signmanbob

Aircraft In Development for X-Plane 11

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Posted (edited)

Nice list.  Just noticed Rob Wilson is doing a Citation Mustang...  that's pretty cool!  There's some lovely GA planes coming too like the Lancair Legacy, RV7, "Draco" and "Turbulence" and the pocket rocket, plus Dan's PC-6 Porter!!  Woohoo an expensive summer lol (oh and I almost forgot Aerobask's latest announcement of their partnership with Dassault and the Falcon 8x!)

Edited by ryanbatcund
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m so excited about the Legacy RG and Mustang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love seeing the Duchess in Xplane11, a great twin with great aesthetics....  I saw someone is creating a Kitfox, but I have its cousin from VSkyLabs, the Eurofox, so I will probably pass on that one, VSkylabs nailed it with the Eurofox.  I have a cool freeware ATR in Xplane11 but a commercial grade one, I might buy, I have flown on that aircraft and along with the Embraer tprop I loved it, especially with the high wing that allowed outstanding pax window seat views from wherever one sat. 

I cannot remember where I last was in an ATR, but I believe it might have been somewhere near Cincy, not sure though, I flew so much and so often in the 90's for business I even tried keeping a log of my flights and the equipment, but it was lost when my last computer died. 

But I was amazed that my overall air miles had circled the earth in distance many times over, probably close to 314,159 miles (inside joke, I wonder if someone will guess it, but that is probably the exact distance I have flown to this point in time based on my last addition to Europe in 2017).

John

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairchild F-27 or FH-227B would be welcomed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be on the list because they don't announce much in advance, but Carenado will probably port their recent FSX/P3D releases of the FA50 jet and Beech D18S to X-Plane. We need an updated Beech 18, the STMS/Heinz version is getting long in the tooth.

Also not on the list, there is an update in the works for the older free model of the Hughes 500D helicopter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd, did not see IXEG's 737 in the list, although I do not fly it anymore due to the lack of updates, it is still a great aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saab 2000  is missing,  Short Brothers SD-360[flying box], Classic birds like the Nord 262.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/22/2019 at 11:28 AM, Arthur42417 said:

no PMDG on list😥😕

I won't miss their attitude and pricing on XP for sure. I think the DC-6 on XP is a perfect example of how much they tried to make money with the smallest effort, and they left it pretty bugged still from what i heard.

Edited by france89
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But I do think we need a good 747-200, as well as a -400, probably including the variants these models had IRL. Something detailed enough to be considered a "study-level" add-on 🙂

I would also love to have a sophisticated L-1011 and, of course, a truly remarkable Concorde!  A Concorde modelled with realism and detail would be a Great add-on for XP.

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, france89 said:

I won't miss their attitude and pricing on XP for sure. I think the DC-6 on XP is a perfect example of how much they tried to make money with the smallest effort, and they left it pretty bugged still from what i heard.

I think you are wrong. The problem with the DC-6 was much deeper. They didn't really communicate with Ben directly, when they started their work. They didn't really knew what they were doing and in fact how fast the environment in X-Plane changes. You have to be a real part of the community to really see, what is happening and what is changing.

They started to work on building a plane according to the SDKs that were available with X-Plane 10.00, since they believed that this would contain everything that they would need. But Laminar never worked this way. In 10.20 X-Plane was finally 64 Bit ready and in 10.30 Laminar added official override possibilities to the flight model. This change was especially targeted toward plane coverters like Carenado/Thranda or PMDG, but PMDG never heard about these changes. Instead they tried to tune the flight model the old way, by fine tuning in plane maker and with the aerodynamic forces.Totally inefficient for a company like PMDG. While Ben established ways that an external flight model or engine model can overrule X-Planes system. These systems allowed things like the Reality Expansion Packs by SimCoders or the Flight Factor A320.

They also used their established Beta Testers, so they didn't have active X-Plane fans in their internal staff, that could warn them.

The result: They released a plane that they could have released for 10.00 while the real community had left this stage long ago and every new developed feature looked already outdated. It was probably one of the most costly development failure for X-Plane ever! And all due to a complete lack of communication.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Longranger said:

I think you are wrong. The problem with the DC-6 was much deeper. They didn't really communicate with Ben directly, when they started their work. They didn't really knew what they were doing and in fact how fast the environment in X-Plane changes. You have to be a real part of the community to really see, what is happening and what is changing.

They started to work on building a plane according to the SDKs that were available with X-Plane 10.00, since they believed that this would contain everything that they would need. But Laminar never worked this way. In 10.20 X-Plane was finally 64 Bit ready and in 10.30 Laminar added official override possibilities to the flight model. This change was especially targeted toward plane coverters like Carenado/Thranda or PMDG, but PMDG never heard about these changes. Instead they tried to tune the flight model the old way, by fine tuning in plane maker and with the aerodynamic forces.Totally inefficient for a company like PMDG. While Ben established ways that an external flight model or engine model can overrule X-Planes system. These systems allowed things like the Reality Expansion Packs by SimCoders or the Flight Factor A320.

They also used their established Beta Testers, so they didn't have active X-Plane fans in their internal staff, that could warn them.

The result: They released a plane that they could have released for 10.00 while the real community had left this stage long ago and every new developed feature looked already outdated. It was probably one of the most costly development failure for X-Plane ever! And all due to a complete lack of communication.

 

Lack of communication, lack of experience in dealing with a different platform, or perhaps lack of real commitment since the majority of their audience was using another simulator? 🙂

I think this is something we saw a lot in the past with FSX Steam edition and P3D after: how some of the developers got used to a completely static environment for over 10 years and then found themselves in trouble or having to work more to keep their addons compatible with the newly released versions of the base sim.

 

But yes, we do need a proper 747-400 indeed 🙂 That is something they might focus on in the future, if i was them i really woudn't want to jump in facing the Zibo's 737. We'll see.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, france89 said:

I think this is something we saw a lot in the past with FSX Steam edition and P3D after: how some of the developers got used to a completely static environment for over 10 years and then found themselves in trouble or having to work more to keep their addons compatible with the newly released versions of the base sim.

That's my take on it too. good analysis. PMDG got used to a static platform for many years. Now they can't handle releasing complex aircraft for two platforms that are now in constant development, instead of a safe space of a static platform. So they have to focus on just one. No loss, as long we have good developers on this side for the heavy iron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If PMDG offered their products for X-Plane, P3D would be dead and buried within 6 months. Good chance LM is doing everything to prevent it. Then again, PMDG is clearly lacking talent(s) to code for a modern, evolving platform, that's all but clear by now - proven by their pitiful attempt to code a DC-6 for X-Plane.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, france89 said:

 🙂I think this is something we saw a lot in the past with FSX Steam edition and P3D after: how some of the developers got used to a completely static environment for over 10 years and then found themselves in trouble or having to work more to keep their addons compatible with the newly released versions of the base sim.

While the argument is tempting it is in my opinion only a small part of the whole truth. We can easily expect that they underestimated the differences, there were in fact a few additional problems involved.

1. We mustn't forget that ACES, as part of Microsoft had to write a lot of documentation so that even their own teams knew what was happening. We mustn't even discuss how the documentation P3D looks like. For Laminar on the other hand, one of the most reliable answers to a request was: ask Ben. But this is a thing of the past. Laminars team simply grew bigger and bigger and the requests by 3rd party customers. They are in the process to update and rewrite their own documentation as well as the code. And this is simply an important part of the problem. In fact in the completwe documents plugins were not described as an important part of each X-Plane aircraft. But this was the reality of X-Plane 10. In the starter planes. The Carenado F33, Cessna 172, Archer 2 were all operated without even a sound plugin like SASL(yes, its original main purpose was the creation of sounds.)! There were extremely few standards at this time.

Companies like PMDG are simply not used to simply call one of the lead developers of a flight simulator, but this was exactly, what was expected from them at this time.

Nowadays everyone knows how essential plaugins are for every plane. And Laminar was able to connect X-Plane with real standards like PBR or the FMOD sound engine, so developers can start testing parts of the plane outside of the simulator.

2. At that time X-Plane was still very small compared to the size of FSX and P3D. The conversion costs to P3D were rather small, while such a project for X-Plane were considered huge. And we are talking in most cases about the bigger companies. But they have in fact the handling of a super tanker. You don't only have to convince the boss of the company, but he has to find a way how to motivate his developers to get them out of their comfort zones.This was one of the main reasons why they chose the DC-6. "So you want to work on the DC-6? Then you have to develop for X-Plane.".

Yes, they did not expect the extremely short development cycles under X-Plane. So they didn't think that a development time of 2-3 years. would be a problem. And there they really made a huge mistake. They compared internally their FSX/P3D planes with planes like the Flight Factor  777. A plane that was developed under X-Plane 10.08..They simply had no idea that this meant ancient for X-Plane. 1.10, 10.20 and 10.30 were more revolutions than evolutions. With 10.30 Laminar more or less had the simulator together that they had originally planned for the 10.00 release.

In hindsight it would have been much faster and more efficient to simply build a tiny team that develops a small GA plane. For the second project you add one developer and reuse the established and improved workflow and so on. With 4 or 5 planes possibly not even developed as PMDG would have given them more experience and tools, than the complete DC-6 project.

It is simply the problem of scalability. PMDG didn't have such a solution like OrbX had it with Manchester Barton for X-Plane. OrbX was in need of additional airports for X-Plane and their X-Plane developer had an idea. The result they gave him a small team, a budget and photo textures of an area. A calculated risk. In the worst case they would have got an additional airport and in the best case the core of a new product: TrueEarth Great Britain..

BUT when the DC-6 was under development no one would have really thought at it the same way. X-Plane 11 taught several lessons. Don't try to work around your host simulator. From one day to the next reflection plugins or alternative G-1000 systems were a thing of the past. But for the DC-6 it was also a catastrophe. The development was totally over budget, the success underwhelming and the lessons learned about the flight model much smaller than expected, suddenly all the work for sound effects and texturing was worthless. PBR and FMOD need a different workflow. In other words they have learned how you can't work in X-Plane.

But now things change again.No one should expect that LM would not have been able to implement PBR, They simply knew that they would not get a budget to replace the default scenery objects, so it would have been senseless to implement PBR, till developers requested it, since it makes cross platform development easier. LM has no real interest in the flight simulator market, but if developers have a use for the tools, they can deliver pretty easily.

While you are correct, that PMDG grew under the never changing FSX, they reacted to P3D in a correct way. They moved the simulation core out of the simulator. This is the place where they could start the integration into X-Plane. They need a small, dedicated team, that implements the client interface for X-Plane. Add some adjustments in their simulation core and it could change the situation pretty fast.

It is not the great name, that might help them, but they learned in FSX to work around the system. These are the experiences that they have to offer for X-Plane. Once they have learned to integrate their systems into X-Plane they would be in a good situation to be one of the top dogs.

World wide flight simulation is a small niche but X-Plane has by far the biggest dedicated team in place at this time. They integrate and link their systems more and more into the standards. There you find the necessary tools and specialists that really know how to use the powers of current computers.

Some people seem to think that the FSX developers were only fixated on the their plattform. This was not the case. Many of them really tried to put modern and sophisticated systems into this plattform. So they have capabilities that they could use in X-Plane.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 4:45 PM, Paul Deluca said:

Saab 2000  is missing,  Short Brothers SD-360[flying box], Classic birds like the Nord 262.

Carenado will eventually add their Shorts 360 to Xplane11 I am certain.  Just posted my P3DV4 version in the screenshots forum, I love the handling of the aircraft and as usual, Carenado's attention to visual detail.  I am sure their S340 will also be released although not a Saab 2000, nice aircraft. 

I have flown on both the 360 and 340 in real life, both nice aircraft.  I love the commuter aircraft having flown on just about every puddle jumper out there, except for the Saab 2000.  My fav is still the Embraer 120, followed by the Shorts 330/360 and the Dash series of aircraft and ATR 42/72....  all of which I have flown on in real life.

I have a freeware ATR and Dash 100/300 for Xplane11 and I like all three aircraft which offer wing and cabin views...

Also have a nice freeware F50 too, all available via the .org....

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey John. I remember seeing  the SD330 version of the box years ago with Command Airways. The  president of that airline boasted the fuel economy because of the fuel crisis back then.The company was sold to American .Altair Airlines had the Nord 262.I never flown in either plane. Henson had a fleet of F-27's. Ah, the days of standing at the fence, watching a turboprop fire up with a small flame shooting  out of the exhaust pipe, and the jet- a smell. Remember the term AIRPORT BUM? I remember the t shirts, ball caps with it.Command Airways was the launch customer of the ATR 42. Saw it factory fresh at KHPN. Happy Flying!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can't wait to see what X Plane has next for upgrades. Also good to see developers slowly jumping on the X Plane bandwagon.

Edited by Paul Deluca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Paul Deluca said:

Hey John. I remember seeing  the SD330 version of the box years ago with Command Airways. The  president of that airline boasted the fuel economy because of the fuel crisis back then.The company was sold to American .Altair Airlines had the Nord 262.I never flown in either plane. Henson had a fleet of F-27's. Ah, the days of standing at the fence, watching a turboprop fire up with a small flame shooting  out of the exhaust pipe, and the jet- a smell. Remember the term AIRPORT BUM? I remember the t shirts, ball caps with it.Command Airways was the launch customer of the ATR 42. Saw it factory fresh at KHPN. Happy Flying!!!!

When I first saw the Shorts in SFO some years ago I was amazed it could even fly, given its less than aerodynamic shape but in fact it probably is aerodynamic and very efficient given its longevity. 

I flew similar looking light sport aircraft--the Kitfox, and the Rans S6ES, and XAir H, all rather boxy looking.  The Kitfox was underpowered and I flew it near Provo Utah but with two aboard we struggled to climb much above 6500 feet or so and I remember as we flew low watching some horses below us go rather beserk, I also remember the waterfowl over Provo lake.  The Rans 6ES though was well powered even though it had the same engine as the Kitfox and on a 90 degree day I flew my friend's from Hemet CA up to 9000 feet, on the other side of the Mountain from Palm Springs, then we landed at a nearby airport for breakfast. 

I wanted to buy the XAir H which I flew with Phil Leroy from his private airstrip in aptly named Leroy Arizona, near Willcox.  But with a Rotax 582 it was woefully underpowered--the Jabiru 2200 was the recommended engine, air cooled and pretty reliable with lower revs than the Rotax 4 strokes like the 912 and thus a greater TBO. 

Phil tried to really push his XairH but it did not even have a registered transponder which would have been required in Phoenix's class B airspace where I live.  Last, dope and fabric aircraft do not mix well with the Arizona sun and hangar costs here cost more than my full utilities, fully furnished apartment rent.  The closest reasonable hangar would have been at Phil's airport, too far away, a more than three hour trip from where I lived at the time.

Sadly Light Sport did not turn out to be the economic alternative to GA flying it was promised to be, with all metal aircraft in the 100-150K range, hence many Light Sport sellers went out of business.  The dope and fabric factory builts like the XAir H were also overpriced given the wing recovering they would need fairly often in any climate.

So I turned to trike flying which I became quite good at and may one day buy one, since the wing can be disassembled and stored in a sublet hangar near my home.  Glendale Airport, though towered, allows FAR 103 flights and Buckeye airport, home of the Copper State Airshow (Arizona's Oshkosh) is uncontrolled except during the airshow.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be nice to see some naval aircraft like the T45, but except for the F18 we have nothing. Everyone doing GA Jets and fast Turbos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Falcon 8X will be a day-one purchase for me. I like the thought of a small jet capable of insanely long range flights. Not that I ever have the time to actually complete an extremely long flight, but hey...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now