Mario Donick

I said this already at the .org, but repeat again: It's a very good panel / plane. Anybody who likes GA flying should look into this, because even in 2D it looks very good, and, more importantly, I know of no other Cessna C172 for X-Plane with this good systems depth (it has actually more systems depth than the Carenado C172). Only thing which could be improved: Remove the 3D view completly -- currently, pressing Q and E buttons to watch left and right, shows a 3D cockpit without panel. Maybe, like in older planes, a static side view graphics could be added? Edit: Maybe also the checklists could be moved down a little bit, to reduce need for scrolling in 1920x1080 resolution.

What does "little to no jet experience" mean? I'm just asking because when I first tried to make the "transition" to jets (many years ago, still in FS2000 and later FS2004), I had no idea of what that would mean. I actually tried to hand-fly and land jets like I did with my beloved Cessna C172. Soon I realized that I would not be very successful with that. 1. I was unused to the much higher speeds and the slower maneuverability, and initially had problems keeping heading and altitude. I then discovered that it makes more sense to use the ALT and HDG functions of the autopilot ... 2. Even with that, I was not able to land successfully, because I had no idea of NAVAIDs and ILS, and did not know that approach charts exist which clearly show how to approach the airport, when to descent etc. When I discovered that, it took some time to understand all that stuff. So, what I want to say ... if you know about (1) and (2), I think you can safely buy one of the payware jets you mentioned and dive into their systems. But if you have flown so far more or less intuitively, without knowing about (2), you should first learn (2) before spending money on a plane you might not use successfully for a while. In any case: if you don't want to spend money, a good starter plane is the Freeware Falcon 7X. It does not burden you with complicated FMC stuff, but it still "plausible" in its functions. I used the 7X to get back into jet flying when I started to use X-Plane.

Both your Adelaide sceneries are really well done and a great place to fly. Can't wait for Sydney ;

Then I am not sure what you are talking about. I can't use HDR, but even in new planes the landing and taxi lights illuminate the grounds somewhat dynamically, that means when I stand in front of the gate and move my rudder to move my nose gear, I can "spotlight" the things in front of me. I know that in HDR this effect is even stronger, but this "spotlightning" works. I never had a plane where it does not. O.o Edit: Okay. Maybe I'm indeed wrong when it goes to taxi lights. I made a short test with the F33 and noticed that in HDR I only have landing lights, these work fine: But I know that some of my planes have working taxi lights -- that's strange.

Taxi Light and Landing Lights of every plane always illuminate other objects, even without HDR. If taxi lights are on the nose wheel, the light moves according to the direction of the nose wheel (i.e. when steering during taxiing). If you did not forget to switch the lights on, it's maybe a strange bug? (I can't imagine that it works any different in the A36 then in the F33, but who knows ...)

Wow !!!!! This will surely be amongst the best scenery available for XP for a long time O.o

Regarding X-Plane standard instruments, the first step should be to make them more readable. The GNS430 works okay, albeit lacking important features, but it looks plain ugly when used in a 3D cockpit in 1920x1080 resolution. When used in planes like the Carenado planes which have very realistic looking cockpits, the standard GNS spoils everything. I wonder why Laminar does not do something about this.

So no OpenGL probably means that the way how these lines which connect waypoints on the map is using the XP standard red lines, and curves are not rounded? I also suppose your initial question regarding a colored map is answered with no. Is there a manual or a list where one can see which features are, and which are not, simulated? On the other hand, the 2 years old FSX version of this plane did not have such functions either. I think for the rest of functions, the used approach might be okay (and certainly the visual quality is much much better than default.)

Steve, that's really great to read! Then this Bonanza will be the second GA plane for X-Plane with a true Glass Cockpit (the first being the Corvalis). I really can't wait to buy that plane.

So, is the Sydney skyline a WiP or is this already something available? In XP 9, I used a Sydney scenery that included airport and skyline, but then I switched to your YSSY and now I need a replacement for the city.

I am suggesting that this works similar to some other payware in the past that have pretty looking PFDs, with crispy-clear vector graphics, but do not implement any special features the PFDs of the original planes have. Like the Challenger 300, for example. Its PFD uses both clear-looking vector graphics, but combines it with standard stuff, like in the following screenshot: http://xsimreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/c300-panel-2.jpg There, the compass, speedtape, artificial horizon and the fonts are vector-based, but the icons on the compass and the distance shown in the upper left of the compass are standard-XP. I suppose the A36 goes a little bit further (such as the replacement of standard FIX icons with better ones) and I think it will DRAW most of the stuff vector-based (i.e. with a plugin), but it does not mean that the simulated Aspen would include all the functionality the real one has (except, as I also suppose, the real one's is limited anyway). However, I consider this A36 are very important step for Carenado.It's their first glass-cockpit approach for X-Plane, and I really hope that one day they will be able to port their Cirrus SR22. Which has a G1000.

Well, I was not yet able to buy this, because Carenado does not accept PayPal, and I'm really desperately waiting for their resellers to offer that plane. Anyway, my impression is that the GRAPHICS of the Aspen are all drawn by the plugin and thus probably look better than XP's default. I think this is clearly visible from the screenshots. But I am not expecting any FUNCTIONAL features that go beyond X-Plane's standard capabilities. On the other hand: The Aspen PFD seems to be a pretty basic thing anyway, so despite the colorful moving map, XP's standard features drawn pretty and attached on a realistic user interface should be enough to make it plausible.

That's great -- maybe you should promote that plane a little more again then. It really deserves more attention in the X-Plane community, because (I repeat myself) it's the ONLY one with a true G1000 simulation.

Thanks for confirming the issue. I already thought I'm having hallucinations. Maybe JGX or Cameron could now look again into this issue ... it's the only thing that stops me to use that plane.

Thanks, Cameron, for the quick reply! Well, then I'm good, as I'm too lazy to lock the controls anyway

Yesterday I've also flown an ILS in this plane at KILM (Wilmington), without problems -- even though I only had one working engine during that approach! It still had the glideslope. So I think flying ILS with the Jetstream works very well.

Javier (and others), I always read that before leaving X-Plane after using the Jetstream, I should load another plane, to ensure that my joystick assignments are not gone when I use X-Plane the next time. Well, this is what I just tried: 1. Load the BAe 2. Unlock the controls with the lever next to the centre console 3. Fly around etc. 4. Exit X-Plane (without loading another plane) When I load X-Plane again, all my settings are still there. Which is great, by the way, but I suppose I do not understand everything correctly...? Using XP 10.20 b11, 64 Bit, Windows 7. Mario

Any news on the update? (Are you waiting for 10.20 to be final?)

I don't remember 9.7 quite well, but maybe you can change the Field of View (FOV) in the settings. For example, from 50 to 70 or sth.

Ah, sorry. Of course. (I've got a cold, that's why my thinking works slowly today )

Reading all this, I think it is better to provide two version of the same aircraft, one for XP9 and one for XP10. It's like aircraft for FS2004 vs. FSX.

When will this be?

At least in Germany we have 2 print magazines that regularly review X-Plane addons (although usually the products to be reviewed are already among the best available).