Goran_M

I can understand what you're saying, and I only just sent Chip an email addressing this very issue. I won't post what I sent to Chip (it was far too long), but I will say this. While I'm working on 2 different products (DC-3 and 1 contract job), Theo has been extremely busy programming the 747-400. Now I ask you, is that of any importance to you (as a customer/simmer) without a screenshot of it? Probably not. Shall I post a screenshot? Unless you want to see a bunch of numbers in x plane using a default aircraft as a test-bed, probably not. It won't make much sense. In case you're wondering, The actual script will NEVER be posted because code is meant to be strictly confidential. X Plane developers are ice skating uphill while trying to pull an extra 100lbs of weight when it comes to impressing the MSFS crowd. Whenever they talk about add on quality, they talk about PMDG (And rightfully so. Their systems fidelity is amazing!) So right off the bat, X plane developers have been pigeon-holed by the FSX crowd EVEN BEFORE THEY HAVE TRIED X PLANE. It's even happened in these very forums from X Plane users. So in saying THAT, we're even fighting an uphill battle against X Plane users who "wish" x plane has a PMDG quality add on. In all honesty, I don't mind that. As customers, you have every right to demand quality that you are willing to hand over your hard earned money for. And you want to see PMDG quality in x plane as much as, I think, most developers do. I have always maintained that competition is great for add on development and the community. So why are add ons taking a while to finish? Because YOU (the customer) WANT top quality add ons. YOU want PMDG level quality. YOU want study sim aircraft. WE want to give that to you. But to do that, we need time. If you want them finished earlier, spread the word about our products and buy more of them. Then we can afford a $50/hr programmer to code the systems that would take about 3 months to code. Doing the math, $50/hr @ 8 hours a day @ 7 days a week @ 3 months = a hell of a lot of money that many developers cannot afford. Especially when they have families to support. We can't promise release dates or estimates. What we can promise is high quality, even study sim quality add ons that are definitely on the way. All we ask is that you remain patient and let us do our thing. Feel free to ask questions. But questions that have already been answered (eg. When will it be released?) will be met with the same "soon" reply. As you were, gentlemen.

PMDG's NGX was over a year late. And they also ignored many peoples requests for an update on progress. And that's just an add on. Patience. You will NOT be disappointed!

Everyone has choice. That's what I love about our society. My remarks were based on my experiences with the CRJ and what I know of it. As good as the Challenger looks, it still has the dreaded default FMC. Because the Take Command! series is an XA exclusive line of products, the CRJ represents the best that XA has to offer. Pauls comments seemed to purely criticize Cameron's choice of brand name. That, in itself, serves no purpose and it is also threadjacking the Challenger thread. Double whammy. Paul, please choose your words a little carefully before you go insulting the owner of the forums who actually came up with the Take Command! brand and line of products. Hope you enjoy the Duchess, Will. Theo and I are always open to feedback.

And what name would you suggest? Or would you just categorize what is the most realistic aircraft in x plane into all the other various quality payware that is out there. Some of which I wouldn't even think of paying for. The way it IS categorized is telling people that it is at a point where it can stand above all the other payware that is available. Perhaps you could share your experiences in promotional marketing with the rest of us?

I think there are a few of them at x-plane.org in the download manager. Just do a search for "Leading Edge Sim Duchess" We don't have any plans to make more repaints at this time. We may make more in the future.

I used to think the same as you when I was a student pilot. The blades of the propeller do not go to a full 90° perpendicular to the wind. There is still an angle relative to the wind direction and because of this, the propeller does windmill. Theoretically, if they even went to 89°, there is an angle there that the wind could take advantage of and start the propeller windmilling. Even in the video you posted, the propeller started windmilling quite fast towards the end. And also, because the Duchess has constant speed propellers, it is able to do a windmilling start as long as there is electrical current going to the magneto's and the mixture is set to rich. However, it is recommended that the propellers are not feathered to perform a windmill start. The major factor in all of this is the Constant Speed propeller design. It's operation is very different to that of manually adjustable propeller pitch or Fixed Pitch propellers. That, along with the counter rotating engines and T-Tail design (which is out of the way of the engines slipstream) make the Duchess one of the safest twin engine GA aircraft in the world. For a more detailed explanation of Constand Speed Porpeller Design, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_speed_propeller Just to re-iterate, I am certified to fly the Beech Duchess aircraft and that, coupled with consulting with my old flight instructor who has about 2000 hours in the Duchess, feel confident that the way the x plane Duchess was designed and operates is 98-99% accurate.

Apologies in advance because it seems there may be a language barrier here. If I understand you correctly, you are thinking the props don't feather because they keep windmilling. Everything was done to make the props feather correctly and to the correct feathering angle. There are certain limitations, graphically, within x plane and this will affect the appearance of the prop. To confirm you have fully feathered 1 prop, check the RPM gauge. One of the needles will be much lower than the other one. If you'll notice in the video, the pilot has the red mixture lever AS WELL AS the blue prop lever pulled all the way back. If the mixture lever was pushed forward, enriching the fuel mixture, the engine would actually start. It would still be a lower RPM than the other engine if it was still fully feathered, but it definitely would start if fuel was turned on. I hope I have answered your question. Please feel free to clarify if I haven't answered your question properly.

You cannot stall the engine in the Duchess by feathering the props in flight. The Duchess has constant speed props and they can be used to actually start a stalled engine in certain circumstances (an example would be flooding the engine from the engine running too rich for the altitude). You can confirm that the props are feathering by having the throttle pushed full forward and watching the RPM drop as you feather the props. If you want to deliberately kill an engine, pull the red mixture lever or levers all the way back or cut the fuel to the engine by turning the fuel supply off using the fuel control on the floor.

Yeah...don't you have work to do, Theo? :-*

You could always dump Snow Leopard and Lion and go for Windows 7. -ducks-

Many thanks, James! Make sure you check out the Saab 340 thread as well. That will be our next product off the ranks. 2 years in development and from what I have seen so far in sim, 2 years well spent. Many screenshots have been posted for everyone to have a look at.

Hi James I have made a DIY update set of instructions. http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=1611.0 Please don't mess around with the flight model too much. It has been made with many details from the actual POH. Have fun.

I've had cancer, Will. Leukaemia to be exact. Given a 30% chance to be in remission. 10% chance to survive past the 5 year mark. 3% chance of having a child. Got through it all and have a beautiful 5 year old daughter who lights up my day every single morning. I don't expect the world to stop for me. Maybe Nicolas can stop the petty bickering. Shall I put up the post what he said about the CRJ and Cameron when it was announced the CRJ was on indefinite hold? Maybe not. It's already up in another thread.

Speculation and assumptions made by many people. The only professional here is Cameron who clarified it all. And, most likely (read definitely) the only person qualified to do so. Let's discuss professionalism for a minute. Javier has decided to sell at the org. For his own reasons. He talks to Cameron and Cameron wishes him the best of luck and releases him from exclusivity, (as he also has done with REX) even though some terms, apparently, were broken. Let's turn it around for a minute. Khamsin and Arno were making posts and discussing the T-28 at the org forums. Then they decide to sell through XA, again, for their own reasons. Nicolas basically tells them to *&$% OFF and subsequently bans them from the org and takes down the aircraft carrier that was selling over there. Hmmmmm, who is the professional? Tough call.

Excuse the thread hijacking... http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=794.msg26589#msg26589

Thought I would post a small update. It is a semi-functioning FMC. This screenshot was taken several months ago. The FMC JPEG is not ours and is only being used for testing and reference purposes. It is being made from scratch. No other framework is involved and so far, the numpad and keypad and a few other FMC specific functions work. There is still quite a way to go but it is moving forward.

Looking at the screenshots, it is definitely one of the better offerings at the org store. But I have to question the preflight walkaround "extra" you mentioned. I don't really understand the point of a walkaround on a virtual aircraft that doesn't have a random load/aircraft state module. Everything works right off the bat, so why have a virtual walkaround looking for problems that don't exist? In no way am I criticising this product. I'm tempted to get it myself (I haven't flown in x plane except to test my own stuff so that is making me 2nd guess the purchase), it's just that, for me, the virtual walkaround seems a bit pointless on an add on that has nothing wrong with the exterior. I would have much rather wanted to see at least a somewhat rudimentary FMC, instead of the default.

+1 Perhaps you could convince Nicolas instead of telling us.

Imitation is the finest form of flattery.

I've answered this question to many people who have asked it. Here's the honest answer. Most add ons (payware included) are inaccurate. Often SEVERELY inaccurate. I think it's the freeware community that started the story about how easy it is to make a flight model in Planemaker. Other freeware developers who call themselves professional, claim to be able to make a flight model in a matter of 2-3 days. The truth is, a LOT of information is needed from the manufacturer to build an accurate flight model. A person cannot just go to the FAA website, download a TCDS and expect to make an add on for X-Plane. You need manuals and to get those, you have to spend money. Not just Aircraft manuals, but also airfoil manuals, FCOMS, etc...and these will usually run into the hundreds of dollars. I won't mention any names (although I think we all know who I am talking about...) but the Planemaker tutorial videos made by another developer, showing how to make a flight model in Planemaker is only the tip of the iceberg. He covers about 10% of what is really involved. What he has done, I'm sure, has started many people on the path to add on development, and he has provided a stepping stone for would be developers, but there is a lot more to learn. Planemaker is extremely flexible and accurate. But it will only make WHAT YOU TELL IT TO MAKE. It doesn't make flight models on it's own or with just a few numbers thrown in there. If you're only adding information in the basic areas, you're not doing anywhere near enough. I spent about a year (roughly 3 -4 days a week) on the Saab flight model and then that was further refined by Lukasz for approximately 2 more months, adjusting certain figures to match the flight envelope (Flight envelope charts are available in the official manuals.), testing, re-tuning, re-testing...several times over until we hit the numbers in all areas. If you want to make flight models, please, feel free to do so. But do not expect Planemaker to do most of the work for you. The more information you give it, the more accurate the flight model. If you leave default values, you will be disappointed if you are expecting accuracy.

I think it's safe to say, he won't get out "untouched" and "unmarked". I have read stories on this. Prisoners do not respect child molesters and child murderers. He will learn a very valuable lesson.

I was shocked to see this all over the news today. All the best Ola and hope to see you on the other side.

Spoke to him today and he sent me these screenshots.

You know things are bad when you start talking about the weather.

Still very hard to say when it will be finished. Cameron (who is doing the programming for it) is going to Oshkosh next week and he has been preparing to go for the last couple of weeks so the Saab was on hold. It will obviously remain on hold until after he gets back. Then he's getting back into it. I've had discussions with him about the project and what is going into it and it will be much more than planned. The autopilot has gotten a complete rewrite and a lot more systems have been done or are going to be done to the point where it's study level. As I said, it's VERY hard to give an accurate date for release, but I will say (including a safety margin) sometime WITHIN the next 3-5 months. That includes full testing, adjustments, fixes, etc...anything to give us a reason NOT to make any fixes after it's finished. Obviously, there may be things that we will miss, but we want to ensure that what we initially might miss is kept at an absolute minimum. In other words, an as fully functioning, bug free, fully coded package as we can possibly make. We'd rather make people wait for a fully functioning, bug free product and put a smile on their face rather than push out an over-glorified turboprop with over-glorified generics, riddled with bugs and have people complain.