Goran_M

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.

Hi Dylan (CT79B) Something I would ask that you (and everyone else) keep in mind, is that these are work in progress screenshots that were taken about 6 months ago of a completely remodelled Main Panel, Centre Console and overhead(Yes, we've been working on it for that long). Theo uses actual photos that I take to help with texturing, and the photos I took were of a Saab 340B at Sydney Airport (hence the APR indication on the CTOT panel). This has since been removed...literally 3 days ago, after I went through the cockpit over the last month. You are correct about the inverters. However, like I said, the screenshots we posted are work in progress, and a few things will get changed. R STBY PRESS has since been added. I let Theo do his thing and then, if it needs it, I correct a few things. He also does the same to my meshes. I'll actually point out that OVRD is also missing to the STBY Fuel Pumps and CONN VALVE with OPEN and CLOSED is also missing from the connection valve on the lower part of the fuel panel. All have been added over the last month. The CTOT has also been fixed as of a month ago. I saw so many photos of B versions that I simply modelled a single CTOT switch. After consulting with one of the pilots, he explained to me (and sent me the relevant documentation) that the A version indeed has 2 switches and each switch controls the take off torque on each engine. So, as I said, I modelled an extra switch about a month ago and it's just waiting to be textured. Prop Sync...modelled against diagrams, but I also noticed it in the position you mention in various photos and has since been moved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value

You are correct except for one thing. The "nominal pressure" in XP10 used to be "max pressure" in previous x plane versions. There is no problem in flight when this nominal pressure is set to a high number because you are effectively telling X Plane that the nominal pressure is whatever is entered. However, if the nominal pressure in Planemaker was set at, for example, 40psi, and the gauge reading in X Plane was 180psi or above, then there would be a problem that will present itself in the sim because the actual reading on the gauge is way above the nominal pressure that was set in Planemaker. Theoretically, you could set the nominal oil pressure in Planemaker at 1000psi for any aircraft and there would be absolutely no problems presented in the sim itself unless the gauge reading for the oil pressure far exceeded this figure.

The oil pressure section in X Plane 10 has been changed from X Plane 9. Because of this, the DC-3 will give an incorrect oil pressure reading in the X Plane 10 version. This has been fixed and will ship with the upcoming update, however, if you do not wish to wait for the update and you wish to change the setting in the flight model yourself, please click the link below and follow the simple instructions. http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/3625-leading-edge-dc-3/#entry38625 ALWAYS make a backup of the ACF file! Cheers! Goran

Glad it's all working nicely for you now. Thanks for the feedback! If there is anything else, feel free to ask.

Just to give you an idea on how dirty they can get. This is one of the photos I took on one of my trips out to the airport. This was AFTER it was cleaned...

Open up Planemaker (XP10 only) and navigate to the Systems/Limits 2 page Change the figures to what I have highlighted below. Save and exit Planemaker.

Just got done with a rather large correspondence with Austin about the oil pressure. The oil pressure system for XP10 has been changed from XP9. There is a setting that needs to be adjusted (which I have now done and is ready for the upcoming update.) This explains all the other aircraft brought over from XP9 to XP10 exhibiting the same behaviour. They are all working on the old oil pressure system and have not been modified to the new system. If you like, I can outline a set of steps to correct it yourself. Let me know if this is an option for you or if you would rather wait for the update. Goran

We're still working on the update. The main hurdle is auto lean and auto rich. Except for that, most of the fixes have been done. Keep checking back here for news on the update.

The fingerprints were an experiment. This was done months ago and is in the process of being changed. 1 explanation is... Theo has OCD. He scratched one of the toggle guards and then HAD to go and scratch the rest with an identical pattern. or...the other explanation is... (refer to my reply to "hobofat")

You realize that when Theo gets back, he's going to get raw on you.

Absolutely stunning!

As Nicola said, as the updates come out, strange things may sometimes start to happen. Trim Indicator is a known issue and will be fixed for the next update.

I'm assuming you are talking about X Plane 10. I just checked it, and you are correct, the oil psi is far too high, even at idle. Even when adjusting numbers in Planemaker, it makes no difference. IIRC, this worked properly in the testing in an earlier version of X Plane 10. However, I also checked it in X Plane 9, and it is working correctly. At idle, it just gets over the 40psi mark. The only thing I can think of is that it is an X Plane 10 issue. I COULD be wrong, and I will try several other things to see what is going on before I settle on a solution.

Should have seen it before I did a quick clean up. Bread crumbs, sesame seeds and burger wrappers all over the place! Theo really needs to clean up after himself.

:wub: