paulyg

Is there an ETA on a military varient?

In XP 9?

That Hamilton Standard prop looks spot on! I agree that there are definitely some strange props spinning around...

Congratulations on 10,000 downloads, guys!

I think we're into release candidates now. (10rc2 or something)

Sooo... I happened upon a certain B-25 on Khamsin's blog... :) :)

Ok, here it is. 1. The Chin turret is misshapen and far too large. 2. The exterior textures are not of sufficient resolution to accurately reproduce nose art. 3. The angle of the cockpit A-pillar is too large. (IMHO this is a characteristic of the B-17 that contributes to its appearance in a major way- see included picture) 4. The tail turret is a little shapeless, kind of a blend between the canvas-faired early version and the cheyenne (metal) version. 5. The Cowl flap textures are incorrectly mapped, making it impossible to create accurate anti-glare panels, among other things. 6. The cheek turrets and cheek windows are a little off... 7. There is a highly annoying seam running down the center fuselage in front of the cockpit. 8. The wing appears a little thick. 9. There are no doors! (I have added them in my liveries) 10. The top turret is a little too tall. Don't get me wrong- most aspects of this plane are beyond comparison. I just happen to have a special affinity for the B-17, hence my nitpicking.

Version 2!!!! Also I have a list of changes you could incorporate...

I think it does make sense for it not to be fixed. Javier is a busy person. He has to churn out consumer-grade default planes on a deadline, support his planes already on the market, and deal with people like you. While his decision not to go back and fix the hump so that the 1% of people who will both notice it and actually buy the sim will be satisfied may not make sense to that 1%, to the rest of the market it makes more sense to concentrate on things that they actually feel are relevant, such as optimization, better weather, better ATC, and better autogen. Basically what I'm saying is that nobody cares. I see the difference in the humps, yet I don't care. Why not? Because the default 747 runs at 12 FPS for me with rendering options set to the bare minimum. Would I like to see the hump fixed? You bet. Am I going to care? No, because as it stands I can't even run the damn thing on my computer. The hump is not a deal breaker for most people. When you consider the fact that Leading Edge will be releasing a state-of-the-art 747-400 within the next year or so that will more than adequately satisfy the needs of even the most rabid rivet counter, the issue at hand becomes even more irrelevant and ridiculous.

I was very impressed with the SR-71, X-15, Baron 58, Lancair (which HAS a 2d panel), B-2 (which HAS a 2d panel), Stinson, KC-10 (which again, HAS a 2d panel), B-52 (which has... wait for it... a 2-dimensional panel!!!!!!!!!) and KingAir. I don't remember any of those having operable toilets. For me these aircraft represent the direction X-plane is taking. Full systems simulation for a 747 is going to be had for a lot more than an all-inclusive (sim and other default planes included) $80, so I really don't know what to tell you as far as your expectations for high fidelity systems programming in default aircraft go. If you're unhappy with it, don't buy it.

Biggest thing I notice is the window and door placement as well as a slightly different slope towards the back of the hump. The windows appear a bit oversize too. Personally my only issue with the plane is that I can't seem to fly it above 10 FPS. I do agree with those who think the criticism is undeserved, though. It is an astounding effort, and to compare it to the FSX default 747 is lunacy. Tongue FIRMLY planted in cheek, I would also like to bring up the troubling fact that the spacing of the rivets is COMPLETELY off, it should conform to PUBLISHED stringer locations and represents a CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE flaw in the shoddy external model. I also noticed that the blade antennas are disgustingly wrong, off by a complete 10 degrees. Honestly, it's THIS kind of thing that makes or breaks a great sim. If Laminar can't get their act together, all of their work on flight model, ATC, atmospheric effects, autogen weather, and other things secondary to the external models of the default planes will be completely wasted, as NOBODY will accept anything short of perfection when it comes to default aircraft, especially one which is flown on a regular basis in real life by SO MANY simmers. Oh wait...

Is the package still on track for release?

So... any news on a possible release anytime soon?

I wouldn't pay that much for scenery- I bought KPAE which is pretty nice, though it hits hard on FPS for me. I don't really like the photo-textures on the buildings that much.

I was gonna say... I'm pretty sure that the Archer is all 3d.

How does this scenery impact performance? It looks too good to come without an FPS hit.

Looks great! My Grandfather was escorted back to Foggia by some red tails after he lost 3 engines and fell behind his group.