X-Plane 11.30 Beta is out!

[Glenn_C 135]

15 hours ago, Cactus521 said:

You will find it interesting.  I did not try a fixed wing jet flight with the default aircraft before I reverted, since outside of the S76 and 172, I only fly add-on aircraft with Xplane11.  It was the way the effects looked off of my Aerobask Eclipse that turned me off.  They did not look real and the fps when viewing them from the external view, although not too low, felt choppy and not as smooth as 11.26.  Prop aircraft handled just fine and smoothly, however, since except for wheel smoke on touchdown those do not have effects associated with them. 

I am sure these issues will be ironed out, the devs read these forums and as long as we discuss them respectfully they will respond.  I still think of Xplane as the savior of our hobby during the dark ages after Microsoft had dropped MSFS, Xplane is what spurred Lockheed Martin to take up FSX and turn it into P3D.  Austin reminds me of the old movie "The Mouse that Roared" as he successfully saved the integrity of our hobby. 

My own former employer, JDA software, was not unlike Xplane.  We dominated the retail supply chain software industry against the likes of giants like Oracle, capturing 80 pct. of the market.  I always liked supporting and working for underdogs.  My business systems training company Cyntergy in 93-95 implemented the biggest deployment of Unix based systems in the history of the hospitality industry, taking over the workload from IBM when they could not provide the resources Holiday Inn needed to fulfill their deliverables. 

We completed 500 systems implementations worldwide in two years, even though IBM managed us and we were considered virtual employees of their company and Holiday Inn.  Once again, the small guys, just 80 of us, did something that had not been done before.  I see Austin's team like that in our hobby and identify with them so well, especially now that my career is over.

John

Agree with your comments. Laminar needs the feedback to make things better and as a user of X-Plane for 3 or 4 years it is now starting to come of age so to speak. And this being beta I do not judge any changes in FPS now to be what it will be in the 11.30 release. It was the same during previous beta releases but things gradually got better as time went on.

Offtopic: JDA Software is a customer of ours i.e. uses our software, it's one of the few of our customers that has not gone through a name change in the last 16 years :)

[Humpty 751]

15 hours ago, Cactus521 said:

You will find it interesting.  I did not try a fixed wing jet flight with the default aircraft before I reverted, since outside of the S76 and 172, I only fly add-on aircraft with Xplane11.  It was the way the effects looked off of my Aerobask Eclipse that turned me off.  They did not look real and the fps when viewing them from the external view, although not too low, felt choppy and not as smooth as 11.26.  Prop aircraft handled just fine and smoothly, however, since except for wheel smoke on touchdown those do not have effects associated with them. 

I am sure these issues will be ironed out, the devs read these forums and as long as we discuss them respectfully they will respond.  I still think of Xplane as the savior of our hobby during the dark ages after Microsoft had dropped MSFS, Xplane is what spurred Lockheed Martin to take up FSX and turn it into P3D.  Austin reminds me of the old movie "The Mouse that Roared" as he successfully saved the integrity of our hobby. 

My own former employer, JDA software, was not unlike Xplane.  We dominated the retail supply chain software industry against the likes of giants like Oracle, capturing 80 pct. of the market.  I always liked supporting and working for underdogs.  My business systems training company Cyntergy in 93-95 implemented the biggest deployment of Unix based systems in the history of the hospitality industry, taking over the workload from IBM when they could not provide the resources Holiday Inn needed to fulfill their deliverables. 

We completed 500 systems implementations worldwide in two years, even though IBM managed us and we were considered virtual employees of their company and Holiday Inn.  Once again, the small guys, just 80 of us, did something that had not been done before.  I see Austin's team like that in our hobby and identify with them so well, especially now that my career is over.

John

Yep , these things will get sorted out. I was just under the impression that something of vulkan would be coded and really looked forward to it but then i read that Vulkan is for next year, But still as usual i updated. Though i have no complains except a couple of them were bugs that i reported to LR. 

What i feel is that i can increase the number of Objects and still retain that 11.26 fps , i kept the Objects to MAX. 

I will be checking that particle stuff in a few minutes with the 109 / F4U wingtip vertices.

that's some serious implementation of 500 systems world wide.

ah the 90's computer evolution 🙂

 

[Humpty 751]

The particle system.

I thought one would also see the wingtip vertices when you look at the wing during a pitch up moment ?

 

 

This one is just for fun.

[jcomm 5,937]

It's fun, but as far as I can tell pretty much unrealistic as presently modelled.

Doesn't make sense to see when you pull on a C172!  Doesn't make sense unless there's saturated or nearly saturated air your travelling across... This happens now in XP irrespective of any humidity factor in as far as I can tell...

[Humpty 751]

49 minutes ago, jcomm said:

It's fun, but as far as I can tell pretty much unrealistic as presently modelled.

Doesn't make sense to see when you pull on a C172!  Doesn't make sense unless there's saturated or nearly saturated air your travelling across... This happens now in XP irrespective of any humidity factor in as far as I can tell...

If you mean the vortices, that i think can be assigned per aircraft, It's the particle emitter. I don't know if a 172 can get wingtip vortices,   but i am no expert

Let's wait for things to settle down , it's just the 1st 11.30 beta , things might change

Edited October 28, 2018 by HumptyDumpty

[John_Cillis 2,406]

35 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

If you mean the vortices, that i think can be assigned per aircraft, It's the particle emitter. I don't know if a 172 can get wingtip vortices,   but i am no expert

Let's wait for things to settle down , it's just the 1st 11.30 beta , things might change

I laugh because things I reported in the FSX beta could not be fixed until P3DV4 came out.  Biggest challenge was city buildings would sometimes disappear at certain angles when photoreal scenery was used, because autogen could not be displayed.  It was so hard to articulate the issue.  I felt since I could not participate in the beta until after the NDA had been lifted, I felt obligated to purchase FSX despite being given the free copy of it for being in the beta.  I participated fully in the FS9 beta so I accepted that freebie from Microsoft, and I was also given the insight about the environment textures that allowed me to create Soft Horizons for FS9 and later FSX, which are incorporated into P3DV4, probably their own creation though, not mine.  However I feel Xplane11 had the best horizon and atmospheric blending of any sim I've seen, which is why the scenery, whether default or the OrthoXP photoreal I created for central Arizona, look so well done to me.  For that reason my nod still goes to Xplane11 as the more realistic of the two sims, although I do prefer most of the flight models in P3DV4 a tad more, since it was easier for me to model an ultralight there and LSA aircraft once upon a time, as well as other flight models I worked on.  I also prefer the autopilot behavior in P3DV4 slightly more, although Xplane11's approach hold I like better and feel it is easier to autoland even without the 11.30 improvements.  I feel Austin and his team have done so remarkably well with Xplane and the free participation they give us users in their betas, and the choice they give us to upgrade or not as we see fit.

John

[sightseer 895]

In this first beta, in the default Cessna 172, is there any way to disconnect the autopilot?  There was a master AP on/off switch but it appears to have gone missing in 11.30.  Is that what you see?

[jcomm 5,937]

But overall I am satisfied with the new FDM!

Ground handling under x-winds changed dramatically, even in the default taildragger, and ground effect looks very plausible now.

Even in helis, after initially having tried without success I was finally able to not get out of VRS with collective in the default S76.

 

[RedPxl 14]

17 minutes ago, sightseer said:

In this first beta, in the default Cessna 172, is there any way to disconnect the autopilot?  There was a master AP on/off switch but it appears to have gone missing in 11.30.  Is that what you see?

You now have the autopilot button on the yoke (clickable) or you can assign it to one of your joystick button.

They removed the AP on/off button because its not there on the real unit apparently.

You can also take a quick look at the latest video from Philipp explaining fonctions of the new autopilot on the 172. Note that at the time of the video the 3D panel wasn't updated yet and you still see the AP button.

[Humpty 751]

11 minutes ago, jcomm said:

But overall I am satisfied with the new FDM!

Ground handling under x-winds changed dramatically, even in the default taildragger, and ground effect looks very plausible now.

Even in helis, after initially having tried without success I was finally able to not get out of VRS with collective in the default S76.

 

Jozeh with 0 collective it's like auto rotation , you need some collective , ask a heli pilote. 

also what brett quoted me saying that keep fpm way above 300 as the 300 number is old info. Also note heavy helis will pull down faster 

Have u tried in the 412 ? i tried but i am not sure if it was ok or maybe i need to resave with PM

[jcomm 5,937]

Yes, of course full down collective doesn't count, but even if you use it, when you rise it you load the rotor enough to enter VRS too... 

Anyway I did try the 412 and it was also impossible to recover near the ground in one of my tests. So something really changed for the better...

 

 

[strider1 575]

14 hours ago, Janov said:

Here is my 2 cts regarding the beta:

• New particle effects can be tuned as desired by airplane authors, i.e. WHEN they show, how strong they are, etc. This will be further tuned for default aircraft (removing excess condensation effects for pulling AOA)
• Better ground effect - most aircraft need less "pull back" during the flare, depending on aircraft geometry (how much stabilizer is affected by downwash). This is INDEPENDENT of the "new experimental flight model" checkbox
• Clouds block lights at night - this wasn´t even mentionend in the release notes (I think), but is HUGE for realistic flying
• Framerate gain/loss seems to vary from system to system. There is only so much "optimizing" that can be done - in the end your computer has to expend computing power to render a picture. As visual fidelity goes up (particles effect), rendering load goes up with it. Cause and effect, no way around that (no, not even bitching about how everything was better "way back then" 😂). To everyone waiting for the "Vulcan magic bullet" to somehow transform your old, struggling, marginal hardware into a "90fps all sliders to max wow that looks awesome" machine: You are in for a big disappointment, I think.

Cheers, Jan

 

 

The light/cloud transparency bug was a huge pet peeve of mine, flying IFR at night is a blast now! That + better ground effect and the TBM 900 has pulled me back into the sim!!!! 

[NickJZX 17]

Now to wait for steam, I agree that the lighting blocked by clouds is a big deal. That must apply to daytime IMC as well no? I’ve noticed in thick fog I can still see the lights so I imagine that’s fixed. Good to hear about the ground effect, I thought I was crazy with the amount id have to pull back to flare.

[MadDog 353]

9 hours ago, jcomm said:

But overall I am satisfied with the new FDM!

Just curious if you're using the "experimental" flight model or default?  Ground friction seems to be much improved with both.  Have only spent a few minutes with the experimental flight dynamics in the C172; but didn't notice any huge differences (is the impact of propwash better in experimental?).  Either way, very happy with the changes!

[strider1 575]

6 hours ago, NickJZX said:

Now to wait for steam, I agree that the lighting blocked by clouds is a big deal. That must apply to daytime IMC as well no? I’ve noticed in thick fog I can still see the lights so I imagine that’s fixed. Good to hear about the ground effect, I thought I was crazy with the amount id have to pull back to flare.

Yes it applies to daytime IMC too! Now to figure out this g1000. Lots of quirks, it's dangerous in IMC! The FD has a mind of its own! I should read the manual!