Goran_M

The Avionics switch on this DC-3 is on the roof of the cockpit, right above the pilot.

Don't be afraid to max the throttles for a takeoff. Max throttle is allowable for many aircraft for a short period. Usually 30 seconds to a minute. Once takeoff is achieved, that's the time to reduce to a reasonable climb power setting.

The update has not been released yet. I was just talking to Cameron about the update not more than an hour or 2 ago and I am going through what needs to be done. We're trying to juggle a few balls at the moment and the DC-3 update is one of the things at the top of our list. The only workaround I can suggest at the moment is to start the DC-3 with engines running and all avionics running. We will post details on the update very soon, when we have a more stable plan of events laid out.

It's possible to blow an engine even if the oil and engine temps are within limits. An overly high Manifold Pressure and/or Engine RPM that is sustained for too long can cause engine damage (Try revving your cars engine to an RPM in the red zone and watch how quickly the engine dies while all temps stay within normal limits) Make sure your Manifold Pressure is below the red zone.

Michael Adding reflections is not a matter of textures. The reflections are "shaders" which can only be coded.

We know about Number 1 and it has been fixed. It was a flight model adjustment that was changed between versions 9 and 10 of Planemaker. Number 2 is more an X Plane thing. It uses X Planes default engine start up logic. I guess we COULD code it to start in a way that would reflect more realism of the real DC-3, but it needs to be looked into. When you say "Many of the gauges don't read correctly", are you saying that it is just the engine RPM and VS or are there more. I'll have a look at the engine RPM and VS, but if there are more, could you please post them so I can have a look. I've had a look at the original 3D mesh and its animations, and all is animated accurately. I won't point the finger at X Plane yet until I do further checks. During researching this aircraft, I literally came across close to 100 different variants with a vast difference in panel layouts between many of them. I settled on one and that one had a VS indicator that went up to 6000 fpm. This could have been a retro fitted VS gauge taken from another aircraft. I honestly wouldn't know. All I could do is make this add on according to the variant I chose. I'll have a look at some other photos and see what I can find. If the VSI does show up to a 2000 fpm maximum climb rate, I'll talk to Theo about re-texturing it and I'll make the necessary changes to the movement of the needle.

Screenshot below is of the Saab. On takeoff, and a few miles out, it doesn't have adjustments I made to compensate for turbulence (which is set at 3). Note the rough flight path just after takeoff. After I adjusted the flight model for turbulence, the ride is a lot smoother. IMO, it's not X Planes turbulence that is too strong. The adjustments need to be made in the flight model.

Sent you a PM

Prepar3d. EDIT: I almost forgot. How could anyone forget "The Worlds Most realistic Flight Simulator!" http://www.virtualpilot3d.com/

You said the 787 has been "rooted". "Rooted" down here means, broken beyond repair or, in the case of someone saying "I'm completely rooted", utterly exhausted.

I use the word "dump" more times than I care to remember. I tell Theo many times "We're dumping the original mesh and redoing it". "I want to dump your texture maps and you need to re-do them". I tell Jim "We might need to dump that section of code and you might have to re-code it" I thought you were "dumping" the 787 in favor of the Fokker.

Wow! Where did that come from??!! I didn't make one single personal attack on you. On the contrary, I was absolutely amazed at how fast you did the Fokker. If I didn't like you, wanted to launch a personal attack on you, or had a dispute, you would have known about it quite a while ago. I just mind my own business and try to get my work done. I'm actually one of the people giving you the benefit of the doubt and seeing what you come up with next after that Airbus fiasco.

Didn't you just get done on a month long rant about how bad Ramzzess is and how bad the 777 was?? *confused*

Damn, Michael...you're FAST! I'm still surprised you could model the 787 up to the point that you did, and then just dump it without even worrying about it...and then knock this model out in a few days!?

Dan, the Sundowner was our entry into the development arena. It's by no means "perfect". There is an update that has been in the works and as soon as the Saab is finished, we plan on getting it wrapped up, along with the Duchess and DC-3 updates. For the moment, we are fully dedicated to finishing the Saab as we would like to see that done before the year is out.

Oz You may very well know 1 of the pilots that is working with us on this project. Feel free to send me a PM through these forums and we can discuss things further. Goran

Any 3D modeling software is good enough to model aircraft for X Plane. Take the time to learn it and understand there are no shortcuts.

Be sure to check out Cameron's latest blog post. Some interesting news (and a screenshot) about the Saab on there. http://blog.x-aviation.com/2012/09/behind-the-scenes/

More on the PT-6 project later. The DC-3 does have DME. Directly above the standard six. Pilots side is for NAV 1 and Co Pilot side is for NAV 2 Thanks! Glad you're enjoying it!

Interesting. With the exception of the panel, I finished modelling an aircraft with PT-6 engines a little while ago. It was a "fun" modelling project I started some time in March that I worked on 2 or 3 days a week to relieve me of the DC-3 that, by that time, was heavily saturated into my head. BUT...I don't want to get too ahead of everything. Saab...DC-3 update...Duchess update (yeah, yeah, I'm working on it) and the Citation.

I should hire you for my marketing and PR! Thank you for that! I truly enjoy personal interaction with people.

Here's the situation with the DC-3 and it's possible mods. First of all, it has been a phenomenal success. Much, much more than I had thought it would be. And for that, (I'm sure I speak for Cameron, Vance and Theo), we thank you! I have been approached in emails by people who would like to see some other mods as well, and they have all been noted. Some are a definite possibility...some are just plain scary. What I will say is this... Anything is possible, and I'm not saying these mods will be a definite "no" (I've already added a Garmin to it as an experiment) but making it a turboprop is a little lower on the priority list (due to the workload that entails)when taking into consideration the more important updates to it (flight model adjustments and Auto lean/Auto rich) and then there's Build 27.3 of the Saab 340. To convert the DC-3 to a turboprop would need extensive work in the flight model along with new 3D meshes and more texturing. I don't model like many others model. I'm not meaning to sound critical of other developers. It's just a known fact that when making a wing with engines mounted on them, the wing is complete and the engine is just positioned over it, then textured, etc... I actually build the engine and the wing as one piece. The engine nacelle is extruded out of the wing. You can see this if you remove the engine 3D object out of the DC-3 in Planemaker. There will be 2 gaping holes in the wing where the engines are built into it. They're separated from the wing because Theo made them that way for mapping and texturing purposes (Something he HATES to do with complex and organic looking meshes). So to add new engines would require "patching" of the areas of the wings where those holes are, to make sure they blend in with the new engines, which would then require new UV maps and textures. Simply moving vertices inwards (as it appears the turboprop engines are a little thinner than the normal engines) would "stretch" the textures. Then there is the issue of modelling and texturing a brand new panel to allow for engine instruments that display the turboprop engine parameters. To cut a long story short, I'm not saying no to turboprop engines. but going by our current workload, it probably won't be this year. When you see what we have planned, you won't even be worried about turboprop engines on the DC-3! Starting with the Saab. Speaking of which, the Saab will easily satisfy the "turboproppers". Judging by what has been put into it so far, I'm definitely considering putting out the manuals before the actual aircraft. They will need to be studied! To give you a small idea, if you don't study them, and just decide to start it and max out the throttle and takeoff, it's a safe bet you won't be flying long. Actually, it's possible you may not even leave the runway without blowing at least one, if not both engines. And that's just the tip of the iceberg (Cameron has already mentioned the glass displays are being coded with OpenGL for true, ultra hi resolution displays). I don't want to give away too much. All the details of what is being included will come out very soon.

I'm considering adding the Garmin for the update. Still have other issues to sort out, but we'll discuss when the time comes.

Payware. No ETA yet. I couldn't even guess, but most likely before my birthday. (Mid March)

No problem. I like it when people spot things like that. Keeps me on my toes. I can tell you there will most likely (not definitely) be a B version (Don't ask me when, but it IS planned), but it is extremely unlikely we'll dedicate our time to a WT.