Warmbrak

I purchased the handbook earlier this week somewhere else in anticipation of the release. If only I knew it was going to be discounted here...oh well

Thank you very much for the response, I will give it a go.

Good day, I have been out of X-Plane for a while and came back recently. I purchased SkyMaxx Pro a while back and really love the clouds that it brings to X-Plane. I also wanted a mod that will offer atmospheric scattering settings to X-Plane and found that Real Terra Haze mod is very good for that. In the RTH mod manual however it states that it is compatible with SkyMaxx Pro, but that cloud shadows will not be displayed if SkyMazz Pro is installed together with RTH. Is there a way to get around this or can anyone please suggest an alternative to RTH that will not break cloud shadows? Thanks in advance.

Best way would be to give the demo a go and test it for yourself - performance is still better on Macs compared to PC's if I'm not mistaken, and it is not because Macs are better

No issues here with TrackIR in beta 6, nor did I have problems in any of the betas. Under hardware, is your TrackIR still enabled? Do you run any plugin that can potentially conflict with it?

Wakfu! Excellent! (whatever that is, it sounds funky) I assume you are referring to MS Flight that is slated for the 29th Simon?

It is a good read, but something most X-Plane users are familiar with, and it is not a secret. If X-Plane was perfect, it would rule all entertainment and commercial flight simulators, and Austin's biggest customers would be Boeing, Airbus etc. etc. Each and every simulator has its constraints and limitations - it is good to be familiar with these. A good author with a methodic approach can get a flight model out of Planemaker that is "close enough". To get it to hit the numbers may take the help of algorithmic curves to push the model past those constraints and limitations.

I love the new King Air C90B in X-Plane 10, but I cannot disengage the autopilot once activated. I have figured out it should be engaged by pressing either HDG or NAV and ALT or VS, but deselecting them does not turn off the autopilot. Am I missing something on the panel, or do I need to assign joystick buttons for for autopilot and flight director engage/disengage? I also cannot find the parking brake, and may have lost it on my last landing when I accidentally enabled beta stage on short finals

Hampster, you do bring up a valid point in that there are some very good older assets in the registry. Maybe it would be worthwhile for newcomers that want to build aircraft for X-Plane, to perhaps undertake a "modernization" exercise on an older resource rather than just starting from scratch (with approval of the original author of course). I am unfortunately a virtual cockpit snob - I would love to fly the x737, but I'm not touching anything with a 2D panel only. Once you've switched to HDTV, it is hard going back (even though the content is the same, or even better).

Booyah! This is great news

I just found a post made by PMDG on another forum, here is the snippet by Robert Randazzo, PMDG developer:

This is a sad day for one of the oldest flightsims for the PC. It reminds me of Test Drive Unlimited 2, just with aircraft. If you don't believe me, look at their latest video.

Yeah right, you took a leak in the river again Simon didn't you!?

Arti, you are reading what you want to read. Did not say no objects or bad shadows, nor was I comparing the looks directly with X-Plane 10. I was merely stating the limitations in their engine, not taking away from it. It just seems that you are looking for everything and anything you can use as an argument to downplay X-Plane 10, which you have the fullest right to do if you so please. I use many different simulators, and all of them does something great that another one cannot, but there is always a trade-off somewhere. I'm merely asking that you compare apples with apples when you do go on these rants. I am a potential customer for AeroflyFS, but I am not blind to the fact that it will not fill the shoes that some of my other sims can, and that is my objective approach.

Just remember, this engine is currently very limited when compared to X-Plane or MSFS. Very low object count, no autogen scenery, no time of day really (all scenery shadows are baked if I understood correctly). The current focus is on eye candy, and not about expansion/ability to mod etc. I don't want to detract from the beauty of this sim, but take a step back and get some perspective of what you're looking at. I would like to give this a go as well as it looks real pretty to fly, but it I suspect one will soon get frustrated with the limitations (read everything on their website, the clues are there).

It sounds like you should be getting better fps, but it will also depend on your level of detail. I run a Nvidia GT 590 (dual gpu), which unfortunately is seen by X-Plane as a single gpu. It will kick the crap out of any other game, but not where I need it. Oh well, we can have everything, but we don't.

I have signed up for the MS Flight:Hawaii beta as well, but I am more excited about my XP 10 disks shipping today! Performance on my rig is not too bad. Maybe your expectations are unrealistically high, or your hardware cannot cut it anymore?

Excellent app! If all the forums I frequent work with this I'll be a happy person. It is working very well with the X-Pilot forums. Thanks for this.

Apparently on AVSIM it was notified to be a rumor. But where there is smoke, there may just be a Pentium...

That Pacific island is stunning, and everything else they are working on that seems be indicating a WW2 Pacific theater. Love the yellow on the Trojan!

Hehehe, very apt The OrbX Peopleflow go through scripted paths, and interact only with static scenery as far as I've seen. Still, it looks very impressive! Here is a screenshot at Coff's Harbour, where I shut down this T-45, and probably took 5 minutes staring at the dynamic baggage handlers and ground personnel moving around:

Very nice work Nicola, I have to commend the effort you are putting into these repaints and enhancements to Nils' excellent aircraft.

I agree on the time and effort. I agree that the technology, capability and talent is there to do this. Question to developers: If developing an aircraft like this takes two very different phases: 1.) Flight model, 3d external and cockpit, default X-Plane avionics 2.) Advanced systems modelling, FMC, bells & whistles, smiling hosties etc why not market it the same way? Finish Phase 1, market and sell it as a "lite" or "weekend warrior" version for $20-$30. Then continue with phase 2, and market and sell it as the "pro" version. Another $20-$30, discount for phase 1 customers or something similar? That way, all fields of interest are covered, wannabe and pro can fly the same beauty at their own comfort level, cash flows, and possibly greater market reach at the end of the day.

Now I don't normally like to post FSX things on a X-Plane forum, but PMDG is probably the most famous brand when it comes to quality in FSX, and I sure hope we see a NGX like this in our beloved X-Plane some day. FSX complaints aside, this looks very nicely executed. This is what a $70 aircraft looks like in FSX: http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/ngx.html And look at this HUD! And here the promo video http://vimeo.com/27292595 edited - used url links for video

Hi Ola, You ask a very good question, and I am going to use a term that Austin uses at times with scenery - Plausibility. I love your development threads and look forward to see which boundary you will be pushing next. I find airports such as EHSB to be brilliant, however it does take it toll on performance. If I can refer to the FSX OrbX FTX packages - their scenery looks great, but even on high-end machines they will bring on the choppy frames. Some of the details are nice to see the first time round, but after that it becomes an airport again, and those features keep adding to the overheads. As with any 3D model made for a game, there needs to be a balance between the modelling and the texturing, and in most cases detail may need to be sacrificed in either one or both. The 3D buildings in the KLAX scenery is basic but very functional, and would be more than sufficient with decent texturing. Using flat texturing however as a substitute for airport "furniture" or tarmac results in a failure for this package. I have seen great 3D detail packages such as Cormac's brilliant Cork that performs very well, and the texturing is nicely done, striking a very good balance. I enjoy Tom Curtis' scenery as well, and his airports have reasonable modelling and texturing that comes together well, and is very user friendly. At the end of the day, you are the one that will have to be satisfied with your own efforts, and from I have seen in your development shots, most of us will be too!