Hi Y'all,First, re: gradient blending in OpenGL: you can make simple gradients using quad strips - for each part of the gradient that has a linear color ramp you use one quad.If you need something more complex, you can use textures. Basically if you need a gradient that cannot be simulated by piece-wise linear approximation, then you draw the gradient into a PNG file and load it as a texture, which is then dynamically applied over the rectangle you draw.But...my guess is piece-wise linear approximation is good enough for virtually any glass cockpit...because you're running on modern 3-d hardware, you could use a very large number of quads in the strip without a performance hit.Jean-Luci s correct that you can use a shader to program any custom gradient...probably not necessary in most cases though.Second, re: airplanes requiring 920...basically whenever we have an atomic, self contained, new feature supporting backward compatibility (e.g. the addition of new instruments, the addition of a new ways to handle mouse clicks in a 3-d cockpit) we can sit on the feature or release it.Our policy so far has been to release the features, so that airplane developers have the _option_ of using the most modern tech we have.If you are working on an airplane and would rather have a stable platform, the solution is simple: continue developing for/with the older version of x-plane. The plane will work with newer versions, will ignore the new features, and you'll have a lower minimum version requirement.In other words, when it comes to atomic features, you, the developer, can choose to lower the update frequency by ignoring new features.(Of course, this doesn't take into account marketing pressure...if you target 850 and by the time your plane is done 930 is here, maybe users will have come to expect real 3-d lighting in the 3-d cockpit, 3-d manipulation, etc.)Sometimes releasing features incrementally causes problems:http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/02/...-in-desert.htmlBut the real issue with the panel is not the incremental release of features, it's been the lack of a road map...had I realized how much panel code I would end up writing over the last 9 months, I would have intentionally changed the release order of features to provide an interface that isn't as muddled with legacy code support.cheersBen

I thought I'd add another thought.I use a sim really for one specific reason. To keep cobwebs off my rw flying when I can't, to get situational awareness of new places I am going to, and to practice continually in a variety of weather conditions, and system failures to keep sharp.I just returned from a 1600 nm 4 day flying trip. My first stop was Knoxville Downtown Island airport (kdkx). I have been to Knoxville many times but always chose the bigger ktys airport for its long runways and lack of terrain. This time an internet friend invited me to kdkx-and I decided to take the plunge. A shorter 3500 ft. runway with the Tennessee river on both approach and departure ends and terrain surrounding the airport I knew would make a challenge for a fast moving Baron but I decided to take the challenge. Mess up and you are in the river landing-or running off the end-not to mention a few hills in the way.A few days before the real trip I tried it on both fsx and xplane. Fsx I found was a slight problem. Fsx put fences and dense trees on both ends of the runway-so the only way I could land on this "short" field was to hit the trees and the fence-not great for practice purposes.. In addition the water of the river on each side didn't look realistic, and the Fs default Baron felt "slow" and handled a little bit like on rails. The terrain detail around the airport was quite good though.Xplane had a good looking realistic river, and had a runway without "fake" barriers. The terrain while not as detailed as fsx gave a good approximation. The handling of the Baron was very good-the speed sensation great. It just felt more real..Result-xplane in this instance was a much more valuable tool for me. When I landed there the next day-I felt the experience on xplane had helped me greatly to deal with the reality of the situation-fsx not so much. After landing the person I was to meet told me most Baron drivers come in hot-burn their brakes and have a bald spot on their tire trying to stop before running into the river. I did not-and he congratulated me. I give a lot of credit to a flight sim-and in this case xplane did a better job preparing me!(My copilot video taped the whole landing-I hope to post fairly soon on my avsim homepage). My particular way of using a sim I know-but in this instance Xplane was very useful...at least maybe helped save a bald tire let alone a river swim.. :(

I thought I'd add another thought.I use a sim really for one specific reason. To keep cobwebs off my rw flying when I can't, to get situational awareness of new places I am going to, and to practice continually in a variety of weather conditions, and system failures to keep sharp.I just returned from a 1600 nm 4 day flying trip. My first stop was Knoxville Downtown Island airport (kdkx). I have been to Knoxville many times but always chose the bigger ktys airport for its long runways and lack of terrain. This time an internet friend invited me to kdkx-and I decided to take the plunge. A shorter 3500 ft. runway with the Tennessee river on both approach and departure ends and terrain surrounding the airport I knew would make a challenge for a fast moving Baron but I decided to take the challenge. Mess up and you are in the river landing-or running off the end-not to mention a few hills in the way.A few days before the real trip I tried it on both fsx and xplane. Fsx I found was a slight problem. Fsx put fences and dense trees on both ends of the runway-so the only way I could land on this "short" field was to hit the trees and the fence-not great for practice purposes.. In addition the water of the river on each side didn't look realistic, and the Fs default Baron felt "slow" and handled a little bit like on rails. The terrain detail around the airport was quite good though.Xplane had a good looking realistic river, and had a runway without "fake" barriers. The terrain while not as detailed as fsx gave a good approximation. The handling of the Baron was very good-the speed sensation great. It just felt more real..Result-xplane in this instance was a much more valuable tool for me. When I landed there the next day-I felt the experience on xplane had helped me greatly to deal with the reality of the situation-fsx not so much. After landing the person I was to meet told me most Baron drivers come in hot-burn their brakes and have a bald spot on their tire trying to stop before running into the river. I did not-and he congratulated me. I give a lot of credit to a flight sim-and in this case xplane did a better job preparing me!(My copilot video taped the whole landing-I hope to post fairly soon on my avsim homepage). My particular way of using a sim I know-but in this instance Xplane was very useful...at least maybe helped save a bald tire let alone a river swim.. :(

Xplane had a good looking realistic river, and had a runway without "fake" barriers. The terrain while not as detailed as fsx gave a good approximation. The handling of the Baron was very good-the speed sensation great. It just felt more real..

I guess it's going to take some more work with X-Plane to get me convinced.........................but I'll keep open minded! After being flight sim computerless for the last few months, I got it repared today, including an upgraded video card. Now that FSX runs good again, I flew some saved flights with the RealAir Marchetti SF260, which is in many ways like my Van's RV6A. Except for the lack of braking effect when employing the constant speed prop for landing purposes; FSX and this airplane still seem quite convincing.I just haven't got to that point with X-Plane yet. But then I haven't gone into plane maker and made adjustments either. The default RV's included with X-Plane are not worth worrying about, since their exteriors and cockpits are no-where close to the SF260 from RealAir. The flight dynamics as default, are not good either. But, since Geof and I have usually agreed for the same reasons concerning a number of different flight sims..............he gives me a reason to experiment and explore X-Plane farther. L.Adamson

I guess it's going to take some more work with X-Plane to get me convinced.........................but I'll keep open minded! After being flight sim computerless for the last few months, I got it repared today, including an upgraded video card. Now that FSX runs good again, I flew some saved flights with the RealAir Marchetti SF260, which is in many ways like my Van's RV6A. Except for the lack of braking effect when employing the constant speed prop for landing purposes; FSX and this airplane still seem quite convincing.I just haven't got to that point with X-Plane yet. But then I haven't gone into plane maker and made adjustments either. The default RV's included with X-Plane are not worth worrying about, since their exteriors and cockpits are no-where close to the SF260 from RealAir. The flight dynamics as default, are not good either. But, since Geof and I have usually agreed for the same reasons concerning a number of different flight sims..............he gives me a reason to experiment and explore X-Plane farther. L.Adamson

Am I dragging you down again Larry? :( The reality xp Garmin 430/530 just released just added a lot to the sim-I think some good add ons are coming...A good Rv would be nice..

What I like about x-plane.It simply feels better... take the B1900 by Jan Grundke.Slips just feel like what I think they should... it's not that FSX doesn't do the right thing, it's just that it doesn't feel right. Maybe it is a slight delay.. I don't knowbut x-plane just feels more responsive.I don't have a love / hate relationship with either sim, and I like them both. X-Plane just feels like you are actually moving. I have to set FSX zoom level to even have any feeling of moving in FSX. The default zoom makes me feel everything is in slow motion. It is only a feeling.. I have timed the speed and it is right, but it simply feels slow.Just my 2 cents...

I tired xplane 9 as well, flight model good, but no payware add-ons comparable in quality and depth to say the PMDG line, no flight planners of note.

What I like about x-plane.It simply feels better... take the B1900 by Jan Grundke.Slips just feel like what I think they should... it's not that FSX doesn't do the right thing, it's just that it doesn't feel right. Maybe it is a slight delay.. I don't knowbut x-plane just feels more responsive.I don't have a love / hate relationship with either sim, and I like them both. X-Plane just feels like you are actually moving. I have to set FSX zoom level to even have any feeling of moving in FSX. The default zoom makes me feel everything is in slow motion. It is only a feeling.. I have timed the speed and it is right, but it simply feels slow.Just my 2 cents...

Sensation of speed within in a sim is just a function of the zoom level. In real life, movement appears to slow down fast, when looking out the front windscreen. Even though I'm just a few thousand feet up & approaching 175 miles per hour a few miles from the airport (real life).................the ground seems to move by slowly. You can see the reverse of this when a jet airliner approaches an airport. Even though it's decelerating from 170 knots to 130 knots; it often appears as if it's just suspended in mid air, and moving at five miles per hour at best. The same thing happens when I land. It's almost as if I'm just sitting there, even though I'm slowing down from around 90 miles per hour IAS. It's not until I'm close to a round out and flare...............to where the surroundings really seem to get moving again.L.Adamson

Sensation of speed within in a sim is just a function of the zoom level. In real life, movement appears to slow down fast, when looking out the front windscreen. Even though I'm just a few thousand feet up & approaching 175 miles per hour a few miles from the airport (real life).................the ground seems to move by slowly. You can see the reverse of this when a jet airliner approaches an airport. Even though it's decelerating from 170 knots to 130 knots; it often appears as if it's just suspended in mid air, and moving at five miles per hour at best. The same thing happens when I land. It's almost as if I'm just sitting there, even though I'm slowing down from around 90 miles per hour IAS. It's not until I'm close to a round out and flare...............to where the surroundings really seem to get moving again.L.Adamson

I got to agree with Jim-I'd like to put a video of rw approach with the two sims-xplane makes it easy by having a built in video recorder unlike fs. But gotta say-it just looks/feels more real on xplane somehow-the speed and handling....Sometimes other things get in the way (lack of airport detail, taxiways etc.) but in general it just feels a little more right.

Sensation of speed within in a sim is just a function of the zoom level. In real life, movement appears to slow down fast, when looking out the front windscreen. Even though I'm just a few thousand feet up & approaching 175 miles per hour a few miles from the airport (real life).................the ground seems to move by slowly. You can see the reverse of this when a jet airliner approaches an airport. Even though it's decelerating from 170 knots to 130 knots; it often appears as if it's just suspended in mid air, and moving at five miles per hour at best. The same thing happens when I land. It's almost as if I'm just sitting there, even though I'm slowing down from around 90 miles per hour IAS. It's not until I'm close to a round out and flare...............to where the surroundings really seem to get moving again.L.Adamson

I've never felt that way looking out the window as a passenger. I don't doubt you, but even with zoom if I do a slip in FSX everything seems to work ie. I drop in altitude without gaining airspeed, but when I do it in X-Plane it just feels like I'm dropping in altitude... I can't explain it! It just feels more right to me.

...but when I do it in X-Plane it just feels like I'm dropping in altitude... I can't explain it! It just feels more right to me.

Could it be just that X-Plane can sustain higher frame rates stutter-free and THIS is the main reason your eye/brain gets fooled more easily? furthermore, in my opinion, the higher resolution per pixels FSX can display spoils the illusion of flight, especially because the autogen and the texture details are not to scale.

I got to agree with Jim-I'd like to put a video of rw approach with the two sims-xplane makes it easy by having a built in video recorder unlike fs. But gotta say-it just looks/feels more real on xplane somehow-the speed and handling....Sometimes other things get in the way (lack of airport detail, taxiways etc.) but in general it just feels a little more right.

So.............. here we've got two R/W pilots totally disagreeing! Which one is correct? :( L.Adamson

So.............. here we've got two R/W pilots totally disagreeing! Which one is correct? :( L.Adamson

As always-subjective!My feeling right now is fsx is superior on scenery areas such as airports, cities, and general landclass depictions. Visuals like clouds, high res textures that are clear close to the ground. Availability of add on's of course.Xplane with a good fm is superior in ground handling and flight (but you have to get a good fm-and there are few available).Weather atmospherics are better, effects such as icing are better, autogen blends better, and water is clearly superior. Smoothness with a good flight model does come much closer to real flight.As for landing-I was surprised after using xplane only for a month and then going back to fsx. Even though fsx is better in landing characteristics than fs9, I couldn't shake that "rails" feeling in compare to xplane-and the speed sensation just did not "feel" as right.

As for landing-I was surprised after using xplane only for a month and then going back to fsx. Even though fsx is better in landing characteristics than fs9, I couldn't shake that "rails" feeling in compare to xplane-and the speed sensation just did not "feel" as right.

And I still feel that X-Plane is operating in a lifeless vacuum, rather than air molecules... I've used it for two days now, and just don' get the satisfied feeling that I do from FSX. Point and counterpoint.. :( L.Adamson

And I still feel that X-Plane is operating in a lifeless vacuum, rather than air molecules... I've used it for two days now, and just don' get the satisfied feeling that I do from FSX. Point and counterpoint.. :( L.Adamson

The vacuum will only come with the default fm's which are poor.You can manually adjust parameters-under the weight and balance, controls section, and the right hand joystick parameter that will remove that completely.