February 5, 201313 yr http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=16271 Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
February 5, 201313 yr Yes ... a great piece of airplane. My sceneries (excerpt): LPMA Madeira (XPFR), LGSR Santorini, LRBV Brasov, the city of Fürth (Germany), several libraries, ...
February 5, 201313 yr It's been mentioned, in the comment section, that the animated ailerons are opposite of what they should be. The video is fast, you're looking towards the rear.............and it certainly looks like the observation is correct. I couldn't zoom in on the tower view shots, with enough clarity to tell. I'm very aware of the proper orientation of ailerons, since my life has depended on it. The video makes my head swim, & I don't think my eye balls are working backwards. In the meantime, it's a cool airplane, especially with the pilot's head movements to simulate G-forces. L.Adamson
February 6, 201313 yr You know, not to knock XP too hard, but how does the blade element theory compensate for the fact that the ailerons are moving so wrongly? This just shouldn't be able to happen if I understand the concept is that XP calculates air flowing over the surfaces...but they're going the wrong way, so that just confuses me... Aaron
February 6, 201313 yr You know, not to knock XP too hard, but how does the blade element theory compensate for the fact that the ailerons are moving so wrongly? This just shouldn't be able to happen if I understand the concept is that XP calculates air flowing over the surfaces...but they're going the wrong way, so that just confuses me... The Sbach 300 for X-Plane (as most aircrafts for X-Plane today, including most of the default ones) uses a separate 3d model for the visual representation of the aircraft, so it's effectively disconnected from the 3d model that determines the flight model (and that is set as "invisible" inside Plane-Maker). "Society has become so fake that the truth actually bothers people".
February 6, 201313 yr Thats kinda crazy...in order for XP to have a valid flight model concept, you'd think that the visual model would be the same used to calculate flight performance...any differences in 3D design in the two wouldn't be the the same plane... Aaron
February 6, 201313 yr The 3d model used to calculate the flight model is necessarily not as detailed as the one used for visual represantation can be. It does not make sense to have a 100.000 polygons 3d model to calculate the flight model, that would be too much computationally intensive (and in part useless) "Society has become so fake that the truth actually bothers people".
February 6, 201313 yr It's been mentioned, in the comment section, that the animated ailerons are opposite of what they should be. As the video title says, it is an animation test. The video was done about 2 months before release of the aircraft. The Sbach 300 for X-Plane (as most aircrafts for X-Plane today, including most of the default ones) uses a separate 3d model for the visual representation of the aircraft, so it's effectively disconnected from the 3d model that determines the flight model (and that is set as "invisible" inside Plane-Maker). The 3d model used to calculate the flight model is necessarily not as detailed as the one used for visual represantation can be. It does not make sense to have a 100.000 polygons 3d model to calculate the flight model, that would be too much computationally intensive (and in part useless) That's absolutely correct ... and with the release of the aircraft, the bug with the opposite movement was fixed. I use the aircraft with much joy (unfortunately too seldom ... lack of time). My sceneries (excerpt): LPMA Madeira (XPFR), LGSR Santorini, LRBV Brasov, the city of Fürth (Germany), several libraries, ...
Create an account or sign in to comment