tkyler

Despite the fact that Dan comes across as a "knowledgeable mentor" because of his tutorials, from what I've seen and read, the ERJ is not as efficient as it could be. Dan's taken what I call a "brute force" or "simple minded" approach. I don't say this to belittle Dan, far from it, he displays a well rounded knowledge in lots of areas but expertise in less. Javier, by comparison, is a professional game developer, not self-taught 3D hobbyist as Dan is and understands quite a bit more about game development. As such, I'll bet the CRJ performs quite admirably given its level of complexity. My point is that I am confident that complex planes can be developed without massive performance hits. Obviously more complex aircraft will take a greater toll, but Dan's ERJ, with minimal systems simulated should not be one of them. The Falco plugin is every bit as big as the MU-2 one and has several hundred custom datarefs and nearly 100 manipulators running every flight loop. Now I have to turn down my clouds and rendering settings to one below max...but I'm running a Pentium 4 with 1.5GB ram so I have an excuse :-). Still I see 30 FPS in that configuration. The "marching ants" problem is very much a mesh issue and not a texture one. Dan can argue this but he'd be wrong. This is nothing more than a "clue" that there are some issues which Dan can't see yet and it's probably affecting his performance adversely. This is Dan's first real complex aircraft though and I'm sure he learned a lot from it...my concern is....how much bad information has he passed along in his tutorials? I can't say as I've watched them but I certainly feel their positive impact is probably much greater than any negatives. Do not judge future products performance based on any other product. Juggling quality and performance is in the hands of the developer and all developers are not created equal...nor are developers skills static, they are continually evolving. My personal opinion and impression...without having actually tested it but having plenty of knowledge in the topic.....is that's its a pretty facade with a weak foundation. It doesn't surprise me to see FPS issues. His foundation needs repair...and those are tough. The MU-2 suffers the same type of issue and I'm having to pretty much rebuild the plane.

I'll claim low spot on this pole so far Pentium 4 - 2.8GHz 1.5 GB RAM NVIDIA 8800GT (makes up for a lot) 7600 RPM SATA drive Two Backup Drives Windows XP Ubuntu Linux - Dual Boot 2-23" LCD screens Kensington Trackball No flight sim hardware I run some defrag utilities and keep a clean and efficient drive to make up for the slower processor. I use no background images or window effects (I use Windows classic theme) , turn off lots of services unless needed and this keep resources to a minimum and it's actually pretty quick.

Definitely, and I do that on the Falco...at least on a lot of datarefs, I could probably stand to do it on a few more, but it's the "cleanup" on exit that is a courtesy to the end user so they don't have problems with subsequent aircraft that I was wanting to convey. Something about setting datarefs by plugin is carrying over to the following loaded aircraft. I'll ask about this one to laminar.

This is a note for developers. X-Plane handles interior lighting with two datarefs: sim/cockpit2/switches/instrument_brightness_ratio[n] sim/cockpit2/switches/panel_brightness_ratio[n] These datarefs are arrays that hold up to 16 values (indexes 0-15). The range of value is between zero and one. The default values found in these array variables when loading an aircraft is 0.75 for all indicies. When using a plug-in to manage these datarefs, it is important that you reset all the array values of these datarefs to 0.75 when unloading the aircraft, otherwise, the next aircraft loaded can load with the previous lighting settings. If the previous aircraft had some lighting set to zero, then the next aircraft loaded can have dark instrumentation and look like the unit is off when it is not. Here's the code I use to set lighting upon exiting the aircraft: void Controls_reset_lighting(void) { float i[16] = {0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75,}; XPLMSetDatavf(xp_DR_inst_brt, i, 0, 16); XPLMSetDatai(xp_DR_nav2_power, 1); XPLMSetDatai(xp_DR_gps_fuse, 1); }

it's a lighting rheostat issue. It IS an x-plane problem, but I workaround this since I use a plugin. The 1.2 update fixes the issue, but is no guarantee that others' won't handle their business in the future. EDIT: The fix for developers is to iterate through and set every light level in the light array datarefs explicitly on loading your aircraft...and THEN...when unloading the aircraft (on XPluginStop), you reset the light levels in all the arrays again back to "default values"...which is 0.75 across the board. This way, if a user changes the light levels on some instruments in an aircraft...the next aircraft will not suffer from the previous aircraft's light levels as set by the user.

Picked this quote up from the org. I passed it through the Google Translate Filter....with settings to translate from "hype -> english" and this is what I got out. After further review, I'm come up with some observations. Nobody's forgetting the 787.....at this juncture, it just doesn't appear to be worthy of mentioning at the quality level being discussed in the thread that quote was pulled from. No need to jump in our faces waving your hands...we see it! Secondly....if Boeing has supplied dimensions and 3D models, then why does almost every cockpit element look off proportionately? As Google translate told me..."dimensions" probably means some overall dimensions and nothing too specific. Thank goodness for the google translator or I might have thought that Heinz was a privileged member of the Boeing engineering society and felt quite jealous that I couldn't get in. Seriously though, I think there's a market for everything, including Heinz 787. Personally I like Heinz and his work's place in the market, he is probably the best at balancing quality / price in my opinion. BUT PLEASE....don't start saying that the 787 belongs in the same quality category with the 777 or CRJ and other heavies in the works, we're not blind man! The fact that the quote comes from someone who stands to make money off the product, with no real supporting points is just unprofessional...and is the real reason for my posting here. Perhaps if a watermark on all the textures saying "officially licensed" were included, it might make it a bit more real eh?

Of course we agree with you! No one has invested in such a project...because all the developers who CAN do such a project are tied up with other projects. X-Plane has only recent included technology to attempt a PMDG style simulation (not 3D art...x-plane is already there) and nobody has really finished up their current projects to take on heavy as you suggest yet, but someone will! A PMDG style project can easily eat up 6000-8000 man hours so the return on investment has to be there too. It should be in the next year or two though....add to that the dev time and you might see a PMDG style simulation in 2012 or 2013.

Everybody knows that commercial passenger aircraft are the most popular market segment in flight simulation. There is a bit of a "rush" to get some payware airliners to market and being that the market is non-existent at the moment for x-plane, then anything is better than nothing. That is what Heinz will capitalize on and he'll make a decent amount of change from that segment of the x-market that is starving for some airliners. The quality is mediocre enough though that it does not preclude development of another higher quality 787 should someone choose to make one. Now if he charges 40.00+ US or something for it....well then that'd be ludicrous...and if someone actually paid that much for it....well then call Heinz a genius. Hopefully, the price will be commensurate with the quality and the x-plane development community won't look like it's gone crazy.

Simon....little favor? I don't have Phillip's Island scenery installed. Could you grab about four, creative, high quality screenshots over Phillips Island showing the Falco and post them here? At least one interior angle would be good. These screenshots will be going into the Falco Builder's Newsletter. We want the screenshots to be over the same area as your video is since your video will be referenced in the newsletter.

Simon, Just found out that the designer of the Falco, Stelio Frati (age 91) saw the video yesterday. He commented that he never thought the Falco would get this far (it was designed in 1955). Everybody in the real Falco family loves the video..it's been referenced off of Seqair's website also. Excellent work!

Congratulations on the Corvalis Jim! Great to see another fantastic product on x-aviation.

That dataref certainly accounts for the relative bearing...but not for the RMI needle directly which is technically tied to either the adf or VOR depending on the selector switch. So when you switch from adf to vor and the needle swings...the adf1 bearing is, of course, still the same value while the needle is animating. it's is that "needle" dataref that I'm after..but I'm beginning to think it's "internal" to the 2D RMI instrument in planemaker...something I've seen plenty in Austin's instruments...and to make a 3D RMI, I'll have to do some plugin code.

I've looked far and wide and can NOT find datarefs that represent the relative bearings on the RMI needles. Not a problem to solve in plug-in, but don't want to go that route if there's some standard variant...anybody catch these datarefs that I might be missing?

One source of turbulence that people forget is in the weather settings...and that is "thermal climb rate". it's usually set at 500 ft/min. You don't see that kind of climb rate except on hot days...so I almost ALWAYS turn this down to zero or some number below 50. It's a additional source of turbulence in addition to the regular turbulence setting.

yes you will get a free update!

Simon...I think you'll really like the next update handling wise. Morten and I put some time into the flight model to increase it's stability without sacrificing the nimble handling....I'm having a ball 'flying' it.

Yea...I'm tired of windoze too! (yea.... I use the DRM version myself :-P)

OOhh...dis is nice! Thanks for putting it here on x-pilot!

Actually Jason, the next update will be quite massive functionally speaking. The upcoming Falco (hopefully released in 12-20 hours from now) is a demonstrator of the tech that will go into the next MU-2 update. As far as Reality XP Garmin goes, the version I have for the MU-2 now is not interactive in 3D except to bring up the 2D popup. The next version will be fully functional in 3D and 2D and will include the 430 and the 530 variants. The Falco will come with the default 430 initially, but later in the week, I'll provide a reality XP version.

2.5 alpha 1 available...snap snap people

I was thinking about this as my Falco nears completion FYI..... I know Jonathan has disappeared from the x-plane stage for a while, but if any of you have bothered reading Jonathan's license for his Blender export scripts, you'd note that he asks for complimentary copies of the aircrafts you develop with Blender. I have tried for years to get Jonathan to take money, but he just refuses......and we can NOT do the work we do without his work and we all take it for granted. Jonathan was one of the very first people to get the MU-2 and whether or not he's around or would use your work, all of us developers owe him at least the gesture of good will of offering up our work. When your aircraft is ready to sell, before you put it on the market, I highly encourage you to send Jonathan a thank you via his org PM or email address and offer up your aircraft for free to him. Whether or not he takes it or responds is irrelevant, but only that you respect him enough to respect his request. If you do not do so, you're a leeching, selfish, self-absorbed trashy bastard! His email is: xplane () marginal * org * uk I suggest you try the email address as I don't think he frequents the org much anymore. You figure out where the dots go

Wombat Boy, that ATTR_shiny_ratio I think is 0.5. Nik, That low canopy is called the "nustrini", named after the first pilot to develop and implement it. I'm quite sure I will do a Nustrini canopy, but not necessarily for the initial release. Once the plane is up and running and the 'more difficult' problems are taken care of, I'll do the Nustrini. As a side note and a bit of background, I modeled this Falco as an stying exercise as I plan to begin building a Falco very soon. Usually, the biggest decisions a Falco builder makes is the choice of engine and canopy. The Nustrini, while definitely a much sleeker look, chops about 5-6 in. (14 cm) of headroom for the pilots. The cockpit goes from one of the roomiest cockpits in it's class to one where you almost have to lean in to not hit your head. I have ridden in the "tall canopy" model....in fact, this model is a replica of that Falco... http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/955680/1/Falco?h=77a056 I too, like the look of the low canopy, but from the "inside" of the aircraft, the tall canopy is a class to itself in roominess and feel. This particular Falco that I rode in was able to do 200 mph (322 kph) which is the goal I'll be shooting for as a builder. If I can get 200 mph with the tall canopy, that'd be my preference. So then, I modeled this x-plane version up as a way to play with the interior cockpit arrangment for the real thing...so that's why the tall cockpit is modeled first. As far as the 'Ferrari of the sky' goes, it certainly is as an Italian design, usually red paint, build quality and exclusivity, but not so much for speed anymore. Lancairs, Glasairs, and a bunch of other's ones are certainly quicker, but for all around balance, the Falco is still considered one of the most joyous aircraft to fly.

An in-sim shot of the exterior.

I decided to take about 7 days for myself to see how much of this Falco I can get done. I'm about 3.5 days into it and have the exterior almost done...just some more texture tweaks. next 3 days we'll see a new cabin and refined panel. I'll be pushing for a release within 4 weeks....settled at $15.00.

lol..so true Joe on x-plane development. Regarding pirating software as a student for educational purposes...I too, did the same thing. I have held true to not making money using pirated software though. Its a whole other rant though on "the spirit of the law" vs. "the letter of the law". Laws are conceived in spirit, but executed by letter for the most part. So we could say that piracy by you (who would purchase the software at first opportunity) is OK while in school..while piracy by some other peer (who would go on to use it illegally after school) isn't OK. We're exercising prejudice in such a situation which the law cannot cover as we're dealing with immeasurable but very real issues...human character. So while society must use the letter of the law in most instances....on a personal level, we tend to "feel" the spirit of the law. So what seemingly is a double standard might be with respect to legal text ...but not be with respect our general sense of morality. It's a fallable system though as not everybody has the same sense of morality or discernment and people can lie and indeed even not be sure of or aware of the source of their motivations....but hey, that is humanity isn't it? I love it! I'd hate to see a world only full of x-plane developer personalities :-P