Mario Donick

Bucharest to Mykonos in EADT's old freeware 737:

I had this once or twice, yes. Just don't look at it.

The thread mtaxp is speaking of is here: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=72313&page=88 However, as much as I like mtaxp's idea, it should only be optional. Otherwise all SMP users would've been forced to install Python and the PythonInterface.

That's true, X-Plane is not able to show reflections on aircraft. Some suggested that Laminar should implement it like it was done in FSX (i.e. a fake reflection map, where nearly nobody notices that it's fake ...), but IIRC Ben somewhere said if they ever make reflections, they want to do it better. Sometimes I wish for more pragmatism...

Very nice. ETA?

Thanks

Hm. So does this tell us something about the quality of the Jardesign aircraft, or about the realism of X-Plane, or just about the real pilot not being used to desktop simulators?

PO offers conversions of FSX aircraft without having the proper license for doing so, thus it is illegal. And if you really believe that PO aircraft are better than even simple payware aircraft, you must have not used payware aircraft for many years.

I have to take back this part of my criticsm. One of the devs quoted a part of the Airbus' FCOM for the A380, stating that an Airbus FMC does NOT calculate V speeds, but pilots use other devices to calculate these and enter the results by hand in the FMC. First, I could not believe this, but I asked a real (retired) Airbus pilot and he confirmed that.

Thanks! I like that you added boot up screens to the Garmin

New airport by DAI media, EFRO Rovaniemi -- Santa Claus' Airport

It would still constantly remind me of what is missing. At first, I thought "well, we've flown aircraft without proper FMC in X-Plane for years", and not so many months ago I was still thinking "well, who needs a FMC anyway?" But then I used an aircraft which has a good FMC and it was a joy to use it and to observe the aircraft flying nearly perfectly the flight plan. So now I do miss it. The A350's FMC is so shiny and nice visually -- but totally lacks basic functionality (I would've never thought that I'd say something like this one day...). If I used X-FMC, I'd probably use it for all the other missing things, too (well... given someone created a good config file). I know the A350 will be upgraded at some day -- but until then, it's just a nice aircraft, with a lot of potential, but missing things and unpolished edges (such as many liveries which are not as good as they could have been with a bit more time).

That's true... although having X-FMC in a cockpit that LOOKS so shiny and modern feels very out-of-place...

Correct, Tom, "advanced" means less complex than the 777 or 757 (which are "pro") by the same developers, esp. in terms of the FMC. It's still a nice aircraft, though.

This has never been a secret, though

The aircraft does not support SID/STAR yet. This is planned for the "Pro" version of the aircraft (which will be a free update for current customers). Currently, you can only create .fms files in the default X-Plane format. These files should contain just the waypoints of one specific SID or STAR. You can then select these files in the FMC. So, the following steps are needed: 1. Plan your flight. 2. Create .fms files for the SID and STAR of your flight. You can either do this in an external program or in the FMC. 3. Enter your flight plan in the FMC. 4. Select the previously created SID and STAR .fms files in the FMC. As this a bit tedious, it's maybe faster to simply enter the SID/STAR waypoints directly when entering the flight plan. The core of the FMC, by the way, is just X-Plane's default FMC. It also does not calculate V1, VR, V2 or T/C & T/D. Yet.

Isn't this just for a missed approach?

These are Albert's winter textures, installed using the JSGME version. Also winter updates of the two airports.

The JSGME version of Albert's textures are VERY easy to install.

Thanks, added!

During this year, I was constantly updating my scenery map with new releases (each week at least once). (Even though I did not update this thread since January; sorry for that). Today, however, I had to remove a whole lot of scenery packages, as Cami de Bellis and Freddy de Pues (frede) have removed all their content from the Internet. Esp. the east / south east coast of the USA, Hawaii, and lots of islands in the southern pacific are now removed.

Exactly that, by the way, is the reason why SkyMaxx Pro has such a big performance boost for me and my slow computer. I often can't run default clouds in overcast conditions, but with SkyMaxx Pro "low" settings I can. So, even though it does not look that beautiful visually, please keep at least an option for this mode ... until I have a new PC some day in 2015...