Bjoern

Most add-on producing outfits are run by private individuals, not entire companies, hence the probability of adequate long-term support is always a throw of the dice. People simply move on. While there are legal efforts under way to make software companies responsible for product quality (at least in the EU), the balance between the required effort to get the judical mills turning for the benefit of forcing an individual back to the computer to fix a product or to refund 100 customers or so would not be a favourable one. As for Alabeo: Since they were under the Carenado's umbrella (AFAIK), the "feel free to make updates as long as you only distribute modified files" for the Carenado products should apply.

Not sure why anybody needs to openly complain about a lack of developer response. If you don't see them post or participate in active discussions about their product(s), you already have an impression of their priorities anyway. Just quietly put them on the "never again" list and thus vote with your wallet.

Save yourself the time and just raid the department register to purchase ToLiss' A319 because without any detailed real world data from flight or performance manuals for thrust at various operating points, you're essentially sentenced to weeks of trial & error to dial in realistic engine performance.

After testing "single_rat" at 0.5 (the other two drefs were unchanged) on a flight with real weather I'm back at the default of 1.0. More aerosol just obscures the ugly horizon transition between orthos and the low rest planet model better when one is at cruise altitude...

Heh. I've actually been having an idea for a "Your plane"-plugin/script for a long time. Something that holds the current altitude, heading and speed independently of any autopilot system (using custom PID controllers). For those moments when you sit in a Piper Cub or whatever else does not have an AP and need to let go of the controls for a few minutes to do something else.

Counter question: Why not? English as a second language.

Single_rat's default is 1, multi_rat's is 1.25 and override_turbidity_t's is (obviously) 0 as it's an override. Before you settle on a particular value for real, you should test it in a variety of lighting and weather conditions to see if anything got broken. Overrides replace dynamic calculations done by X-Plane with user calculated (or fixed) values and thus are more prone to break things than simply altering a scalar. As usual, also note that your X-Plane warranty (as in: right to issue bug reports or complaints about visual artifacts) is void while the tweak is applied. 🙂

This script changes the following datarefs (in case anybody wants to play around in DataRefTool first): sim/private/controls/scattering/override_turbidity_t sim/private/controls/scattering/single_rat sim/private/controls/scattering/multi_rat If you value XP's shaders, do not set the turbidity value close to zero. And note that overriding turbidity may yield visual bugs in distant autogen objects in low visbility conditions. Stay away from multi_rat as this will take out a lot of lightness in overcast conditions. Cutting single_rat by 50% will make the overall scene colder, with less light getting scattered by aerosols. So I'd adjst that one, if anything.

VSKYLABS has a C510-ish aircraft in the works: https://forums.x-plane.org/forums/topic/329638-vskylabs-510x-vlj-test-pilot-series-coming-soon/?page=1 Notee that it initially won't have a G1000 MFD, but analogue engine gauges instead.

Yes, because one of the devs is rated on the thing (and actively flying it).

I know, I just utterly hate the term. Just call it "as close as possible" instead.

The free feeds are supplied by volunteers with receivers, hence the spotty data. Taxiing, parking and historic traffic is available from RealTraffic. Maybe also ADSBExchange. Both cost mmoney.

J.Rollon/Simcoders SF.260D. Or a Reality Expansion Pack for any default aircraft. Nothing to study for in GA aircraft. But if you get one with Reality Expansion Pack, you at least have to worry about things breaking.

In fixed weather scenarios, you can override the slider value by writing to "sim/weather/region/visibility_reported_sm". If you set visibility to 100 nm and move the camera very high (~15 km), you will notice how the ring of resonably detailed terrain around you transitions into a low-res planet texture at some point. It doesn't look really nice and is one factor why Laminar is implementing visibility aloft a bit conservatively. And this will not change until X-Plane gets a new scenery system that supports drawing detailed terrain much farther out at low computing overhead.

No, RW Designs. There's an unofficial patch for it, but caution should be exercised as the aircraft was last officially updated 7(!) years ago. Didn't know they supported that. My last and only original Thranda product was the Beaver for XP11. Can't speak for the Fokker 50, but the Saab 340 was anything but minimum viable. If not for some limitations inherited from its XP11 genesis, it still holds up really well.