Jump to content

VirtualGAaviator

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    273

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Posts posted by VirtualGAaviator

  1. Welcome Aboard, Captains!

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 1/8/2022 at 10:09 AM, chroode said:

    Suspended for accidentally posting a link to the new HotStart Challenger 650. 

    How was I supposed to know? I just started using X-plane a few months ago. 

    Glad to be here. 

    That's crazy. I only wish I could get more aircraft and support outside of that site. Glad X-Aviation is here :-)

  8. What XP11 / XP12 aircraft are the most study-level?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I've heard that only a fool has a conversation with himself. At the risk of sounding foolish here's my answers to the questions:

    Part 60 - Piper Arrow III/V (P28R) - Justflight (It's one of my favorites - maybe not so study-level)

    Part 90 - TBM900 - Hotstart

    Part 135 - Challenger 65 - Hotstart (I haven't actually flown this but, WOW!)

    Part 121 - 737 ZIBO (Haven't flown this one either - but I've heard a lot about it.)

    You might have a different list.

  10. What XP11 / XP12 aircraft are the most study-level?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I think we all know the answer to most of these questions; I'm going to pose them anyway.

    Part 60 - Private Pilot aircraft - (Generally low & slow - $100 hambuger flights)

    Part 90 - Private owned aircraft - (Owner hire and pays a commercial pilot)

    Part 135 - Charter operations aircraft - (Mostly aircraft that carry at least 12 passengers - highly regulated by FAA)

    Part 121 - Airline operations aircraft - (Scheduled flights offered to the public, i.e. Southwest Airlines)

    My question is, in each category which X-Plane 11/12 aircraft do you consider the MOST study-level?

  12. Some seaplanes just look different.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 8/24/2022 at 3:38 PM, Anthony Clark said:

    Of course, it is at least somewhat based on a much earlier Dornier design.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X

    I can see that. I've been flying the MU-2 by TOGA and it really reminds me of Dornier 228.  The Dornier is much eaiser to fly, I believe. The MU-2 was developed by Mitsubishi while the Dornier was developed in India. For some reason, I rarely fly any of my seaplane variants of the aircraft I own - Beaver, Otter, Porter, or Caravan among others.

  14. BET? X-Plane 12

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Pardon me if I'm slow to appreciated what's being said. Let me try to recap on a 6th grade level. I think what I'm now hearing is that from a physics stand-point of view a real aircraft is modeled. However, it's being hidden and a different visual representation is overlaid to change the appearance.

    If this is correct then thanks guys for helping me understand.

     

  15. BET? X-Plane 12

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 8/2/2022 at 4:28 PM, JGregory said:

    The physics model (created in PM) is the ONLY thing that will determine whether it flies or not.  The visual model is exactly that, JUST visual.

    So that leads me back to my original question.. how, on earth, can some of the more interesting plane-maker creations possible flight? Could it be that those folks are using the slew tool to drop them from altitude? The McDonalds aircraft (referenced in another thread) appears to be flying.

  16. BET? X-Plane 12

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Ben Russell said:

    There is a physics 3D model and a visual 3D model.

    The visual model can have any appearance you like.

    The bus in that thread shows the base airframe.

    The McDonalds restaurant not so much.

    To recap what I think you're saying, in the visual 3D model you can make anything flyable, but not so much if you select the physics 3D model?

  17. BET? X-Plane 12

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    BET (Black Entertainment Network) - Just kidding.

    No I'm referring to Blade Element Theory.  X-plane is based on BET, right? So how is it that folks can fly creations made in plane-maker that should never get off the ground. I was recently looking through this thread. I can see no way some of these interesting creations could fly.

    X-Plane 12 is supposed to dial in BET to simulate "1st principle" attributes. 1st principles relates to real-world physics. XP11 also incorporates BET which, to my knowledge, means that an aircraft needs an airfoil and thrust capable of creating lift to fly. I wonder if XP12 grounds (nixes) creations that do not meet criteria for true flight? Since I'm not a developer is there something I'm missing?

  23. First Flight Feedback

    in Mitsubishi Marquise MU-2 v2

    Posted · Edited by VirtualGAaviator

    This issue applies to the CH Products rudder pedals also (this was probably a useless piece of information; I think resolving it would apply to all brands). Looking forward to the update. Hope it's coming soon.

    One thing I'd like to add to this 1st flight feedback thread:

    When I open the MU2 preferences panel on my 4K monitor the top of the panel is above the display fold (or off screen). I have to pull it down to see the entire panel.  This is a small thing that I can live with if need be, but if it's low-hanging fruit I hope it'll make it into an update.

×
×
  • Create New...