My first native-FSX plane is ready.

[Guest cliffp]

I am in agreement with all that this is a reallyfine aircraft but I have one problem. Is there a switch or something else that I have neglected asthe cockpit instruments are very difficult, for me,to read. Perhaps a light switch?cliffp

[bkeske 0]

What? And get bugs in my teeth? :D

[Guest NoobPilot]

Ah well, the price of being able to land safely... must be hard to make those choices :DBesides, just think of the protein!

[Guest bdg52]

Very Nice!What is the little white knob below the panel on the right for? BobG

[Novation 534]

Fantastic model, beautifully executed and very sweet to fly.Thank you very much.One small issue I found, is that some versions props seem solid against clouds, as below.

[_michal 5]

There is VC lighting, which is using lightmaps, unfortunately there is no swith for it, you have to press SHIFT+L

[_michal 5]

This is very weird... Prop should sort with clouds well... I've just checked all of planes in my FSX, and I don't have problems like this.All of the planes are made with FSX SP2 SDK, are you using FSX with SP2?I'm using default clouds, maybe my plane is incompatible with cloud addon?

[Gavin 99]

Dziekuje bardzo za ten samolot :-)

[Novation 534]

>This is very weird... Prop should sort with clouds well...>I've just checked all of planes in my FSX, and I don't have>problems like this.>>All of the planes are made with FSX SP2 SDK, are you using FSX>with SP2?>>I'm using default clouds, maybe my plane is incompatible with>cloud addon?Yes, I'm using SP2, Acceleration version. The clouds are FEX, and these happen to be the new Hi-Definition versions, but I'm sure that wouldn't make a differance.I will reinstall your package, just in case there is a problem there.Dispite that, I think this this is one of the best freeware aircraft I have flown, in fact it's better than many payware models I own for FSX.Look forward to your next project.Really well done :)

[Guest UlfB]

empeck,Once again, Thanks for a very good aircraft! While reading the additional posts in this thread I started to wonder about your opinion on the question: Is it more complex to produce an aircraft for FSX than it is for FS2004?Sorry if my question is a little bit off topic, but I'm very curious on your opinion as a freeware developer.Ulf B

[_michal 5]

No, it's not more complex, it's a little different. Both 3d model and animations are made in the same way for FS9 and FSX.Main difference is in materials creation, FSX materials are a little harder to learn, mainly because they are more complex. FS9 supports color, transparency and reflection, FSX supports much more.Another thing to remember are animations - all of them should be assigned to xml code in special tool, not by name.xml syntax also changed, but those changes are not that hard to learn.It takes some time to learn what's changed, but when you'll learn everything, it is as easy to make a plane in FSX, as it was in FS9.There is one thing that takes much more time in FSX - textures, FSX supports higher resolution, and more different maps (specular, normal).

[Guest UlfB]

empeck,Thanks for your reply. A very gifted swedish developer, Lennart Arvidsson, has previously shared his experience of developing sceneries for FSX compared to FS2004. Different but more potential to do things a lot better than in FS2004.Ulf B

[Lord Farringdon 477]

empeck,Your contribution is outstanding. Thanks very much for sharing it with us.RegardsTerry