guym-p

Plane Maker uses 22% CPU even when another app. has the focus. It doesn't matter on multi-core systems, but if you are really looking for minimal footprint, I make a special AC3D file for the whole aircraft (external projections) which can sit on the desktop using 1% CPU. AC3D seems to detect a change in the PNG and it refreshes the textures automatically.

I would like an "Engine Maker", like the NASA EngineSim.

Concorde did not any more "safety problems" than other aircraft. It had a good safety record until 25 July 2000, and that crash was attributed to debris on the runway. It is certainly not the only aircraft to have crashed because of foreign object damage. There was a suggestion that over-fuelling, incorrect CG, and poor maintenance of that particular aircraft could be to blame, but this was not upheld in court. Obviously, because of relatively low flying hours, it only took one tragedy to raise the ratio of fatalities to flying hours. Not to mention the publicity and those agonising, nightmarish images caught by the amateur cameraman. I am sure they are seared into the brains of all aircraft enthusiasts. Nevertheless, I am certain that Concorde was "safe". Preventative maintenance was under constant review at British Airways and it could have remained in service much longer. I think it's more to do with what simulators do well or badly. Neither X-Plane nor FSX give a good realistic sensation of speed; you can't expect them to. Therefore getting one's "kicks" in desktop sims tends to work better with more aerobatic aircraft, or trying to navigate accurately, or follow demanding procedures. Puddle-jumping gives one more to do than LHR to JFK at 60,000 feet. Of course, that's ignoring the fact that Concorde was a highly demanding aircraft to fly, and that the flight engineer, in particular, had his work cut out in managing the CG by pumping fuel. If a Concorde for X-Plane could simulate the very specific issues of CG and navigation (especially navigation before GPS), then it would become truly demanding to fly, and therefore interesting. Guy.

I started the project 5 years ago! The Comet has to be fitted in-between photographic assignments. Sometimes I have to drop everything and leave the Comet for a month or two, and that adds uncertainty to deadlines, not to mention my own confusion when I try to get back into it again. This is the disadvantage of being a one-man band. The good news is that the Comet itself is finished to X-Plane 9 standard. My immediate job list is to add one last airline livery and starboard-side forward loo in the passenger cabin. Then I will start work on the manual, which will be vital or people will not even be able to start the engines, let alone fly anywhere. It flies well in 10 and "feels" the same. It's a entirely subjective view, though, and I will need to check all the performance figures to make sure. I have made a list of things that are actually broken in 10, for example the engineer's panel displays only port-side hydraulic pumps and electrical generators active. In this case, the solution is easy. Others may require a little more bending to my will.

Today is the 60th anniversary of the first scheduled commercial flight of a jet airliner: the de Havilland Comet. The BOAC flight was by Comet G-ALYP from London to Johannesburg in 23 hours 23 minutes and 6 stops, arriving 25 minutes ahead of schedule. This compared with Lockheed Constellation flights the previous week, which took 31 hours and 3 stops. The journey was in three legs with three crews. London to Beiriut via Rome; Beirut to Khartoum via Cairo; Khartoum to Johannesburg via Entebbe and Livingstone. There was only one class, First Class. 36 passengers paid £315 return, or the equivalent of £7,800 today ($12,600). In 1960, the quickest route took 17 hours 5 minutes by BOAC Comet 4, via Rome, Khartoum and Nairobi, and cost £408 return (£7,500). In 1962, the fastest time had dropped further to 16 hours 55 minutes by BOAC Boeing 707, via Frankfurt, Rome and Athens, costing £450 (£7,900). I could not find historic one-stop flights, representative of mid-1970s Boeing 747s, but a one-stop flight today takes (typically) 17 hours, costing £5,500-£9,400 for a First Class return. The fastest flight I could find for this week is by British Airways Boeing 747, flying non stop in 9 hours 22 minutes. The equivalent ticket would have to be a First Class return, costing £9,323.

The Comet was held up while I was away on assignment in March/April. I'm back, and I've just finished liveries for Misrair and United Arab Airlines. I had been confused about whether "Misrair" or "United Arab Airlines" was more correct or original. Flicking through books on the Comet, or images on the web, UAA is definitely in the majority. After reading up on the history of the airline, Misrair ("Misr" meaning "Egypt") has more continuity with the founding of the airline (originally a private venture) in 1932, and Egypt Air, as it has been from 1971 to the present day. So I decided to do both: SU-ALC (Misrair) to represent the first Comet delivered to the organisation in 1960, and SU-ALE (UAA), which was the third aircraft delivered, and the first as United Arab Airlines. A potted history from my research is written up here: http://dh-aircraft.c...da752fe-94.html Some higher resolution screen shots:

Thanks! As "old stuff", it is quite demanding. No FMS, no GPS. There's not a lot of latitude in the flight model either, so you've got to get the speeds right for the weight and hit your marks to make a perfect landing.

I finished the Kuwait Airways livery yesterday evening. They ordered two Comet 4Cs in 1962, leased two Comet 4s from BOAC in 1965, and bought another Comet 4 from BOAC in 1966. They flew scheduled daily services in the Middle East and Far East (India and Pakistan) and services to London, Paris and Frankfurt several times a week. Comets remained in service until 1968, when they were replaced with DH/HS-121 Tridents. The screenshots were made using X-Plane 9.70.

Comet 4C, LV-AIB, at Paris Orly Airport (LFPO). Aerolineas Argentinas ordered a total of seven Comets from de Havilland, operating between South America, North America and Europe between 1959-71. Paris Orly was one of their destinations. Although I have not updated the Comet for X-Plane 10 yet (but I will) it is hard to resist firing it up from time to time, downloading the latest beta, and taking a few screen shots. I am delighted by the new airport scenery, and by the airport floodlights lighting the aircraft with HDR on. Progress with this livery was slower than expected because I had not reckoned on the airline lettering wrapping so far around the nacelle tanks. Stupidly, I did not look ahead, and had made the break in the UV map too low so that the lettering would have been split horizontally. This was annoying, because it meant baking the metal textures, shadows and lit textures for the tank and winglet again, and re-drawing the graphics for the already completed liveries. Hey, ho; but it gets better every time ... Next job: Kuwait Airlines. There is more news here, as usual: http://dh-aircraft.c...46b5b5a-91.html

Oh, that's nice to know about the blogs, thank you. I'll put more into them if they are appreciated. Skills! Yes! The trouble about being on the steep part of the learning curve is that one can look back on old work and find it unacceptably awful in the light of new skills acquired. In the last week, I was asked if this was really only my first X-Plane project. My immediate answer was, "Yes, of course," but as I thought about it I realised that I have started again, completely from scratch, a total of three times, it's just that I haven't published anything yet. Does that make this my first project or my third? The other question I'm asked is how many hours I've put into it. I became so frightened by this that I stopped counting years ago. But it is fair to say that most of the time is spent researching, learning and practising. Probably 2/3 of the time has therefore been "training" rather than actual construction time of the finished-quality Comet. What will be interesting is how long my second project takes from scratch. Then again, what new skills do I want to learn for that? Plug-in programming, for example ...

More updates: I've spent a considerable amount of time tuning the Comet's performance with a Rolls-Royce Avon engine plug-in by Smellybeard (UK X-Plane Development Team). Also in preparing a paint kit. This is as much for me as anyone else: the master PSD files with all the metal, shadow, seam and rivet details were several gigabytes each, which is simply not practical on a day-to-day basis. The first livery to trundle off the line, using the paint kit, is for Middle East Airlines. Screenshots here: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/fba96854a61eabb80cd4413aa7cb53d1-90.html Guy.

I would swap the middle settings in your example. Maximum continuous thrust and maximum climb thrust could conceivably have the same value, but climb thrust could not be higher than MCT.

I think that's the right decision. Keep a watching brief on XP10, but develop for XP9, otherwise you have to react to XP10 changes constantly and you lose sight of a clear development path.

On that subject, I had a go with the Comet in X-Plane 10 this morning. Screen shots are here: http://dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/ecabe5cbd89d4a2cf180e654abb817d7-87.html I think the rendering quality in X-Plane 10 is amazing. There is a refinement of lighting and detail that's in a different league compared with 9. I'm trying not to be distracted by 10 at the moment: by the time the Comet is finished, X-Plane 10 should have settled down nicely and I can start adapting the Comet then. Anyone who buys the Comet for v9 will get a free upgrade to an updated model for v10. Guy.

Supported, yes, absolutely. The Comet has to work in X-Plane 10, no two ways about it. Guy.

I've just finished a large tranche of work that enabled me to put the Comet back together again and test it in the sim. I've posted new screen-shots here: http://dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/ade0041ca264168e6bbc76c29638672a-86.html After this, I'll add a few more liveries, but otherwise that's the end of the planned work. The next phase is the final test programme. The end really is in sight! Guy.

I've been experimenting with baked reflections for a more convincingly metallic look, using Blender 2.5. Nothing is really going to do it justice to polished aluminium until X-Plane can render calculated reflections on the fly, and that's not worth looking at until computers and graphics cards are monstrously more powerful, but what I've done looks a lot better than my first attempt. Exterior textures and liveries are the last jobs on my build-list before final testing and release, so it's getting really, really close now. See: http://dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/5ca495e06e3bf46ca33f4b3aa58c9cca-85.html Guy.

I think 2GB is fine for this year, and anyway the poll is running. From the sound of things, 4GB cards are not mainstream. Why not make a note in the diary to make another poll this time next year and see what's changed?

No, I didn't check any manufacturer's web sites before writing this poll, I just thought I'd better put "or greater" because every time I look I'm amazed by how things have moved on. I was gobsmacked by the availability of 1GB graphics cards, and within days of noticing that I saw 2GB cards for sale. Anyway, it's only a poll. I'm fascinated. Nothing depends on it.

If the amount of VRAM in your computer is not the same as the list, please enter the nearest one DOWN from yours. It's not a boasting contest, but a survey to help establish what level of detail most users are able to support. Guy.

I've posted some new screenshots, see: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/ce816b2c1fb8a4ceac3e410ce785efb9-83.html These complete the last changes I'd planned to do to the meshes themselves. The next job is to upgrade textures to this level, then (at last!) my work is done. There'll be another round of testing, of course, which is a perfect excuse to shoot some new video! Better crack on with it ... Guy.

Capsnully: Actually, I use AC3D for most of it, but only because I started the Comet that way. Since then, I have grown to like Blender, and I might well start the next one in Blender, but I'd still go back to AC3D for UV maps, animation and manipulators. Goran_M: I didn't know that about Blender animation. I could not get by without the smooth animation preview, so it's another reason for me to keep animation in AC3D. Guy.

As an interim update, I attach some screenshots of work in progress on the leading edges of the wings, engine intakes, and all associated gubbins. I started with the aerofoil cross-section, which is NACA 63A011 modified with a leading edge droop of 12 deg./15% chord. It was relatively straight forward to apply this to the wing and wing tip, giving the correct concave section under the wing, just behind the leading edge. Also the winglet for the nacelle tank (the tanks were fitted to the Comet 4 and 4C, but not the 4B): This week, I've spent most of my time on the engine nacelle. It's slow. It's also one of those jobs where I find I've never taken enough pictures from enough angles to answer all the questions. The next day, I look at it again, think: "No, no; that's quite the wrong shape," and give it another tweak. One thing to note, looking into the engine intake, is that there is nothing to be seen turning. That's because the first set of blades behind the main bearing casting on a Rolls-Royce Avon RA.29 are not the first compressor stage, but a series of fixed guide-vanes. It's a pity, because animated fans are impressive, but it would be quite wrong on the Comet. Guy.

AC3D has several distinct advantages that I have not discovered, or matched, in Blender. Ben Supnik's X-Plane plugin is one of them, another is the ability to highlight several (or all) objects and view and edit the entire UV map. If anyone knows how to do this in Blender I'd love to know. On the other hand, Blender is a more polished, grown-up application with more features. For me, the most useful features are instances, local and view manipulation, superior unwrapping of complex shapes, and rendering. If only one piece of software had all the advantages! Meanwhile I use both. I use Blender 2.49 for passing stuff to and from AC3D, and Blender 2.5 for actual work, because of the nicer interface and better rendering. Guy.

Thanks for all your comments! The majority of Comets were retired on maximum hours by the mid-1970s, but RAF 216 Squadron Comet 4Cs had seen far less use than ones in commercial service, and were immaculately maintained. When the squadron was disbanded in 1975, the Comets were bought by Dan Air, who were therefore able to continue Comet operations until the late 1970s, albeit with very few remaining. The last Comet to fly was XS-235, which made its last working flight for DERA in 1997, and its last ever flight when it was delivered to Bruntingthorpe in 1999. I believe there are two Nimrod R1 reconnaissance aircraft over Libya, the Nimrod being adapted from the Comet 4C. So, in a sense, the Comet is still flying. As a measure of how well the RAF aircraft had been kept, Dan Air noted that they were considerably more efficient and economical than the rest of their fleet, which had been ex-BOAC, MEA, and so on. Guy.