Goran_M

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.

It would be a different flight model with extra objects modelled and textured. It's doubtful, but if we do, it would be a payware upgrade. Wait until the original one comes out and we'll take it from there.

Won't be an easy thing to do. It means adding another object with panel regions (if you wanted it as a 3D object as part of the cockpit). I'll have a look at the Reality XP site and see what's involved. No promises though.

AA in Blender is not applied. The AA in X Plane will smooth everything out more so than what Theo has already done.

Well we can't tell everyone everything. There's no surprises then. There's a lot that goes on behind the LES doors.

Speaking for myself, I will never use the default FMC that comes with X Plane in any of our products. There are other developers that will and that it is entirely their choice. I decided to do the A variant (that came without an FMC) purely for that reason. To make a fully functioning Saab FMC would add many months of development time to an already extended development. I am definitely planning the B variant WITH properly modelled and coded FMC but that will not be until sometime next year.

Yes, it is getting finished. Coding, coding and more coding. Once all new custom datarefs are made, Theo will tie a few of them to the EHSI and EADI, I'll tie others to other switches, levers, etc... in the cockpit and then I'll wrap up the manual. It is definitely, 100% getting finished. I can safely say it'll be worth the wait. It won't be for those that want to just load it up and take off. There will be Saab procedures to follow.

Blender Animation, although I have gotten very used to it, is still not as good as AC3D animation because Blender doesn't go through the range of motion for the object. For example, the needles snap from 1 keyframe to the next. In AC3D, you can see the needle move smoothly between the keyframes. Of course, for a needle, it doesn't really matter, but for complex animations like Fowler flaps, landing gear, or anywhere else where there is a "parenting" of one animation to another, AC3D animation is much more convenient because it is possible to see the entire animations movement and make adjustments.

We use Blender 2.49 for exporting. (Although I've been told to use AC3D because it's a LOT easier for animations.)

You're probably better off asking Sam in his thread over at the org. http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=47934 I don't think any of the commercial developers here use Blender 2.5.

Yes, mostly in Blender Who said we're only making one prop variant? It was just a personal preference. I just like how these props looked. I have made the other props as well and it will come down to whether we include both props in separate flight models or just one prop.

We always welcome comments on what we make. Regardless if they are negative, positive or constructive criticisms. The photo I based the floats from is: It was the best one I could find that was as side on as possible. I did have 2 diagrams of the aircraft with the floats but for the life of me, can't find them on my computer. The diagrams were NOT identical to the photo. Diagrams rarely are...so I just did the best I could with what I found and combined both the diagrams and photos into the final model. I found a few photos with the DC-3 on floats and each one looked slightly different. Was it the angle? Possibly. I learned a long time ago, when modelling landing gear, model them fully extended or fully compressed. Easier to animate that way. I choose fully extended so I can add more detail and also because it's easier for Theo to bake and texture the entire gear assembly. As you can see in the photo I worked from, the entire aircraft looks almost perfectly level. This is the one I wanted to work from because when I model in 3D, I need to have everything aligned on each Global axis. The Global axis is simply the main X, Y and Z axis in whatever 3D app we use. Once the model is complete and textured, THEN I can tilt it to it's correct position and export it and let x plane do the rest. If I worked from a lot more photos, it would be impossible to model everything accurately because there are many factors that affect the appearance of the aircraft on the floats. Metal fatigue, company adjustments, customization, weight. Who knows what else. With the photos you provided, the aircraft looks as if it is under load. Because of this, the main wheels take most of the weight and the aircraft leans back slightly because there is not as much weight on the front wheels. If you look at the photo I provided, you can see a very slight tilt towards the back of the fuselage, but the floats still tend upwards towards the rear and if you look at the overall shape of the float, there is a very slight dip in the center. Compare the photo above to the Blender screenshots I just took and notice that same slight dip (minus the main wheels...I'll be having words with Theo as to where they are because these are UV mapped versions). If I had the main wheels in Blender while in the side view, you would be able to see they are at a higher level than the front wheels, therefore, the aircraft, while on the ground, would tilt towards the rear and with the correct animation, the load would lean the entire aircraft further back. I will scrutinize the front wheels a bit more and double check the size. Changing the thickness is very easy and in all honesty, if I didn't pick it up, Theo or Cameron would have. (Cameron is ruthless when it comes to final quality and he checks EVERYTHING.) Like I said, I really don't mind the picking of details, but I am almost 100% certain what you are pointing out would have been picked up somewhere down the production line.

When you gotta go, you gotta go.