Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

556 Excellent


About Bjoern

  • Rank
    Member - 2,000+
  • Birthday 04/24/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

About Me

  • About Me

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've seen just as pointless fights in the FlightGear community as I've seen in here. Not on a daily basis mind you, but enough to lose all willingness to get involved in the overall project.
  2. Assuming XP12 comes with a regenerated world (elevation, roads, land usage/classification, coast lines, bodies of water, etc.), you won't need anything else to get the most efficient (procedually generated) experience out of the box. Disk space requirement is still unknown, but 250 GB should be well enough (default XP11 is ~62 GB). Global scenery comes free with the base sim. Simheaven provides free updated road and building placement data plus goodies like VFR landmarks and details for XP11 and will do so for XP12, but this will not affect underlying land usage information (ground texture choice from land classification, elevation and coastlines), which would need to be regenerated by somebody else. If you want photorealism (minus seasons and night textures) on the ground, tiles can be generated for free from various satellite picture providers like Google Maps, Bing, etc. with OrthoXP. This process takes a lot of time and a 1 x 1° tile at zoom level 16 (best compromise between detail and storage space requirements) will take up 2.5 GB of disk space. Each zoom level increment/decrement increases/decreases disk space requirement by a factor of 4. Going below ZL15 is pointless though as things start to look really awful at VFR altitude. Assuming there are 4800 land tiles to cover globally, a global photoscenery at ZL16 would thus require a 12 TB hard drive, so one may want to think twice before going for photorealism.
  3. Delete "X-Plane Screen Res.prf", "X-Plane Window Positions.prf" and "X-Plane.prf" from "X-Plane 11/Output/preferences". You will have to reset your graphics and window settings after that, but it may work.
  4. Nope, must've confused me with somebody else. I'll gladly take any improvement or new feature that XP12 has to offer.
  5. X-Plane is a flight, not a forestry simulator.
  6. The Studio drivers are workstation, i.e. CAD optimized. Unless you're spending 90% of your time with CAD, the Game Ready Drivers are the way to go.
  7. I wasn't talking about the engines on their own, but the entire "sim within a sim". Or the GPS module with its varying accuracy due to satellite availability. That's generous of them! Aircraft? No. Plugins/services? Yes, although few strike my fancy. Subscription model and a Windows-only client are two no-gos. But thanks for the hint. Skipped through a few of them. Interesting for sure, but still not what I'm looking for. Thanks anyway.
  8. Judging from the stream I saw, you also implemented that. I got that impression, yes. Still, I'm wondering if the underlying code can be parametrized enough to be adapted to other (turbofan) aircraft because you people really knocked the ball out of the park. Oh come on, I almost lost interest here and my bank account already breathed a sigh of relief! 😂 Come on, you're a real pilot and I'm a thirthy-something engineer in front of a computer screen! I can do whatever I want in the sim and because of that it feels kind of pointless without any degree of progression to keep me hooked. And everything you probably loathe about flying in X-Plane because you experience it for real day in, day out from the flight levels (passengers, photoreal ground, using ATC, other aircraft, bad weather, procedures) is what makes it interesting to armchair pilots like us in the first place. It was a 50/50 chance. My preferred reply would of course have been "We also include a 'making of', detailing how everything works under the hood" and that would have made me click "Buy" faster than you could have imagined.
  9. Got an example? Define "custom gauges". A customized generic or an analogue gauge with a 3D needle will not cause any problems. A good indicator for potential rendering issues in Vulkan on AMD GPUs is using a custom plugin or SASL as these are the primary methods used for drawing custom PDFs, MFDs, etc. If an add-on aircraft only uses xlua as a plugin (which can not draw custom PFDs), it runs fine in Vulkan. Yes.
  10. Thought so. The FBO feature would have lent itself to that though, as you could easily pay fuel bills at the desk and find and sign transportation contracts at the computer, etc. I've seen that in some videos, but it's not what I want. With all the claims of "physics simulation" running beneath it all, I wanna see what exactly they mean by that and this involves looking at code and equations. But again, it's wishful thinking. Still, all you can do with it is ferry VIP passengers from here to there. If it at least offered an alternate medevac configuration, it would be more attractive to me.
  11. But the root cause is AMD's driver. Some versions work well, others don't. There's some threads about this on X-Plane.org.
  12. For what it's worth: This is a fundamental AMD driver and X-Plane issue with add-ons that draw stuff in 3D space (e.g. PFDs and MFDs)! Laminar apparently fixed the root cause for XP12, so sit tight.
  13. Is there a bit more to "career" mode instead of just setting up the aircraft for the next flight, such as having to earn money to pay for fuel and repairs? Still on the fence about this one. The plus side is the very interesting systems simulation (wish I could see the code), attempt at maximizing immersion and apparent framerate-friendliness, but the price tag is a bit prohibitive and the subject aircraft itself is not really my cup of tea.
  • Create New...