wb5okj

If you want to learn complex systems, with a long learning curve, the CRJ 200 would be hard to beat, I don't have a problem recommending anything from J Rollon, I don't own the CRJ but I do have other Rollon prop craft and they are hard to beat for art and flight models. However coming from GA props, as I have I would heartily recommend the DC3. I own this plane as well as the Duchess from this developer, and I must say, if you are going to spend money on this hobby, these are the planes to buy. The DC3 is a bit faster and a heavier plane, a challenge to land well being a tail dragger, but a real joy to fly. You must do engine management or the engines will blow out. If you saw the DC3 video from Comanche, notice on his takeoff, there was way too much power applied, the MP was way over 50inHg, and the red warning was on in the lower left of the screen. He must have pulled power off immediately or else both engines would have popped, or perhaps they did and he just fixed it in movie maker. Any of these planes are well worth the money. If I was an airliner person, I would have to buy all of them. I don't know the people behind the Challenger, but I have seen a lot of good words for it.

I of course am not Goran, but since he has answered your question, perhaps I would be allowed to put in some of my thoughts on this subject? Pertaining to linearity, and stability augmentation found in the joystick and equipment section, the default is 0% stability augmentation and 25% linearity, null zone is 0%. However I feel these settings depend on your particular joystick/yoke and your personal style of flying. If you fly a light and quick plane like the Bonanza F33A you probably would not be amiss to keep the default settings depending on your controller. If you fly a heavy plane one might have to increase the settings. The null zone settings are important too. By increasing the null zone settings one can make the aircraft feel heavier, at any rate that is what happens for my particular yoke. I fly the CH Flight Sim Yoke, which is quite old, (one of the first USB controllers to come out), so probably that has a lot to do with the settings. For the DC3 and my yoke I find that by setting the stability augmentation setting to 50% and the linear controls to full linear and the null zone to 35% the DC3 feels to have about the right weight and flight performance. If I leave these settings at default, this yoke is so twitchy, just the slightest movement will cause a drastic change in aircraft attitude, my CH pedals which are of the same vintage as the yoke is even worse!! For the pedals I have stability augmentation full right and full right non-linearity. Some people scoff at setting the stability-augmentation at all and brag constantly they do not use it, in my opinion there is nothing wrong in using whatever one has to use to get your equipment to work the way you need it to work, and to get your aircraft a reasonable feel to it. I do wish there were separate null settings for each of the axis, I could probably decrease the null zone for pitch and roll and increase slightly for yaw, however it doesn't do too bad with what we have now.

I hoe you emailed X-Aviation immediately, I have bought from them twice and a very pleasant experience it was.

Hello Rob, The anaglyphic glasses won't work in X-Plane. I am using a Samsung 3D for a monitor and it uses shutter glasses. The Samsung will take any 2D and make it 3D, although it doesn't always look good. Of course 3D that is made for 3D specifically is not only gorgeous, but rather awe inspiring, (in my opinion, my wife doesn't see any need for 3D at all), so people do have differing opinions. Actually a Direct X product in anaglyphic looks better most of the time than a 2D to 3D conversion does. But a picture made for 3D, absolutely no comparison. I don't really fly that much in 3D, as it gets tiring to the eyes after a while.

You should see this panel in stereoscopic 3D on a 46" screen. I would put up a screenshot, but it wouldn't do any good unless the viewer had 3D also, and if that's the case they would have already looked at it in 3D Suffice it to say, it is pretty awesome. Actually in real 3D most of these panels have some pretty weird distortions in them. This one does too, but not as much as some of the other panels. This one and the panels made by J Rollon have the least distortion in them That I have seen so far.

I just measured the takeoff roll of the DC3 at KPWA runway 17L at an altitude of 1300 feet as measured in X Plane. At 1300 feet MSL the takeoff roll with a weight of 26200 should be about 1856 feet. Here is the standard day figures I used, Barometer 29.92 Tempertaure 59 degrees F 15 degrees C Weight 26200 +- a few lbs. No flaps: No elevator trim: No aileron trim No wind Takeoff roll to reach 87 knots IAS 1941 feet. or 85 feet over the estimated takeoff roll of 1856 feet. The tail started coming up at around 60 knots, at 87 knots, I hit the pause button jumped outside to see exactly where I was. I was in fact just short of the first set of single line runway markers, which are just past the second taxiway entrance on runway 17L. I then measured the distance in Google Earth, so these distances should be fairly close to right. I thought all in all, this thing is pretty close to the theoretical numbers or book numbers. I doubt if you would get this close to right in a real world setting on any given day.

WELCOME to the club

Hello Rob,On this big monitor I get shimmering whether HDR is on or not, I'm rather ambivalent about HDR, at first I didn't use it as I wanted FPS as fast as I could, but after using it, I really liked the haze effect, it was so much like the haze I usually have here in the Oklahoma, North Texas area of the world. and the visibility looked to be closer to what we have here. Sometimes i use it, sometimes not. I usually don't fly at night, I prefer daytime, most of the time. Never say never though. :smile:Edit: I stand corrected Rob, I just did another trial run with HDR off, and did indeed see a great reduction in the shimmering effect, on the 46" monitor.If this holds true, i will have to not use HDR most of the time, the plus side to this is not only the shimmering decreases, but an increase in the FPS too. Thanks for getting me to try HDR off again, I must have thought that I had HDR off, but apparently didn't. LOL

Yes its 1920x1080 and the jaggies are of course more noticeable, I do use AA now whereas on a 24 inch monitor I never bothered. With HDR on and FXAA the jaggies are still noticable, but not excessive in my view. 4xSSAA quad is better, of course FPS takes a good hit, on my system 20FPS is about all I can get. The picture above is in HDR and 4xSSAA quad rendering. Of course I know that some people cannot tolerate any jaggies whatsoever. I can use no HDR and 16x screen AA and get acceptable FPS around 30-35 around Oklahoma City. Still there are some jaggies, but for me at least they are tolerable. The shimmering in the scenery is a lot more noticeable though, before I got this 46 inch monitor I hardly knew there was shimmering in the scenery, so was a bit disappointed at first, I guess I got used to it, or at least as I go on the shimmering isn't quite so pronounced. I don't know if the tweaking is getting better, or if I am just getting use to it. :( I usually use HDR with FXAA the small jaggies I get are tolerable and the instruments in most panels are a lot easier to read, especially panels that have reflections built into the glass and I still can get nearly 30 FPS

Here is a small picture of the building I put in for the Devon tower, I am fling to the northeast, downtown airpark in front of me, and the building I placed for the Devon is I thnk from SimmoW's custom Seattle scenery, (Many thnx SimmoW), Of course it isn't the right shape, but it is the tallest building in OKC. :smile:I had to cut this down from a resolution of 3840, so the quality isn't that good, also it was on a 46 inch screen. but perhaps it will show what can be done, took me about 3 minutes to place this building with the Overlay Editor. With practice buildings should be placed rather quickly, the most time spent is probably getting the coordinates of the buildings.

It gets off the ground OK, and best of all it gets back on the ground too. The first landing?(Do you really want to call this a landing)? I only bounced 3 times then nosed over, way too much brake, and not enough back pressure on the yoke, other than that, well...I had to reload. Second time around much better, careful, careful, careful on the brakes!

Got it!!!! Haven't had time to fly it yet, but it sounds great, and looks better. Off now to see if it will get off the ground. :(

Yes you have to redo the textures, if you don't the capitol appears as a solid light grey, shape is right just a grey, from a distance it is there, shows up well, but close up is a washout. still, some might think grey is better than nothing. :(

I have been using the overlay editor, which works pretty well. I am not an expert at it, but it took about 10 minutes to figure out how to use it. I put a building for the Devon tower in place with it, (not the actual model of the Devon, but a generic TALL building in the exact location. :( I am not a scenery guru, and don't work at it very much, perhaps later I will do more work. Of course as in most other things, the more you use a tool, the better one gets at it. I have also used SketchUp to get buildings from the Google warehouse, (The State Capitol is there, but you have to do a lot of texturing, which I haven't yet done.), and of course I have used OSM2xp, but the OKC is not well represented in OSM, many buildings are not there, a few are, downtown Bricktown, is there somewhat, but out along the NW Expressway, nothing shows up. I don't have time for a screen shot, but perhaps later I can put up a screenshot to demonstrate the OKC area.

I think currently you do have to have FSX installed, as it builds its database from that sim. The developer has stated earlier that he is going to make it able to export a X-Plane flight plan, but I don't know if it will read X-Planes database or not.

No, Yes, and yes. The Canadian rivers aren't there for OKC but if you get north a ways it shows up, I haven't looked south of Norman yet, go up to Guthrie and the Cimmarron is there. There are some lakes around OKC, for instance the lake at the OKC Zoo is there, easily seen just East of I35, and North of I40. Crosstown is the original, but I see in OSM the new crosstown is in, so the next time LR updates the OSM terrain, we should get a plausible and better look at OKC waterways. I have put in a couple of small residential lakes to OSM myself, jus to get a little practice. At the ton setting for roads all most all if not all streets are there for OKC and the suburbs. I haven't looked at Mustang, but I can easily find my street and a house that is in the exact spot of my house. Pretty easy to fly OKC area if you know the major streets. There is a building where the State Capitol is, of course it doesn't look like the capitol but there is a building there. The major highways look pretty good, however the Interstate signs are not right, I44 signs are for a different highway system, I don't remember now what they said, but they were not interstate highways around here, I usually don't fly that low. :(

Plan G works pretty well in X Plane 10 right now just as it is. Notice in Oklahoma City, the lakes are not completely developed althugh Overholser and Hefner are there so if you fly out of Wiley Post as I do, you are pretty well set there.If your roads are set to tons, you can see where Draper Thunderbird and Arcadia are, by looking at where the streets end. :( Hint, look in the local map, you will see where these lakes should be. :(

Without checking the manual, 4+ G's sounds about right for the 172S. That's going from memory though.

Come on Goran, You're KILLING us. :biggrin:And its probably on purpose too. :(

Sounds like you may have a setting in the lateral offset setting in the settings screen. Make sure the lateral offset boxes report 0.00

Be sure and run the database for FSX first, and I think you have to have XPUIPC installed for X-Plane, its like FSUIPC for FSXHere's a link: http://www.tosi-online.de/XPUIPC/XPUIPC.html

Plan G works in X-Plane 10. At least it will connect to X-Plane. You can't load a flight plan from Plan G yet, but the developer of G Plan is working on it. In the meantime most everything else works well.

Downloaded the new mesh for the United States, haven't done Alaska yet. Haven't decided whether to download the forests or not. I keep my trees mostly sparse anyway.Looks pretty good, easy on the frame rates, didn't change my framerates at all if any. Did a test run out of the Los Angeles basin to Victorville via the Interstate15 corridor. Looked pretty real, ahem, plausible. I-15 run right up the side of El Capitan, just as it was supposed to. Was a bit disappointed that the Highway Patrol scales weren't showing up in the sim. :( Actually if you knew where they were supposed to be, you could spot the area. Same with the 18 wheeler pull off on the soutbound side on top of the rim, wasn't actually there, but you could see where it was supposed to be, which all in all seems pretty good to me.Next went to Telluride, again things looked good, no difference that I could tell in my frame rates. All in all, it looks like apilotx hard work, was worth the effort.All of the above, is strictly my opinion, I'm sure some people who shall remain nameless, will be able to pick the mesh to death. :(

OK Wilmer you didn't read the documentation. If the windows are frosted over, that's because its cold, freezing, soooo, turn on the defroster. :smile:To turn on the defroster click the yoke to get them out of the way, on the right side of the panel are the defroster switches after getting them to the right, be sure and turn on the fan.Try the checklists they are over on the upper left, click the red button. Just for fun, turn off the radio master switch, to see what happens. LOL

I have just done a quick circuit around the pattern in the craft you downloaded and it seems to fly OK.A qick tip: It appeaps in the cockpit that you are setting in the exact middle instead of the left side, go to Settings/Rendering Options, and set the lateral offset found in the lower center of the screen to about 0.20 to 0.25 setting. This will make it look like you are setting in the left seat and the middle windshield structure won't be in your way.