Roll to the right on takeoff is NOT realistic. Normal takeoff with aileron trim neutral should yield absolutely no problems if it's realism they are after. I'm kind of confused about the developing point of view, as they claim some features have been implemented to be more realistic, but then some others are totally unrealistic and it's claimed to be done to give 'more of a challenge' or because it looks cool.

 

Amen!!!!

 

Glad someone with RW experience on a prop aircraft cares to come here and post this sort of info... I've been long trying to make clear that this sort of torque-induced roll, in the way it is modelled either due to it's own modelling inside of X-plane or to the fact that other canceling factors are not/ are not correctly implemented.

 

The same apllies to the "negative torque" when the power is reduced, say, for final descent, which being realistic on RW prop aircraft does not show it's evidence to the level we get in X-Plane since sometime in the past during XP9 evolution...

Yup.

As Cameron pointed out X-Aviation terms & conditions do not allow you to make any modifications, even if only for your personal use. :lol:

I learned it the hard way

 

Let's be real here, Radek...there was nothing hard about it at all. You were politely asked to remove something rather than reprimanded as per what the terms suggest is applicable. You followed through, and that's all there was to it.

 

"Custom simulated systems to mimic the real aircraft." and "More than 4000 lines of systems code." marketing slogans doesn't tell you all the truth.

 

These are not slogans (one of which is not even mentioned on the product page for sale). It is no lie that there are custom simulated systems in this aircraft. While challenging, it's also not full on study sim and we do not try to pass it as that. There's a reason the Take Command line was built, and a reason the Take Command designation was not offered on this product. That said, there are plenty of real systems simulated to a degree that provides more immersion than X-Plane's default systems can provide. Please don't try and skew words around for a laugh just because you got slapped on the wrist. I find your complaint truly irrelevant considering the issue you had was taken up/acknowledged and is slated for the next update as a fix.

 

As a side note:

 

I highly suggest anyone wishing to see what this aircraft has to offer to check out this great video posted by Keith Smith (no affiliation to me, the product, or anyone else other than just a customer)...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=graxp5CniLs

Not allowed to modify your own aircraft with in-game planemaker? It's getting funny here.

Not allowed to modify your own aircraft with in-game planemaker? It's getting funny here.

 

The basic rule here would be "don't ask, don't tell." We'll never know if you truly make adjustments and don't post about it, and if that's the case then so be it. Unfortunately, too many folks had been posting mods and instructions to do things they shouldn't have over the years which has caused a lot of unnecessary support. Many times, a lot of functionality breaks because the user making any edits doesn't realized they are creating a mess (on accident) as a side effect.

 

In the case of the poster above who mentioned this (Radek), he decided to "hack" the Jetstream plugin and make modifications to it, then posted a public video showing the edits to the source. His intentions were good overall. That said, it's not the type of thing we want people doing.

Let's be real here, Radek...there was nothing hard about it at all. You were politely asked to remove something rather than reprimanded as per what the terms suggest is applicable. You followed through, and that's all there was to it.

 

Totally agree! The way i was asked to remove was ok. The circumstances in which i was asked to do so is what i still can't understand. But let's leave it that way.

 

These are not slogans (one of which is not even mentioned on the product page for sale). It is no lie that there are custom simulated systems in this aircraft. While challenging, it's also not full on study sim and we do not try to pass it as that.

 

There is huge difference between "custom simulated systems" and "custom simulated systems to mimic the real aircraft".

Javier is surely great 3d artist and it looks like he mostly focused on this part. He even admits he's not a good programmer (kudos for saying that).

Nowadays, we're used to software being shipped with bugs on release (sadly), but the more time i spent with Jetstream, the more jawdropping moments i had (in a bad sense).

How can developer miss such trivial things like Flight Director bars being constantly waaaay out of sync? Not to mention wrong AP/FD logic and many, many more... "to mimic the real aircraft" still sounds ok?

 

But here's what i find much more frightening:

- i take my own time to document all the bugs i've found so far and put them up on a support forum

- in the first place, i'm told that certain bugs are features!

- again, take my own time to study one of the bugs, document it, clearly tape it on a video, find out where the problem is and provide a ready fix to the author (source code!)

- being accused of violating X-Aviation ToS have to remove it

- Javier still doesn't exactly get what is wrong and asks me for a description

- finally, he more or less understands what is wrong

- as a way of saying "thanks", accuses me of being brazen with all those bug reports and tells me he rather targets average simmers

 

Come on, Cameron!

Maybe i'm insolent to you, but now go and take a look at the product page on your site and tell your reflection in the mirror that "everything's allright!".

I've been simming for the last 15 years, participated in various beta tests of payware addons (both, closed and open tests) and i'm simply stunned when looking at this particular case.

The only good thing is Javier said he nailed some of the issues in upcoming patch.

 

I'm not posting because i got "slapped on the wrist", but because i think it's way unfair attitude towards customers. Let the truth be told before people spend their own money (it's everyone's decision, but i wish someone had warned me before). Simple as that.

 

There's a reason the Take Command line was built, and a reason the Take Command designation was not offered on this product.

 

The question being: do i have to be familiar with all your offerings to notice such naming conventions and know what you have on your mind using or not using them?

In the case of the poster above who mentioned this (Radek), he decided to "hack" the Jetstream plugin and make modifications to it, then posted a public video showing the edits to the source. His intentions were good overall. That said, it's not the type of thing we want people doing.

 

Let me clarify this:

 

1. I did not touch Jetstream plugin. I'm not that determined to disassemble binary code and work with it afterwards.

2. Wrote my own plugin from scratch to correctly calculate position of FD bar.

3. Replaced two lines in OBJ files to reference datarefs from my plugin.

4. Video was set as non-public on YT so only folks visiting Jetstream support forum could see it.

 

By the way, i think i could have fixed the problem without actions from point 3. Would that still be violation of X-Aviation ToS?

If i write myself a plugin that affects aircraft behaviour without modyfing it's files, is that still considered violating ToS?

If yes, it's getting really funny here, because we all can be accused of violating ToS when using KLN90B, or even Sandy Barbour's TrackIR plugin.

Radek,

 

It's simple: approaching someone with a video of their source code being altered in public view is not likely to be well received. A better way to go about that would have been through PM. This isn't some open source project, so let's be realistic.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with you sharing your honest feelings let alone bugs. This is how things get solved and products get better. It's how you approach doing so that is of concern.

 

At this point you're trying to dig deep to try and state things are bad or worse than they are. The reality here is a lot of work went into the product, there are custom systems that mimic the real aircraft, and more importantly there is a track record of tending to people's concerns be it public or private and always updating products to make them even better based on user feedback. Case in point, the CRJ-200. Javier has made it very clear numerous times that after a year of constant development he's in a short wind down period for the holidays before coming back to go full on again. Perhaps the language barrier is something that contributes to the issue, but I can assure you without hesitation that our intentions are always good.

 

By the way, i think i could have fixed the problem without actions from point 3. Would that still be violation of X-Aviation ToS?

 

No.

 

If i write myself a plugin that affects aircraft behaviour without modyfing it's files, is that still considered violating ToS?

 

No.

I'm overdramatising things here. Before making a purchase I'll email the X-A administrators asking for permission to make specific types of modification, all for my own personal use:

 

- changing dataref names in the .obj files

- changing animations in the .obj files

- altering the .acf with PlaneMaker

 

If I can get written permission (an email/PM must count as 'written'), I'll buy the aircraft, and modify away. Otherwise I probably won't. I won't deliberately ignore the wishes of the developer/vendor and ignore the ToS, even privately!

 

(Coincidentally, happy Christmas everyone!)