Murmur

What has changed with regard to lighting? I think the previous 12.05 can still be downloaded (with beta unchecked), so a comparison with screenshots would still be possible.

RTX is not involved at all. Screen space reflection does not require RTX or ray tracing. As far as I understand it, screen space reflection is a newer technique used by recent flight simulators, which allows much better performance at the cost of some artifacts (like this one). The old technique did not have these artifacts, but had worse performance. As I said, this artifact should be common to simulators using screen space reflections, and the competitor flight simulator has the same artifact. So I don't know if it will be fixed or simply accepted as a limitation of this technique.

Rather than a bug, it's unfortunately a limitation of the technique used (screen space reflection). Infact, even The Other Sim has the exact same bug. So I don't know if it can be corrected.

Have you tried with v-sync disabled in X-Plane settings?

Try showing these 5 data output on screen, and note their values with pedals centered / pedals at max deflection.

Apparently you're doing everything correctly. Do you have turn control with pedals when taxing on the ground?

SIDs and STARs coming in the future. https://developer.x-plane.com/2023/08/atc-changes-in-12-06-and-beyond/

I suspect that's a different failure mode. I understand you're referring to a failure in which the governor keeps a fixed fuel flow, so the torque is not immediately affected. The failure in X-Plane should model a failure where the governor causes a runaway fuel flow to the max, and a subsequent spike in torque. Anyway, it's probably not 100% accurate (just the fact it happens simultaneously for both FADECs is unrealistic). I'm curious to know if there are study level add-ons helicopters for X-Plane that accurately model those types of failure.

Why? A sudden and uncontrolled increase in fuel flow should produce a temporary torque spike (allowed by the fact that rotor RPM increase is not instantaneous, because of its inertia), then when the rotor RPM increases as well, torque should decrease somewhat again. Not saying it's correct in terms of numbers, probably the real helicopter engine/rotor system would fail before it reaches those overspeed/overtorque values.

Oh, I don't know about that. I see Plane-Maker has specific entries for "rotor-driven hydraulic pump" as hydraulic sources (as opposed to engine-driven), and they're checked for the default S76. So, provided there isn't a bug, they should be linked to rotor movement now, I guess.

That's what actually happens in X-Plane. I think the collective was not touched in flying_carpet video, N2/Nr rising is just the effect of runaway fuel flow.

In the Aircraft selection screen, on the upper right there's a button labeled "AI aircraft", click on it and add as many aircraft as you want (well, up to 19 actually). Too many aircraft could decrease your FPS though.

Indeed, apparently there's a limitation in this specific failure mode in X-Plane, in that multi-engine helicopters have all governors fail at the same time, when failure is enabled. So this specific failure is best used only with single engine helicopters. Could also be something to report to Austin as a bug/feature improvement.

I've done a test myself, and the actual failure simulated in this case is, as we could call it, a "throttle runaway" (it is listed as "rotor controller failure" in the failures screen, indeed poor wording). In other words, it simulates a failure of the engine governor that causes engine throttle to runaway at max. So, the effect per se seems to be implemented realistically: both fuel flow and rotor RPM go to max, since blade pitch / collective are not affected. Now that being said, I don't know if the real S76 engine governor has this as one of its possible failure modes or not. EDIT: Looks like X-Plane is correctly modeling a so called "High Side Governor Failure": https://it.scribd.com/document/128438237/Governor-Failures# Well done, X-Plane!

In current volumetric clouds implementation, unrealistic large-scale shapes bother me more than their low resolution. Would it be possible to add some constraint rules to the simple noise algorithms in order to produce more realistic cloud shapes, even at large-scale? E.g. so that the noise produces flat bottoms, cauliflowering tops, anvil shapes, etc? All without increasing significantly the noise complexity or granularity.

I know that well. Still, you're operating the virtual aircraft outside its limitations. That's interesting. Do you have some sources? As I wrote in my first reply, that could very well be: I just don't think that it's a particularly serious issue (like you made it appear) if a default aircraft has unusual behaviour outside its operating limitations.

This comment might be of interest: https://developer.x-plane.com/2023/07/x-plane-12-06-is-full-of-many-things/#comment-42358 My feeling is they're very aware the scenery has a lot of room for improvements, and that's likely what most users want improved now (lighting and weather are already very good and probably best in class, with the recent and still ongoing developments). I guess it's one of those cases of "easier said than done" though. I doubt LR has the resources afforded by the competition to produce a streaming satellite scenery, so hopefully they will come up with some clever idea.

You still haven't been able to grasp it? In the RW Citation, reversers use is forbidden below 65kts (forward speed). If you use them outside their operating limitations, don't be surprised if something bad happens. I just checked in X-Plane, and the only way the Citation tips over with the use or reversers, is if you use them while letting the aircraft to start moving backward. This powerback is definitely not approved on the real Citation. Don't blame a sim which is too realistic for you, if the real culprit is your lack of skills in operating an aircraft.

I wish XP were even more unforgiving than it is now. For example landing gear and tires should probably be easier to damage than they are now when stressed, e.g. on a hard landing. Although such a level of realism can be reasonably left to 3rd parties.

I tried to explain it to you all the reasons for that, but apparently you don't want or aren't able to grasp it. 🤷‍♂️

Also, in the real Citation X reverse thrust must NOT be used below 65kts (that is 65kts forward speed, in case you didn't realize), so that should rule out their use to power-back (which you seem to have done to produce your screenshot). Also, apparently ( https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=760563 ) : If that is the real life behaviour of the Citation X during the landing roll, I would not rule out that the real one would indeed tip over as well, if using thrust reverser to go backward... Point is, don't operate aircraft outside their intended limitations and expect no consequences. This is X-Plane, not some other flight sim.

I tried it and, at default weight and loading, the X-Plane Citation can use reverse thrust, both on runway and on grass, without tipping over on its tail. Probably you slammed the brakes while the aircraft was going in reverse. In that case it's possible that some aircraft could tip over, because reverse braking creates a pitching up force (brush up on your knowledge of physics). If this it actually the case for the real Citation, or if the Citation in X-Plane maybe has a default c.g. that is shifted a bit rearward compared to the real one, I don't know. As it has been said, you should not expect 100% accuracy from a default aircraft. Oh, and this thing, as you should know, has nothing to do with FAA approval.

Seems physically correct to me, in the right conditions?

There's a bug where at zero visibility during sunsets (and sunrises too, I suspect) far clouds and mountains become visible, and the lighting is unrealistic. I think it predates 12.06 though. I already reported it as a bug.

Anyway, Beta 2 is out.