avgaskoolaid

There's a billion moving map options out there for MSFS, with all sorts of information and special features like flight planning and charts built in. What made MAP! special is that it's an airline seatback entertainment style moving map. It had kind of a cozy, familiar feeling and would be great to have up during a long cruise. You can use things like littlenavmap and navigraph when you're in "pilot mode", but MAP would be great for when you slip in to "passenger mode". I loved MAP! back in FSX and have toyed with the idea of making my own version as an introductory coding project- a simple moving map that cycles through a map and various flight stats, maybe changing language based on origin/destination, to replicate those older 90s/2000s moving maps with 'basic' graphics you'd see on the overhead screen back in the day. Retro is popular these days, so maybe it would be popular despite the wealth of other map options out there...

First, it's almost certain that ortho scenery for XP11 will work just fine in XP12- thats how it was with XP10 -> XP11 and LR doesn't seem to be changing the scenery system. So rest assured you will probably only have to generate the scenery once and just plop it into XP12 once it releases. As for file size, the increase is exponential with a given zoom level. It varies based on how much water is in a given area (water isn't drawn in ortho4xp so an area with many lakes and rivers will have a smaller size). ZL16 is about 2 gb per tile, ZL17 is about 8gb, and ZL18 is about 32GB. Personally, I find ZL16 for general areas I will only fly over at high levels to be completely adequate, and use ZL17 for areas around airports. You won't notice a huge difference between ZL16 and ZL17 at FL350. The tiles posted above are ZL14, except Sydney which is ZL17. So if you want to fly around Perth, Melbourne, etc you might want to generate your own but it's fine for areas you'll fly over at high altitudes. Of course, MSFS ortho scenery looks way better at lower levels. You would have to have a tile at ZL18 or 19 to match the detail shown at low levels in MSFS. Ortho4XP has more issues with color variation than MSFS, but when the colors are uniform I find that XP orhos have a more 'crisp' and realistic quality than in MSFS. One of the few areas where XP's visuals are a bit better. Regarding hard drives, it sounds like you might be familiar with linking your scenery into XPlane so you can store it on a different drive from the main sim. You can do this from as many drives as you want but sim loading times might suffer a tiny bit. 4TB is OK but if I were you I'd get a bigger HDD and just store all your custom scenery (orthos, airports and all) on one hard drive and link that into XP. I found a 20TB HDD from Seagate at Microcenter for like $300USD which is more than adequate. What issues were you having with generating ortho tiles?

As long as the cockpit door is closed (and the camera is not inside the cabin) the cabin is not loaded. So, these features do not use up any performance unless you're in the cabin looking at them. The main sources of performance hit with this plane is the SASL coding and lots of 4k textures in the cockpit. The systems and flight modeling is fantastic as expected but I can confirm a significant performance hit on my higher-end system, cabin or no cabin. I'm thinking of resizing all the textures to 4k in gimp or photoshop or something to at the very least keep it above 19.90FPS wherethe FM starts running in less than real time.

In addition to the sounds Michael suggested (which I personally haven't tried yet), if you have the PMDG Jetstream 41 it's sounds are great on the Do228.

You load the aircraft through the default X Plane "weight and fuel" menu. There is no custom fuel/load program. The documentation is located in the [X-Plane]/Aircraft/Carenado B1900D/DOCUMENTATION folder, but only contains descriptions of the instruments, checklists, and performance tables (i.e. no tutorial flight).

No results turn up in the UK aircraft registry (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=1), so I guess it's a fictitious reg. It seems according to this list: http://www.jethros.org.uk/fleets/fleet_listings/aurigny_air_services.htm that they do not operate the -100 at all, and I couldn't find any evidence that they did in the past.

If you enjoy repainting the Dornier don't forget to check out the Repaint thread on the Carenado forums. Lots of Dornier pilots are hungry for paints! http://www.avsim.com/topic/494646-repaint-request/#entry3480170

I just stated two, Dreamfoil and SSG. Granted, these are XPlane developers, but it's still the same business. Also, there's SMS with their MD-11- who are still in business and I believe were still developing products when they released the MD-11 for free. Finally, imaginesim, who still actively develop airports, released old versions of KDTW, KEWR, and KMSY for free. Granted, it isn't common for developers to do this, but not unheard of either. In fact, it's probably almost as rare as developers completely discontinuing an old product, removing it from the market entirely. Many of the developers you listed still offer very old products for sale- I can only think of a handful that are no longer available anywhere. All this being said, I'm sure that PMDG have their reasons. I'm betting that they're mainly afraid customers would settle for the older aircraft instead of buying the newer NGX and 747 v2, even though the new versions are radically better than the old ones and I can't really see the markets overlapping too much. Anyway, they'll probably never release anything for free, but it's a fun idea to think about.

+1. I think that the gesture of goodwill and associated good PR would be the primary reason for them doing this,and other benefits like introducing people to the PMDG brand would be secondary. Mostly, I'm thinking why not? Instead of permanently zapping the FS2004 planes from existence, they could make them available to everybody while making it explicitly clear that no support of any kind would be offered. It might not be completely fair to customers who bought the planes, but ultimately it doesn't affect them. If I bought, say, the old 737NG in 2004 there's no way I could have foreseen it becoming freeware in the future, and similarly I doubt that there are many people who would wait a decade for the 777 or NGX to become freeware. There's the RFP 747-200, and on the XPlane side of things there's the Dreamfoil Aeroboero and the old Embraer 170 by SSG.

I installed v3.3.5 a while ago, but I've only just noticed that the default ATC is not working properly. When I open the ATC window, all the options appear but when I contact ATC no text of the conversation is displayed and no sound plays. Also, when I tune the ATIS there is no sound and the green bar with the ATIS info doesn't appear. However, it seems that my requests are getting through, because the ATC window options change to allow a readback as they should. All of the boxes are checked in the settings/general/ATC tab, but strangely the Pilot Voice dropdown menu is blank. I have FSUIPC and Couatl/Addon Manager but not any ATC mods installed, and I can't recall if ATC ever worked with my current install because I use it so rarely. How can I fix this?

The moon doesn't look that good and I don't think there's a mod for it AFAIK (believe me, I looked far and wide). I've never had a problem with the clouds at night, but I use Skymaxx Pro and Real Terra Haze, so maybe those improve the look of the clouds at night. Here is something else you may want to try: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/23164-night-light-transition-and-white-clouds-lua-scripts/ Also, you get used to removing static aircraft with the Overlay Editor after a while and it usually only takes a few minutes. I was also disappointed by static planes in the beginning, but the right models really add a lot of detail and life to airports. You can replace your static planes with better models that come with The Fruit Stand library (http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/27545-the-fruit-stand-aircraft-library/) and the FAIB library (http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/29079-the-faib-aircraft-library/). Both of which are simply MSFS AI models converted to XP10, and they look quite good. In fact, I've grown fond of using Overlay Editor to fix up my airports and add just the right static AI planes. The great thing about XPlane is that everything is so easily customizable :wink:

The dull look of XPlane can be fixed with RealTerraHaze (free) and BluFX (free but hard to find) or its payware equivalent MaxxFX. Also, I don't think 10.50 will fix atc or rain reflections. OP, you're definitely making the right call! I got XP10 last December and I'm constantly amazed by the sim, especially the night lighting. Here are some addons I'd recommend: Dreamfoil's AeroBoero AB-115- exceptional freeware (formerly payware) little Cub-like plane. Available on x-plane.org FlightFactor 767- the best payware heavy jet. store.x-plane.org LES Saab 340- A turboprop that I honestly prefer to the Majestic Q400- .x-aviation.com SkymaxxPro- weather addon that helps with weather depiction: x-aviation.com Real World Weather- another weather addon that helps with cloud placement: x-aviation.com NOAA GFS Weather- freeware plugin that gives you real-world weather and a METAR query box: x-plane.org Real Terra Haze (as I mentioned above)- a freeware plugin that lets you play around with atmospheric and light settings: x-plane.org Any of the freeware airports by MisterX6 (x-plane.org). You'll be blown away by how detailed they are. Finally, check out Osamah Abdullah's YouTube page. He provides great guides, tutorials, and reviews as well as full flight videos in both XPlane and P3D: https://www.youtube.com/user/oalabdullah1/videos Even though many people love XP10, it might not be for everyone. I'd suggest that you download the demo (it's time limited to 15 minutes and only has the Seattle area). Take some time to get familiar with it and play around with various freeware airplanes and scenery/atmosphere addons before you pick it up.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but the Victor was designed in the 50s, most likely by hand using only extremely primitive computers. As the field progressed, more research was done, and computers allowed for more accurate modeling than ever before, refining what was thought of as "simple, unassailable aerodynamical logic" in the past. Still, looking at some wing profiles like that of the 737 (http://i.stack.imgur.com/9tz8Z.png) or CRJ-200 (https://cospilot.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/crj200-aircraft-dimensions.jpg) it looks like some very basic elements of the Crescent Wing may have been incorporated (they are not simple, straight swept-back wings). Personally, I'd love to see a more detailed explanation of exactly why the Crescent shape is not used anymore.

There is. Copy+paste the file name I posted earlier into the library search box and you will find it.

am332tr.zip