Wetted Area

Now, those clouds move! Thank you.

You did not skyjack the thread - you asked some relevant questions and those of us that need to learn, did learn something from these guys. So, thanks for offering relevant input to the topic!

It did send me scratching my head just a bit. Well, then - my head is now spinning once again. By that definition, it sounds very Public to me. The whole idea behind OOP is to essentially hide the data. Its like a big shell game (no pun intended) to languages like C++. Or, like a game of hide and seek (keep the implimentation hidden from the interface). Typically, you don't want to "expose" the flank of your most treasured variables, especially to "other" third-party code and under no circumstance is it ever appropriate to make public things like Class type Variables - no way. However, I recall reading several instances of Austin, as he talked about trying to make X-Plane code "open." The other thing too, is that from what you guys are telling me, the application architecture of X-Plane is one that should be exposed to a greater degree than other types of applications, just based on the nature of what Aircraft Modelers have to do, in order to optimize how their aircraft work inside the flight simulation model. So, I guess its ok to break some traditional OOP rules about variable exposure through public auctions of their functionality to the highest bidding Third-Party Plug-In. It is not like X-Plane gives access to source by doing this - certainly. That would not be appropriate, I don't think. Thank you for the clarification!

Nevermind. I back-tracked the URL you gave me to the domain name and found that it is xSquawkbox, which is different than the SB posted on the VATSIM main website.

Brilliant! I read somewhere that "Gizmo" and the other Plug-In, were problem children for X-Plane(?) X-Plane was crashing down after audible lacerations of the human eardrum, etc. Your opinion, please? I've been right in the middle of Develper Cat Fights myself before and it ain't pretty. Really. Didn't know that such specificity was developed into X-Plane. This is the kind of stuff that I did not want to ask questions about, because it seemed like too much minutia, but it really is important stuff for those building aircraft models. As Cameron said, you have to build the model "twice" in X-Plane. One being the Graphic representation of the aircraft, and the other being the Data representation of the aircraft that integrates the model with X-Plane, through DREFS, etc. So, I always wondered how you get (as just one of many examples) the airspeed indicator needle to move with the right amount of acceleration around the face of the gauge. Of course, airspeed is driven off the pitot (ram air) system. So, I was trying to work out in my own head, how Austin, might have gone about encoding that kind of functionality. I know how it works in a real airplane, but I did not know how Austin, translated that concept in X-Plane. But, it sounds like the key to Aircraft Systems Functionality (at least much of it) is predicated on datarefs. I opened up the file that Guy, referenced for me, ran a search on "datarefs" and found quite a few inside an unformatted text file. I could see how the datarefs were "pointing" to paths (A/B/C/D) that lead to other reference information. What's up with Squawkbox. I thought that squawkbox was for use with VATSIM only as one of the client applications for connecting to their network. Why does Squawkbox need to know anything about X-Plane datarefs? Or, is the link that you gave me just a website that contains X-Plane dataref documents only, with no programmatic link to Squawkbox? Or, are datarefs themselves some kind of global methodology for integrating aircraft functionality into desktop flight simulators? Compiled code in a "real-time" environment is something I find interesting - good things its is local. Among other things, I develop automated systems (Bots) that I use in the financial markets that run inside of 32bit real-time streaming applications. Streaming data comes in from a remote server, gets algorithmically processed in real-time and then rendered graphically on the client side within a real-time custom GUI. Within real-time environments, compiled code typically runs slower than procedural code (scripting). In a real-time remote streaming data environment, the use of client side .dlls has to be weighed against the pain you suffer in slower processing and rendering speeds, against the benefit you gain from a cleaner coding methodology relative to hand scripting necessary functionality into the system. In X-Plane's case, it doesn't have to worry about handing real-time streaming data across a network - so, it does not have that built-in lag condition to deal with. What's the net/net bang on the system for having to deal with these types of .dll files as Plug-Ins? Right off the bat, I would imagine that we are talking about some kind of hit on memory, just for starters. And, another hit on CPU, depending on how the .dll is written and how large the file. I'm just curious. When I did my X-Plane walk-through, I did notice some kind of output data only type of mode. I took a mental note and moved on. But, it is nice to know that you can obtain these kinds of performance parameters from the client side. Sounds similar to an MT4 Data Window, where you see the actual output from the system numerically, as opposed to visually. I can also dump MT4 data into an excel file in real-time with custom parameters for columns and formatting, for further excel based analysis. So, the concept sounds familiar. Khool! What is a "flight loop?" Is that that starting and stopping of X-Plane, or the repositioning of the aircraft's location within X-Plane, etc? More Brilliance! Hey, thanks for tip on the tools and for checking in again on my X-Plane 101 training, Tom. Although, I have met one individual who seems know quite a bit about FSX - it is also true that I've learned more about X-Plane from you guys than I have about FSX from anywhere else.

It would be fun to know how that turns out when your friend feels that he's "completed" his work on the Hunter. I've developed an interest in the Hunter of the past couple of years that I never had before. I never really appreciated the aircraft until I started studying it more closely.

I get the strong sense that you live in the U.K.? Though I live in the U.S., when I'm working the financial markets, I sometimes have the need to pull London hours. Those can be very long work weeks for me, so I try to not do it all the time, but I have to go where the money goes - its my job! But, I certain get the time zone thing being an issue. Sounds like a direct correlation between real aircraft complexity and aircraft model complexity. The more complex the real, the more time spent getting the model to "behave" the way it should - seems very reasonable. Just chatting with you almost makes me want to take the plunge myself. But, I can glean that I probably don't have the necessary time, and would end up detailing the aircraft so intensely, that I might not ever finish one myself. Knowing me, I will end up most definitely taking it to the extreme of extremes just for the fun of it - but also because I am the eternal optimizer. I'm struggling with the notion at this point. I know I don't have the time for it, because I know I will become obsessed about getting it right and that will blow a hole clean through my work schedule. Aircraft Models for X-Plane could become a dangerous slippery slope for my regular work schedule. But, if I go after anything, it would be the Phenom 300, or the Mustang II. Tempting. But, I better not touch it. It would be like trying to eat just one pistachio. Impossible. I used to refuel an MU-2 that made the FBO I worked at as a kid in school, one of its routine refueling/servicing points. It was an extremely loud and very high pitch whiner. We handled a lot of different aircraft including a tone of Piper Cheyenne's and King Air's. But, none of those could compete with the whining pitch of the MU-2. Though we were all going deaf from the turbine noise, we did love the smell of Jet-A and especially the lovely sweet scent of 110LL as it burned! Ah, the memories. Do you fly real aircraft much? I've noticed that Carenado aircraft have a very distinctive "look" whenever you see them on the web. The overall reveal of Carenado aircraft is very good - believable on the exterior, but the interiors tend to reveal even better than the outside in most cases. I've only read one bad complaint about Carenado, but it was base upon insufficient aircraft functionality, as opposed to a complaint about some systemic problems with the model. The owner just wanted "more" and felt that the aircraft should have had more actual functionality you would see in the real thing. I think the complaint was about the Baron B-58 - one of the aircraft I actually want/need for my project to fill the light weight multi-engine roll in my program. I'll still give them a try and see how it goes. The World is Not Enough! I had to get that in there - I'm a part time comedian as well. Though, I never get paid for being one. Seriously, I think X-Plane is very good for what it is. We are talking about aggregate powered desktop machines runing some fairly complex software. It this point, given my study and given my background, I do not consider either FSX, or X-Plane, to be a real flight simulator. Those are just the facts. They are both Hybirds. They essentially 'simulate' a real simulation - if that makes any sense to you. And, the appear to do it in different ways. FSX, has more rigid (you can say religious) methodlogy that places the output (read: predictive rendering) of the simulation in a tighter box than does X-Plane, which has a methodology that allows for a greater degree of more fluid output (read: predictive rendering) of the same simulation theory. Properly simulating equations of motion to an Nth degree margin of error is not hard. It only becomes more difficult when you start adding spatial dimensions and competing force vectors to the equations. Not to mention variables derived out of atmospherics and those related to viscous drag coefficients of multiple types. This is to a large degree what makes desktop retail flight simulators, fairly hard thing to accomplish at a level of precision and accuracy that you find in some commercial grade full motion simulators. But, that's one issue. The other issue is in the form of a question: Is it good enough? I have concluded that for me - it is good enough. Look, it really all comes down to the end user's expectations, because none of us can re-write the code base on either platform (FSX, P3D or X-Plane). So, for me, it comes down to taking a look at what I required, what my expectations look like and figuring out if my needs can be met with what's currently available. And, for me the answer is, yes. Now, it is just a matter of finding the aircraft models that give me the most accurate "functionality" based on the type of flying that I intend to do in the very near future. So, now, my shift is away from "can I use this desktop flight simulator as a tool to help me," to "where can I find the best aircraft models for my purposes." Quite honestly, that might come down to being an iterative process where I end up buying every thing in the category and type I need, and then evaluating each one independently against a set of criterion that helps me make relevant distinctions. This is where Keith's videos came in handy for me, personally (in the other thread). This pretty much sums it up for me to. Good points all. Nice to know. I've worked with API's of all kinds in the past and will no doubt be very rusty in initial approach to them today - if I had to do it. But, the important thing to know is that an API is well documented! I can't stress the importance of that enough. A poorly documented rich API with depth, is worse than a very well documented shallow API - any day of the week. But, a very well thought out SDK typically takes care of all this stuff. I knew that one existed for X-Plane, but I did not know the language type. That's why I asked. Yes. That's my goal in all this, but for three different levels of aircraft (SEL Trainer w/Conventional Gauges, MEL w/G1000 EFIS, MEL Turbo-Prop w/G1000 EFIS and Phenom 300 or Mustang II w/G1000 EFIS). Those are the basic requirements (must have items). So, I've got to find these aircraft models somewhere - or, I'm stuck with making them. I know the SEL Trainer group is an easy one to fill. However, the MEL w/G1000 EFIS, I'm not too sure about. For the MEL Turbo-Prop w/G1000 EFIS, I think I might have seen somewhere before - not sure. But, I have never seen a Phenom 300, nor a Mustang II w/G1000 for X-Plane at all. Yet, I have seen a Phenom 300 w/G1000 for FSX and I have also seen a Mustang I w/G1000 - both for FSX (not the Mustang II). So, the whole thing is coming down to aircraft right now. The other issue of course, is changes to both navdata and navaids. With X-Plane, when there is an update, you can download and upgrade your software to stay current. With FSX, you have to manually make changes to navaids inside a few FSX files. So, it can be done in FSX, but it would be a pain to have to do that each time you came upon an airport with differentials in the publish navaids, or when the navdata changes. But, it is what it is. Indeed, the Hawker has had a long and well established career - legendary to be exact. The whole HawkerBeech financial turmoil thing, I feel was a real blow to General Aviation as a whole. HawkerBeech, was planning the new Hawker 200. It would have been the largest Single Pilot Certified/RVSM Certified very light business jet in the world. The company did not do a good job of managing the PR surrounding its bankruptcy and many believed that HawkerBeech would lose most of its VLJ production facility. As it turns out, very recent news indicates that HawkerBeech will retain its "services" facilities and even expand them, while they still fumble the ball on news about the Hawker 200 VLJ. They do indicate however, that certification will continue to be pushed forward on the Hawker 400 and 800 series airframes, citing a continuing relationship with Rockwell Collins and Honeywell. Of course, the King Airs are never going away - in fact, they have indicated that they will be placing even more developmental focus on their Turbo-Prop series. They are spinning off a separate entity to handle development of the Hawker 400 series and giving that entity the rights to develop the aircraft Still, the 400 series won't be Single Pilot Certified (a total shame). Though the Hawker 200 has un-officially been withdrawn, they still have the web page active and visible to the public: http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/hawker/200/'>HawkerBeech 200. So, we are both hoping for improvement at HawkerBeech! You want the classic Hawker to continue (and it looks like it will), and I want the single pilot Baby Hawker 200 to be put back on my list of potentials, as I don't see the Hondajet as having a competitive advantage in range over the other two choices. As always - nice chatting with you.

That explains it. That's pretty much what I needed to know. Thanks.

I'm a bit confused - who is "us?" Is RealScenery, JRollon and X-Aviation, one and the same entity? When I look at domain registration, I see Administrative Contacts and Technical Contacts for Arizona, California and Illinois (for RealScenery and X-Aviation). When you use RealScenery, do you lose X-Plane surface level topology autogen, to the point of not being able to get the same automobile animation - for example? Or, does that still happen.

Hello RealScenery, Just took a look at http://www.realscenery.com/movies/enhanced/scenery.html'>this video of your C-172 flying over a part of Northern California. I noticed that in all of the video over the top of the Pacific Ocean, that none of the waves were actually moving. Is that a feature of RealScenery per se, or is it an anomaly that you will work out in the final release so that the wave tops do indeed move more naturally, or was the lack of wave movement a limitation of X-Plane? Also, what will RealScenery look like when the aircraft is flown, oh say, at about 50ft agl, just coming in over the fence. Will the RealScenery at the lower altitudes look as detailed as the RealScenery in the higher elevations, where it looks really good I must say. Thanks.

Hello Guy, I also noticed on your site that you use AC3D for the modeling, I suppose. I've noticed others who use that as well, but if I'm not mistaken, AC3D does modeling only. What do you think about an integrated package such as http://www.symscape.com/products'>Caedium, that does modeling and CFD with both RANS and Panel flows? I would think you could do some relevant optimization there, before porting over to X-Plane (if, Caedium produces a file that X-Plane can read). Or, do you just create the model and then drop it into X-Plane, using their "datarefs" to tweak what you need to with or without the API (I'm not sure which)? Regards.

Hello Guy, Just took a look at your site and it looks great. I thought you might want to know that, before I replied to your post, I went to the link in your signature to look at your work. Of course, I returned to ask you for a link, because after looking at the homepage, I got the impression that it was a only an historical reference website for the De Havilland Comet, because of the site's design. Had I seen this link first: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/about/'>DH-Aircraft, I would have immediately known about the X-Plane Aircraft Modeling information up front. "About" links are often times depositories for generic information, so I never looked at that. I don't know for what purpose you use the website, or if X-Plane Aircraft Modeling was the original intent for the site at the start. The De Havilland Comet, especially with is storied history, has always been one of my favorite commercial aircraft of what was then the "new" jet age in commercial aviation. The historical connections that run from De Havilland, through Hawker Siddeley, to BAE and then ultimately to Beechcraft (as you no doubt already know) lead to the current Hawker line of very light to light business jets. The Comet's accident history, caused Hawker Siddeley to essentially build the entire line of Hawker Siddeley business jets like flying tanks. They are known for having a level of structural integrity and strength that surpasses most other business jets in class, which probably would not be the case (given the desire of most aircraft manufacturers to reduce manufacturing costs) had the De Havilland Comet not gone through its teething pains. It also causes Hawker Siddeley to become somewhat obsessive about safety through redundancy of systems. And, it is one of the primary reason why you cannot operate the Hawker 400XP as a single pilot - an aircraft I dearly love. Of course, the Comet being the first commercial jet airliner to be put into official service, no doubt put a huge spotlight on everything De Havilland did with the aircraft. Do you ever see yourself getting around to doing any of the distant cousins to the De Havilland Comet, such as the Hawker line of Business Jets? Similar question for the line of Hawker Hunter Interceptors? I'd be very much interested in both aircraft series as I believe them to be treasures in aviation past, present and future. Regards.

Great, because I'm interested in his work.

BTW - Guy. Where can I find a link to your work?

Hello Guy, That was a pretty amazing post to say the least. Yes. I am wading into the desktop flight sim world slowly for the reasons given in another post on this forum. I have nothing against gamers. But, as you probably know by now, my interest in flight simulators is somewhat different. Safety, will be my main goal and one of the ways that I can maintain safety is by remaining current at all times, even when I don't have time, or physically am unable to get to the airport. So, I am carefully evaluating multiple paths for flight simulation for some good reasons. Safety, proficiency and efficiency, are my ultimate goals and one of the ways to get there is through the repetition of good habits based on as accurate a model of simulation as possible, for a PC. So, that's what this is all about for me personally. Given your well written and well thoughout reply, I only have a few follow-up questions to ask, if you don't mind. Can you 'name names' for the following aircraft models, of people, or an online business entity that produce the most accurate aircraft models for use in X-Plane 10.11: - Single Engine Land w/conventional instrumentation (retractable or fixed gear, high or low wing) - Multi-Engine Land w/conventional and G1000 EFIS - Multi-Engine Land Turbo-Prop w/G1000 EFIS - Phenom 300 and/or Mustang II w/G1000 Having the models be as accurate as possible for a desktop computer simulation, obviously aide in the ability to practice good habits related to memory work and procedures. If you feel uncomfortable 'naming names' in this thread, but you do have some opinions about who should be on that list and don't mind sharing it with me, please contact me at: wettedarea7@yahoo.com. Any information you reveal to me about who you believe to be "the absolute best" in this collection of various aircraft types and categories, will be held in strict confidence and not repeated and/or disseminated by me in any way, shape or form. Or, maybe it will fly, but fail to fly according to the manufacturers published performance limits. This may, or may not be that important to a pure Gamer, if the purpose is to just have fun. But, if the intent is to produce the potential for simulating actual procedures via memory patterns established by the operational requirements of a particular aircraft make/model/type/category, then it does become a rather important requirement to have available to you, an aircraft model that X-Plane can actually simulate within a reasonable approximation of specified OEM limits. I really thank you for clarifying this part for me. I'm familiar with how real world flight dynamics work. And, I'm familiar with how real world aircraft development works. What I did not understand is how X-Plane and Aircraft Modelers go about simulating that world. I did not know if X-Plane simply took over the simulation and presented on screen its own definitions of the inputs coming from the end-user. Or, whether or not X-Plane was truly rendering the actual simulated results from aircraft geometry and flight control surfaces that come from real world aircraft specifications. So, again - thanks for reinforcing that which I have already discussed with another very helpful member of this forum. So, this entire segment really caught my attention for some obvious reasons, I hope. So, if you don't mind, let's drill down on this just a bit. We can approach this from a number of different perspectives, but I'll try to keep this down to just one: Aspect Ratio. AR ~ b2/S If you take a look at drag coefficient formulations, you will note that aspect ratio is a prominent driver of the resultant performance of the vehicle. It is not the only factor, but it is one key factor in resultant aircraft behavior. Changing this ratio and then plugging it back into a Cd formula, will net a different result each time. Using our resident "Rudder" example (thank you for actually reading this stuff), we can obtain not only differential moments with variances in rudder AR, but in doing so, you will also obtain different handling characteristics which alters the total performance envelope of the aircraft (or, has the potential to). And, this is just one of many different Geometric Variables that impact Planform. There are many others. So, my question is this --- Since X-Plane takes the geometry of the model and renders aerodynamic performance based on that; if the Modeler makes a change in the aircraft's original planform design when going from their 2D 3-Up Technical Drawings to their 3D renderings, what tool do they use for performance impact analysis that lets them know which characteristic behavior of the aircraft has changed and what they need to do about it, in order to bring the aircraft back into conformity, so that when I jump into the cockpit and launch down the runway, I ultimately get something that approximates the actual range of POH performance specifications -and- so that I don't inadvertently fly the aircraft outside its design limits (either above or below those limits) because the Modeler's changes to the geometry caused a significant difference in the expected behavior -vs- the actual behavior during the simulation? I can definitely appreciate that - thank you. The one question I have here, is with respect to last six words: "to get them to perform well." Does that mean to get them to "look" as if they are performing well on screen, or does that mean to get the aircraft being simulated by X-Plane's engine, to produce performance results (take-off, climb, cruise, descent, landing, roll-out) for a given set of atmospheric variables (density altitude, temperature, surface winds and winds aloft), that are as realistic as possible for a PC or Mac? In other words, can you rely on the simulation to a reasonable degree (I understand it won't be on the dime every time) on any long range flight planning factors such as Range & Endurance, Climb & Descent Rates, V-speeds, etc. The commands are easy for me to understand conceptually. Could you expand on the "datarefs" for me a bit more by giving a small example, please? So, I assume you are referring to some kind of API. What is the language of the API (java, C, C++, C-Sharp, VB, Perl, XML, R...)? It was not waffly and it was not short on good information. It was a great post that explains a lot for someone looking for this kind of information. I've learned more from this forum, than I have from all the others combined, about X-Plane. The more I learn, the more the choice becomes easier to make. Again, this will be one part of a much larger developmental program - so I'm not in this for the short haul. Thank you for such a well written reply!

Hello, Wonderful new site, and I certainly do appreciate the effort! Question: 1) What graphics modeling software did you use to build the now defunct GA airport, Megs Field? 2) Do you have a specific plan and/or objective for developing more airport models in the Western United States? Thanks and congratulations!

Aircraft Model Design, Accuracy & Integration Hello All: Thanks for helping to get me up to speed on how X-Plane handles flight dynamics. I really appreciated the help on that front. This next topic is one that I have seen posted before, but not in the way that I need to focus on the issue right now. In many sim forums, I have noticed that when people discuss "Aircraft Models" they often times illuminate over their most favorite aircraft with warm and fuzzy language to discribe things like how "knobs turn so realistically," or how the "amber glow of the cockpit at night seem so ethereal," or how much the aircraft on screen "looks so much like the real thing." However, that's nice - but that's not why I'm posting this particular thread. What I'm trying to understand is encompassed by three (3) large areas: 1) Who are the Aircraft Modelers 2) What do they know about Aircraft Modeling to Scale 3) Where do they obtain Planform & Geometry information for the Aircraft Model 4) How are they integrating the Aircraft Model Functions into the Flight Simulator I hardly ever see discussions about the size of the rudder within the model and how precisely it was scaled-up from a two dimensional drawing without distorting the aspect ratio of the original design, as just one of a hundred different examples of what I typically don't see being discussed very much - or to much depth. I know we've been discussion Flight Dynamics up until this point in the other thread. I'd like to shift into at least some detail about Aircraft Models, how they are constructed and who is ultimately responsible for making certain that the aircraft is correctly sized (for example) and that its specific geometry is specified correctly. Of course, this is another example of garbage-in-garbage-out. I've read threads on forums where people were reporting incorrect aircraft geometry in everything from wing size, flap size, angle of incidence, aileron size, area rule, airfoil camber, aircraft length, etc, etc, etc. In X-Plane, I would think that such design problems would present a significant problem for would-be aircraft modelers, given the approach that X-Plane takes to flight dynamics and how it ges about modeling it. I see some of these videos of people taking 2D 3-up drawings of aircraft (I don't know where they obtain the drawings exactly), importing them into applications such as Sketchup and then literally stringing together a partial "frame" of the aircraft before they apply the geometric (fitted) shapes, contouring, textures. etc. I then assume that they are saving the file as something that would be recognizable by FSX and X-Plane. But, I do not know (yet) how they are getting actual integration between the model they just created in the 3D application and the Flight Simulator itself (aileron, flap and rudder movement; flight control actuation; landing gear actuation, etc.). I'm not looking to build my own models (I hope), but I do want to understand who's building them, what they understand about such matters, where they obtain baseline data points for their 2D outlines or where are they obtaining the 3D models they start with and what understanding they have about aircraft mode shapes (geometry), planform, aspect ratio - I mean, there is a lot to know and discuss. This is all predicate upon the assumption that when you develop an aircraft model and drop it into FSX or X-Plane, that the Flight Simulator is responding to the model's "physical" attributes as described somewhere (I don't know yet) inside the aircraft model's files and then uses that information to makes its flight dynamics projections - as opposed to the Flight Simulator simply attaching its own idea about what the aircraft's geometry should look like and then forcing its own flight dynamics base on its assumptions of what it thinks it sees in the model. I hope that makes sense. Let me know if this is the right forum and/or the correct thread for this type of discussion, please. Any help in this area is greatly appreciated as well. Thanks!

New Thread Initiated

Yeah, no kidding. The "use it or lose it" axiom pretty much covers almost anything in aeronautical and aerospace engineering. I ended up working in enterprise software after leaving school, so I never actually applied my formal education in aerodynamics. However, I did end up going back to work on projects with all the major aerospace and aircraft manufacturing companies in the U.S., but as an enterprise software systems engineer through the software companies that I worked with over the years. So, I was able to stay somewhat "in touch" with aerospace, but not at ground zero on anything. I filled a niche role for the software companies, having some knowledge of both aerospace and enterprise software technology, I was able to work between both aeronautical integrations engineers and product drivers on one hand, and then go back to the office and articulate problems/solutions to the software engineers. Back when I was coming out of school, there were not a lot of jobs for aerospace science engineers. Most of the tech jobs were all about electrical engineering or double-e computer science (I did not see that freight train coming). Bottom line - multi-dimensional mathematics a language, and if you don't use it every day of your life, you will lose it over time. That sure did happen to me. But, I can still do a small amount of Rock'n Roll sometimes - typically in the area of differential equations, or non-linear extractions/transformation type stuff. But, I don't have super chops anymore, that's for sure. The software business has been good to me and I cannot complain about the career shift away from pure aerospace. However, with that said - when I look at what Elon Musk, is doing right now, it makes me drool. Not in envy, but in awe. If I were able to build a company today focused on aerospace, he's doing exactly what I would want to do with SpaceX. He's also doing some amazing stuff with Tesla Motors, but I digress quite far. Ah, yes. Now, it starts to make better sense. I did not know he was also indoctrinated in the field. So, we are pretty much aligned fairly well and fairly consistently in terms of educational background and interests. Do you know if he worked in the software industry before getting started with X-Plane? I got my initial start in the business with Oracle, but I've worked with a number of enterprise tech companies in SV. Small world. If you have not seen it already, you'll most likely get a chuckle out of this they way I did when I first watched it: Adding frequency is just probably not doable at these retail box levels. The transformations (FT and even FFT) on those calculations alone would shut down most the desktop machines currently running X-Plane right now. Of course, there are some variant transforms techniques that might be worth exploring (maybe, lol!). I assume he's documented a client side API for that? True. And, I think it is important to also realize that FEA can and should be bolstered with other methodologies such as lumped parameter analysis, finite differentials, finite volume studies, etc. Another potential issue is that fact that more independent corollary proofing methods need to be integrated into not just vehicle flight dynamics, but vehicle structural performance analyses as well. There also needs to be a better bridging of the gap between the human interface components of aircraft concept performance analysis and the actual flight testing environment, to provide a tighter (more integrated) level of fluidity between both disciplines. This is one of those areas where I used to function a technical liaison type role between aircraft developers and software & system component developers. It is also one of the reasons why I want to approach Garmin. I have an idea that I think can revolutionize the way pilots interact with Garmin Avionics and the entire cockpit and as far as FAA certification is concerned, they would only be adding one additional STC to their growing list of type certs. I think that if the industry (General Aviation) is going to "say" that it now features "Technically Advanced Aircraft," then it really ought to have genuine advancements that drive that point home and that make flying safer at the same time. We always talk about a "fully integrated avionics." But, we never talk about a "fully integrated pilot," and that is what I visualize on the horizon. I think Garmin might be in one of the best positions to make that happen - with the right product vision. If not Garmin, then Avidyne. Now, I really digress! (sorry) I was sort of thinking aloud on that last paragraph. I would assume that he's not actually changing the area rule geometry of the fuselage? After discussion some of this with you, it sounds like he knows what he's doing to a large degree and knows what he's trying to achieve and that was one of my main questions about Austin, and about X-Plane. With the shear processing power of today's desktop computer, you can make almost any "animation" look so-called "real." FSX, is a great example of that. What Lockheed Martin has done and will continue to do with P3D, is another story entirely. However, my early suspicion about four weeks ago, was that there was something different about X-Plane. My analytical nature caused me to investigate further and to go ahead and try both applications side-by-side and on alternating days. My hope (as I have mentioned before on this forum) was that I could use one of these solutions as a tool for memory work and procedures skills enhancement which does include long-range flight profile modeling in specific aircraft. My fear was that the flight dynamics might be ok, but the modal aircraft performance (in those dimensions mentioned earlier in this thread) might not be ok, making any attempt to simulate actual "flight planning" a moot point. Apparently, I can get a good dose of both with X-Plane, without learning bad habits. Now, that speaks for just the Flight Simulator itself. However, there is potential pitfall I need help with. I you recall, I need four (4) specific aircraft types: 1) SEL trainer with steam gauges (152, 172, 182RG , PA28R, AA-5x [either]) 2) ME prop with G1000 (Duke, Duchess, Seminole, Baron, Comanche [either]) 3) ME turbo-prop with G1000 (King Air C90, King Air Super 200, Cessna Conquest 441 [either]) 4) Phenom 300 with either G1000 or G3000 (exclusive) Each aircraft increasing in weight, performance and complexity, finally arriving at 17,000 - 18,000 lbs. MTOW. Who has the absolute best X-Plane based aircraft models for these four areas? I'm trying to narrow my search for only the best in class that fit these requirements. Or, will I end up having to make these aircraft models myself - something I am trying to avoid because just getting the geometry models together, looks like it would take considerable time: Regards.

Problem solved - case closed. Thanks.

Thanks, James. I've seen people discussing FRAP before but never knew what it was exactly or why they though it was necessary. Cheers. No kidding. There they are: Desktop > Flight Sim Evaluatioin > Fligh Sim Files > X-Plane X-Plane 10 Desktop Manual: Saving and Sharing Your Flight (section) Capturing a ScreenshotThe final method of saving or sharing your flight is to take a simple screenshot. This can be done either by pressing Shift + Spacebar, or by moving your mouse to the top of the screen, clicking the File menu, and clicking Take Screenshot. The captured image (a .png picture file) will appear in your top-level X-Plane directory, located by default on your Desktop. I should rename the thread from ScreenNots to MyStudyNot. My bad for wasting forum time. I should have looked more closely at the manual.

If one has ever worked in aviation then referring to a Part 121 operation has a very specific connotation with respect to aircraft type/category. The same holds true for flight training, where operations are very often referred to as being either a Part 141, or Part 61 - again, having a specific connotation with respect to type and kind of flight school and/or flight training program. Others, will also recognize the term a Part 135 operation, but that can have a broader meaning in relationship to type/category of aircraft used. One might find a Boeing 757 sitting on the same ramp next to a PA-28R, with both belonging to a Part 135 operation. In general, it might depend on ones' background as to whether or not such references are familiar, or unfamiliar. I still remember what the Fuel Load sheets looked like at an aircraft refueling company I worked at as a kid in school. Each account had the name of the customer along with the FAA Part number designating the type of flight operation and the type of aircraft to be fueled. I could have said General Aviation aircraft in one instance as opposed to Part 91, but for some people that's still somewhat cryptic. So, it might depend on what you've been exposed to in the past.

Yes, Peters Aircraft. That's what I was referring to. FAA Part 121 operations typically references "Commercial Airliner" type/category aircraft. FAA Part 91, typically references "General Aviation" type/category aircraft. Sorry, for the confusion.

Win7/64bit w/DirectX 10 X-Plane 10 Global v11.10 Starting in Full-Screen Mode -------------------------------------- ScreenShots Not Working Hello All: Neither the X-Plane default key assignment, nor the keyboard's PrintScreen key will capture an X-Plane full screen image. When using either SHIFT + Space Bar, or the keyboard's PrintScreen, a blank black screen is sent to the memory buffer, but no image of the actual X-Plane full screen. Reassignment of keys has no effect as well. Regardless of the key, or key combination used, nothing more than a blank black screen is ever captured. Normal Win 7 screen capture works in all other installed applications outside of X-Plane without fail. Any ideas on what's causig this and how to fix it? Thanks.

Do you have any intention of just going ahead and doing ALL of the United States at some point? Also, how big a project and how long would it take you to accomplish something like that? I do realize that we are probably talking about a bigger HDD to do it right, but your Scenery is so spectacular that it would be worth investing in either a new internal HDD, or a rather large external metalic Frisbee. Heavy metal Frisbees of sufficient size have gone down in price of late and it would only be a one time expenditure with a pretty significant gain in overall quality of experience, that's for certain.