1 minute ago, David Mills said:

Too late to be rehabilitated and saved from dying.

Well, to be perfectly honest with you, people have been saying that for the past 25 years.

But keep believing it, if you like.

We gotta see a drastic improvement to world scenery, trees, grass, clouds, rain and effects, otherwise the future for this is game over. Other sim is raising the bar again. Too high for XP.

7 minutes ago, Greazer said:

We gotta see a drastic improvement to world scenery, trees, grass, clouds, rain and effects, otherwise the future for this is game over. Other sim is raising the bar again. Too high for XP.

 

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by GoranM

Wow, a "native" A330 !

Looking fwd into it !!!!

Does anyone knows if it results from that project that was once mentioned regarding the modelling of an Airbus in X-Plane ?

I have been falling in love for "buses" during the last years. Always look forward into a nice simulation of one of the fleet members. In X-Plane my final choice has been the Toliss. Wonder which developer is helping with this native model ?

Another HUGE addition to the fleet would be something in the line of a "study-like" turboprop, like X-Aviation's Saab 340. Turboprops are yet another of my preferences...

Which, just reminded me of sending Austin a nice video about why turboprops, specially those with free-rotating props, cancel so effectively the torque !

It includes a very good explanation of why turbines ( in this case a free-running PT-6 ) cancel torque so effectively:

https://youtu.be/hATrgAsgevY?t=139

The full video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hATrgAsgevY

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by jcomm

As there's already a reasonably OK pay ware A330 from JAR design which ranks quite high in the plane usage numbers I would have preferred something that is not available such as an A380. (The Jar A320 is the top airliner after the freeware Zibo. Very odd.)

 

Funny, I must have missed that there was an A330 high up on the user feedback list.

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Which, just reminded me of sending Austin a nice video about why turboprops, specially those with free-rotating props, cancel so effectively the torque !

It includes a very good explanation of why turbines ( in this case a free-running PT-6 ) cancel torque so effectively:

https://youtu.be/hATrgAsgevY?t=139

The full video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hATrgAsgevY

Well, you'd better email Austin again and suggest him to ignore that video, because the explanation is physically incorrect. 🙂

The only effect of making the two shafts rotate in different directions, would be to reduce not the torque, but the total angular momentum of the engine (summing a positive and a negative one). So it would just reduce the gyroscopic effects when pitching or yawing.

The torque is not canceled by making the shafts counter rotate. The propeller imparts a big angular momentum to the air, so the only way to reduce the torque on the engine would be to impart an equal amount of opposite momentum somewhere else in the airflow (that's what helicopters with compressed air jets, like the Djinn, do).

In the case of a turboprop, that would mean having the exhaust air swirling opposite to the propeller. But given the shape of the exhausts in a turboprop, I highly doubt that any considerable swirling angular momentum is conserved after the air gets out of them.

Bottom line: turboprops don't cancel torque, it's the same as in an equivalent piston engine.

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by Murmur

38 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Bottom line: turboprops don't cancel torque, it's the same as in an equivalent piston engine.

The question is: Why don´t jets suffer torque? They also (especially high bypass) impart the same force on the airstream that a propeller would, or don´t they? Is the high-pressure turbine working in the opposite direction? Wouldn´t that be the same way in a turboprop?

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by Janov

6 hours ago, David Mills said:

All of the scenery was deliberately kept in dark shadow because there was nothing new to see.

You may have noticed that the title of the video was "Next Generation Fleet Preview" - not "Next Generation X-Plane Scenery Preview". Just like in the other preview video, it only shows one specific aspect that is improved...it is not a preview for the complete next generation of X-Plane.

And as you observed - the scenery in the video (showing mostly the new airplane - hence "Fleet Preview") is the current X-Plane 11 scenery. The only OTHER thing "next gen" in that video is the lighting. But - point taken - they did not explicitly mention that in the description or hint at it in the title.

Cheers, Jan

4 minutes ago, Janov said:

The question is: Why don´t jets suffer torque? They also (especially high bypass) impart the same force on the airstream that a propeller would, or don´t they? Is the high-pressure turbine working in the opposite direction? Wouldn´t that be the same way in a turboprop?

Good question. Turbojets and turbofans have stators (also in the fan section), that redirect the exhaust air and cancel its angular momentum. I don't know if they cancel 100% of it, but if there's some residual angular moment in the exhaust flow, then jets would theoretically suffer some torque too. In other words the flow coming out of a jet engine is straight or mostly straight, so no or negligible torque.

1 hour ago, Janov said:

You may have noticed that the title of the video was "Next Generation Fleet Preview" - not "Next Generation X-Plane Scenery Preview". Just like in the other preview video, it only shows one specific aspect that is improved...it is not a preview for the complete next generation of X-Plane.

And as you observed - the scenery in the video (showing mostly the new airplane - hence "Fleet Preview") is the current X-Plane 11 scenery. The only OTHER thing "next gen" in that video is the lighting. But - point taken - they did not explicitly mention that in the description or hint at it in the title.

Cheers, Jan

You may not have noticed that your answer doesn't invalidate David Mills statement at all 😉

5 minutes ago, rka said:

You may not have noticed that your answer doesn't invalidate David Mills statement at all 😉

Of course his statement is valid: there was nothing new to see in the scenery because the preview is XP11. 🤦‍♂️

3 hours ago, rka said:

You may not have noticed that your answer doesn't invalidate David Mills statement at all 😉

You may have noticed that I didn´t try to invalidate David Mills statement at all 😁.

What Murmur said above! 👆

(God, guys, you need to play a different flight simulator, your current choice isn´t good for your cognitive abilities!)

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by Janov

The preview does tell us much about the new fleet. 10 seconds seems a bit daft if it's meant to impress us. So are the new planes going to be study level? Or what sort of level of sophistication can we expect?

46 minutes ago, Janov said:

You may have noticed that I didn´t try to invalidate David Mills statement at all 😁.

What Murmur said above! 👆

(God, guys, you need to play a different flight simulator, your current choice isn´t good for your cognitive abilities!)

What were you trying to do then? There is some sort of connection between the text you chose to quote and your reply below that quote, or isn't there?