Longranger

Wrong. Especially the weather simulation is something that works more or less independent of the flight simulation. It wouldn't make sense to develop a werather simulator only for one plattform, when yo have FS 2004, FSX, P3D V1,2+3, X-Plane and the Dovetail Simulator that all need more or less the same weather. X-Planes cloud system is totally unique, so it is Laminars Job to figure out how to display the weather infornmations that they get, and if FSGRW and and Sky Maxx Pro establish a new interface, Laminar will have to attach itself to the interface, if they aren't asked to add a special interface to X-Plane. While X-Plane 11 probably won't have the same interface (since they will probably move away from their old three cloud layers, they would be crazy to totally block the old API.. Since X-Plane 11 is a new version they will probably just raise the API Versions so that they can detect if the old or new system is needed right now.. You can't really comparte it with the beginning oc X-Plane 10, where they had to burn a lot of the old bridges.

Ok, first of all, does it has a special reason why you use ENGM without any buildings, while Tom Curtis offer a quite good, although a bit outdated version ( http://forums.xplanefreeware.net/topic/10960-engm-10-oslo-norway/ )? And I guess you are also registered at x-plane.org as a forum user to have access to their resources? Then use the Europe Library from simheaven as well as the w2xp-Europe buildings as well as the necessary Libraries.

Well, I think I understand what you mean. I just wrote a comparison between the Terrain in P3D 2.5 and X-Plane 10 (Ignore the language,, english is not my native language. http://www.simflight.de/2015/09/19/vergleich-p3d-v2-5-und-x-plane-10-40-terrain-darstellung/ ) In X-Plane I used the UHD or at least HD Meshes, while in P3D OrbX FTX Regionsd and even Airports were used. On even terrain the FSX/P3D technique has advantages, but if we enter hills and mountains our meshes work much better. Just take a look how Mount Rainier looks, compared to the UHD version. FSX and P3D use small pictures, that look pretty decent and most of all, they look pretty decent without any additional buildings. In X-Plane basic terrain textures but it works only as a foundation, it needs additional objects on top to look believable. On the flight from KSNA to KPSP it gets more difficult for P3D since it has to start only with Orbx global base behind it, tillk it reaches the borders of the KPSP scenery. On X-Plane by difference we have a foundation by one of the old photo-textures, which would look pretty decent if we would fly a bit higher.. I think a lot of the swceneries that you look at use Photosceneries, which can only cover a rather small area. I think we all would hope for better terrain textures, but it isn't easy. I am not sure, Tony, am I wrong or did your UK Pro improve the texture selection in the UK?..

Well, I wrote a rather detailed review about Manchester and at least what I see at the pictures I don't really think that we have quite as detailed textures as in Manchester and the night lighting can't really compete with the effects that Icarus presented to us in Manchester. Manchester really plays in a different league than Heathrow or its direct successor Mykonos (where the Airport was rather weak, but they modeled the comnplete island. And I don't really see a location on the whole KRSW island where they could even start to play the complex games between direct lighting and light textures, where Manchester surpassed anything that we saw in X-Plane before.

Although: Game changer? At least from what I saw till now I would say it doesn't reach Manchester, IMHO.

Ok, can you explain to me what these London Buildings at the Top of the List do? As well as the _DefaultStreets London-Heathrow/ ?Try to set them to SCENERY_PACK_DISABLED Istanbul1, Istanbul2 and Dubai, as well as Gibraltar could be more than an airports too.

Hmm, with the exception of the Europe Library I don't see any modifications for Europe.

Depends. There are different ones and all of them won't work together since they have different objectives and approaches! What does your scenery_packs.ini file state?

I agree UHD wherever they are available : http://www.simflight.de/2015/09/19/vergleich-p3d-v2-5-und-x-plane-10-40-terrain-darstellung/ Well there are some w2xplane packs with autogen and some without (osm-only) . Otherwise there might be something wrong in your scenery_packs.ini.

They are working on a Pro Version which will fix these restrictions. But at the same time, the same people are working on a Boeing 767, so I wouldn't try to guess which aircraft will be released sooner.

I can only tell you what Philipp said in the twitch stream (It was deleted in the mean time). The point is:: If Ben was asked for ATC he always only answered "Yes, _BUG FIXES_". And People always expect more or less a rewrite of the current ATC. If you expect a rewrite you obviozusly shouldn't expect it in a X-Plane 10 time frame. I quote from an interview Ben SUpnik gave to flightsim.com ( http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?14518-Interview-Ben-Supnik-Future-Of-X-Plane ) " How do you see the ATC changing in the future? One of our goals with the new ATC system for X-Plane 10 was to create a strong foundation for future feature development. (In this way the new ATC system is a little bit like the new scenery system was in X-Plane 8 - the beginning of a journey.) Both Chris Serio and myself (the co-designers of the ATC engine) are long-time VATSIM controllers with considerable knowledge about real-world ATC operations; our goal was to make a system that could be extended to model all real-world ATC operations. Our first priority is bug fixes and usability. The goal of the initial ATC system was to be able to complete a realistic IFR flight with ATC; unfortunately a small number of nasty bugs cause a lot of problems with this." He always only confirmed the bug fixes and Philipp simply went into more details. They no longer view the internal ATC as a major feature for X-Plane 10, since there are more usefull online ATCs and third party tools available. But somehow people always try to change the answers to "Yes, there will be a major upgrade of the ATC."

Well I think several statements that Philipp and Ben made clearly seem to indicate that some changes will not be as deep in X-Plane 10 as they expect. The weather for X-Plane 10 as well as seasons seem to be pretty much done for X-Plane 10. Improvements in these areas will happen by third party products , not by Laminar. ATC will get some bug fixes but nothiung major since IVAO, VATSIM and PilotEdge are better solutions. SWo some of the main features for X-Plane 11 will be: Use tessellation instead of UHD Sceneries, weather with the help of shaders. Weather improvements. Some GUI improvements like the particle engine might still happen in X-Plane 10, as well as improvemnts in the autogen.

No, all libraries are always called when needed. So their position in the ini file doesn't mean anything. Thier location in the sceneries folder only guarantees that they are inside of the search path.

According to Philipp there probably won't be any significant changes in the default weather engine in X-Plane 10. But external weather engines and third party tools like Sky MAXX Pro will be able to get the more detailled weather informations, like the weather at the nearest airports. But the default engine will only have one weather so it is much more difficult to get a direction dependend weather.

Your worl detail distance is too high but you can increase the texture resolution to very high. And forget the inspector in the beginning. This is not the FSX.X-Plane (and the OpenGL drivers) knows how modern graphic cards work.

It has a weather radar in many planes since it is a default feature.

Well, his official word is that he is working 3/4 of his time for Laminar and only 1/4 of his time for FlightFactor. But according to my iknowledege he has never worked for the IXEG, instead they complained that they can't recycle an old FMS.

It gets better and better with each new flight. We now have just to0 wait till it is finished.

Exactly. You have to correct its position in your scenery_packs.ini file in you custom scenery folder.

Yep, it was one of several bugs, but due to the harsh reactions it is probably one of the bugs quitw high on their list to fix. It would be to early to really judge about this project. They have a lot of bells and whistles in place, but also some bugs. But this is nothing new. The C172 f5rom A2A received some harsh reactions in the beginning, till they fixed several of their issues. The SImCoders Reality Plug-in from SimCoders also didn't work as smoothly in the first version. Since thy already released their first update and indicated several more, i would say lets wait and see, what they will acomplish. Their new video ( ) and several of their comments look quite promising.

No, the system depth of the Carenados is much better. Compared to the X-Plane B1900 D the P3D/FSX Version is a toy. The big advantage is, that it is impossibel to really convert a plane from FSX to X-Plane. The flight dynamics follow different rules. While the B19900D in X-Plane can really slow down on approach with full governor, since it simulates that the propellers can generate a huge amount of drag you have to work around this problem in FSX. But at the sdame time the Carenados aren't always the top of the line in realism. My personal favorites would be: Carenado CT 210 if you add the Reality Expansion Pack from SimCoders, which improves the flight dynamics, engine and sounds ( ) The Beaver-2 from SoulMadeSim ( ) The vFlyteAir PiperArrow III For two engines I would take Ther Carenado B1900D, the real simulation highlight: the X-Aviation Saab 340 .

Well it is a port as far as you can port a plane. This means that the X-Plane Version has more or less the same 3D Objects and textures and is based on the same sound files, but then you don't have anything to port Dan Klasue has to rexcreate the planes more or less and in general their flight characteristics don't really match.and their features can have significant differences. As an example the DA-40 no longer sdtartsa by simply increasing the mixture and turn the key, instead, you now need tha fuel pump, some thrust and decrease the mixture, to start the engine. This change has probably more to do with the Beaver and the REP CT210, than with its FSX Original.

How much RAM and VRAM do you have? Your description sounds like your Computer runs out of RAM or VRAN, starts to swap and the collapses. But it is only a possible cause.

Well the multi threaded CPU usage changed dramatically with 10.40. Now they are all busy with scenery loading. But it is and will never be a problem to overload the sim with too much stuff.

Chopper: The Bell 407, that's one of the best, but helicopters need some training, since they behave more realistic than under FSX. The Dash 9 is a bit old, so the cockpit controls are a bit limited, but better than the ATR 72. I would saqy take the DHC-6 Twin Otter. Not perfect but for this price it's quite good, or the Boeing 727 Series.