Getting to know and run seaplanes in the sim is interesting, Another dimension to the activity of flight simulation, there are a lot of default seaplane aerodromes in the sim so getting an appropriate start is not that hard, Wave action visuals do not quite match response of aircraft, Wind direction determination is very difficult in the absence of normal atmospheric wind markers - smoke, tree movement and wave movement. The built in anchor feature of the sim fixes drift and creep, None like MTOW so do not bother they won't fly. 

My fun at the moment is the PBY - more my style, slow and unexciting. As they say the Cat did everything at 105 kts, engine out or not!

On 4/9/2025 at 6:35 AM, uwespeed said:

And yet another one which was never built, not even planned (in reality) - but only in X-Plane. The oldtimers amongst us will remember (XP 8 times*). It was called the Apple Mac among the planes due to the slick and elegant design. It was updated so that it's flyable in XP 12.

* Back then, the planes didn't even have transparent windows (from the outside, but of course from the inside 😄) and the cockpits were 2D - which I also like in this plane because of the clear and straight design.

 

I like especially the 3rd and 4th with the defocussing effect. It seems you are lucky, as usually posts with more than 2 pictures are moved to the screenshots forum (and that's the reason, why I pasted the cockpit of the Evenblade into one of the pictures).

That immediately made me think of this IRL design 🙂 :

 

On 4/16/2025 at 4:01 AM, coastaldriver said:

Getting to know and run seaplanes in the sim is interesting, Another dimension to the activity of flight simulation, there are a lot of default seaplane aerodromes in the sim so getting an appropriate start is not that hard, Wave action visuals do not quite match response of aircraft, Wind direction determination is very difficult in the absence of normal atmospheric wind markers - smoke, tree movement and wave movement. The built in anchor feature of the sim fixes drift and creep, None like MTOW so do not bother they won't fly. 

My fun at the moment is the PBY - more my style, slow and unexciting. As they say the Cat did everything at 105 kts, engine out or not!

OT, but I sure do hope that group manages to commercially resurrect the PBY's 🙂

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

That immediately made me think of this IRL design 🙂 :

 

Looks interesting. Can you tell me more about it?

 

And again 2 more screenies from the org.

from my last flight from EDDM to GCFV by using the ToLiss A330-900. I really like the atmospheric lighting and the clouds of the new XP12 Beta.🙂

Patric

Edited April 19, 20251 yr by pscharff

Cloud light and weather depiction with 12.2.b3. Does it right now! Got it all on a flight from Sydney to Grafton River. 

Like this

Nope could not get into Grafton - went to Yamba instead! 

8 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

Cloud light and weather depiction with 12.2.b3. Does it right now! Got it all on a flight from Sydney to Grafton River. 

Like this

Totally agree.

It's Xplane 12.2 that got me back into simming.

My only "grip" right now is that xp12 contrarily to fs2024 hammers my CPU 🥴 and I hare listening to the cpu fans more than I listem to the engones 😁

Torquesim SR22NT in Greenland

 

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

My only "grip" right now is that xp12 contrarily to fs2024 hammers my CPU 🥴

I read this all the time - total misconception by computer illiterates.

You WANT your software to tax your hardware to the maximum. The whole system is set up like that. You want to have the maximum FPS that you can get, so by design the computer will run as fast as possible to do that.

We regularly get complaints that "X-Plane makes my CPU too hot" or "X-Plane makes the fans in my computer too loud" - that is exactly the way it is designed - to run as fast as possible.

If you want your computer to "relax" while it runs X-Plane (so your fans stay quiet and your hardware stays cool) you need to limit your FPS. That will tell X-Plane to run slower, not taxing your computer.

But to want high fps but at the same time complain that this taxes your hardware is an oxymoron. Ideally you want your CPU and your GPU to run at 100% of their capacity. The computer will always run X-Plane until either the CPU or the GPU reaches 100% (unless you limit framerate). If you have one of both at 100% and the other significantly slower, you have an imbalance in your setup, either the hardware is a mismatch or your X-Plane settings are out of balance (asking more of one than the other). Of course this will never be perfectly balanced, but if one of both is "bored", then the other one is too weak or you can up the settings that make the "bored" component work harder.

1 hour ago, Litjan said:

You WANT your software to tax your hardware to the maximum. The whole system is set up like that. You want to have the maximum FPS that you can get, so by design the computer will run as fast as possible to do that.

Your reasoning is correct, but maybe what @jcomm really means is that he feels that the competitor product is using less CPU resources than X-Plane, for similar or better FPS and (in his view) similar or better visual features.

Not that it's necessarily true. For example, I think the density and drawing distance of 3d objects is actually higher in X-Plane than in the competitor product, although this may not be very noticeable for some simmers.

I am very critical of Asobo as you know, but it is true that Asobo has achieved a very good level of optimisation with 2024. X-Plane has a long way to go, especially to take advantage of the multiple cores of our CPUs.