of years before the average, off-the-shelf computer and graphics cards can run it with every option ticked or set to maximum. You will just have to fiddle about until you find a compromise between cosmetic realism and frames per second. There's no hard rule because some people need the aircraft to be as responsive as possible, while others like to see lots of detail on the ground. The switch from FSX to X-Plane will take getting used to. If you have any questions, don't be embarrassed to ask. Samaritans outnumber trolls here. Welcome to X-Plane! I hope you enjoy it! Guy.

I'd like: Much better sound: sound triggered by any dataref, layered samples for engines, method for locating sound in 3D space. An "Engine Maker" like the NASA EngineSim for jets (although there would have to be one for reciprocating engines and superchargers as well).

Thanks! Comets were beautiful. Amazing that design started in 1946, and the first flight was in December 1949. The first Comet was a rather different aeroplane to the last one, though. It's only the tail that makes it look very dated. By the way, if anyone is in London, I recommend going to the Science Museum and following the arrows to the Alan Turing exhibition (it's free of charge). In a glass case, they have a large section of the roof about 6-8 feet long, showing the fatigue-failure from the corner of the ADF window, and the first use of computers both for root cause analysis and for the calculation of stresses for the re-engineered (and reassuringly robust) Comet 4.

Thanks! It just goes to show that nothing is really new. The Comet was certainly not the first aircraft to have fully reclining seats, either. Having studied the Comet more than other aircraft, one of the issues was that the amount of fuel required for extended range reduced the maximum number of passengers, which created the opportunity to have sleeper chairs with 60" seat pitch on those flights. It's one of the reasons that BOAC were quick to change from Comets to Boeing 707s as soon as they became available. Marvellous for passengers flying long-distance on Comets between 1958-62 (ish), though.

Thank you! It is a pleasure, and the more I do, the more I learn, and the more I enjoy it. I've got something resembling a paint kit, too. Currently only designed to help me produce liveries consistently, but it could be the basis of something public. Complicated though. The UV map around the nose is hideous. Photographs of the original VIP interior show it to be quite utilitarian. Comfortable, but basic. Nothing like the wood panelling and leather trim of the original "Air Force One", which was also delivered in 1962. It had to be possible to convert the Comets from VIP duty to troop carrying or even as a flying ambulance in double-quick time.

Gosh, was it really May since my last post? I have been really busy this Summer, and the X-Plane has had to take a back seat. However, every week, I do something to advance the Comet project a little further, whether it's a little work on the web-site, or the manual, or a major chunk of work on the Comet itself. I have just finished one such major chunk: a VIP interior to go with the RAF Transport Command livery. I've posted a write up with screen shots here: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/fa57bc46c09a48f01079159d125485b3-98.html Guy.

Understood; but even Plane Maker is quite greedy. Do you mean AC3D? It's a nice 3D App for both Windows and Mac OS. As always, choice of software is a personal thing. I find I can create geometry faster in Blender, and the ability to see all objects on a UV map at the same time is important to me. It also has a very useful plug-in, written by Ben Supnik, for animations and manipulators in X-Plane. I like Blender, too, and use it for baking textures and metallic finishes, but I build stuff in AC3D.