Longranger

And another scenery file where the creator "forgot" to set exclusion zones.

I think you miss a critical point here: Philip wouldn't be in a good position to do anything in these matters. Especially seasons for example is more a question of artwork, the multi monitor support that you probably request is a a feature of Direct X which X-Plane doesn't uses since it doesn't work under MacOsX or linux and landclass puzzling would be more of an integrated objective between the artwork team and the person who wrote the auto generation. Not a suitable operation for a new team member. Otherwise he could probably start to work on something for X-Plane 11.

Well I didn't really observe such dramatic results in my setup. If you first enter the cockpit things were a bit slow, but after a few seconds everything recovered so I didn't even turn the frames display on.

And a first video review of the unfinished plane is available: According to the beta tester the plane should become available right after a 10.30 RC or at least the final 10.30 version. And the opinion of the beta tester "now it flies like a real Arrow!"

Only a guess: Do you have an overclocked system?

How would you know if the current QPAC plugins would really fit. Peters A380 and A 320 don't use the same plug-in. And if necessary Flight Factor could probably license an A350 plug-in from QPAC too. FlightFactor has no problems to simply get the helpof other specialists. So they got the help of FlyJSim for the flight behaviour of their Boeing 757.

And since I heard some very positive opinions from one of the beta testers I am even more excited about this plane, after the Traveler and Tiger. He even dared to compare it with A2A.

You totally miss that they already have quzite a huge list of other possible priorities. ATC, KI traffic, improvements in the graphic enggine like long distance views, seasons...Ecery one of these features has the same right to become a priority. They simply have no one who has the time to develop a realistic weather engine.A better GPS was a long time requirement by many simmers, but they were only able to add this when they added Philipp to their staff.

No, you simply totally miss that Laminar has no real resources to really develop a powerfull weather engine. They used the "nhormal" method based on METAR, but if you look at the informations that MET&AR delivers it becomes pretty much obviuous that it can't work as a suitable database for the weather that a plane has to travel through. It is only ewuipped to give some informations for take-off and landing.. They don't give you ANY indication what happens outside their direct location., You cahn't program a realistc weather simulation with only this data. You can only use this data as additional references for your real engine. Laminar doesn't really whish to offer a perfect engine. They only offer a solution that works to a certain point. But if there are companies who are better in it, then so be it. SkyMAXX is an alternative but if you really want weather engines for flight simulatores, they are already there. They have something that you can really describe as a weather engine. An additional output format isn't so difficult or expensive for them compared to their real work. For them X-Plane would simply be an additional plattform It is the easiest and probably fastest approach for a better weather engine. Don't try< to beat them, use them for a common goal. Every improvement they make for FSX miaht also be an improvement for X-Plane and they are in the rather comfortable situation that they don't have to vare which plattform has the most customers: FSX, P3D or X-Plane.

An extremly simplified opinion what the developpers of X-Plane really have to do, especially since there already are companies that treied to fix these problems for FSX. Simplygive them an API to attach to X-Plane and they will do their bestfor this new plattform. And if you look at the features of 10.30 it becomews obvious that they decided to go this way.

Well, exactly there are points that are currently changing. ATC was always a problematic feature, but who worries about the in Sim ATC if you have PilotEdge? If you want usefull weather in FSX you always had to rely on external systems, and that is what is currently happening for X-Plane. 10.30 had sevewral changes that will allow the use of external weather engines. And the barren airports become more and more a problem of the past with the community based airports and the huge amount of decent freeware airport. While most of the bigger airports are simply better in FSX, there are many smaller airports that no longer have to fear competitors. And the seasons, well I was never a huge fan of them since they were totally unrealistic. How often did I fly through a snow covered land scape while we had temperatures of 20° C

Well, we more or less answered it. Your RAM is insufficient but RAM is pretty cheap, and together with a new Graphics card you will get pretty good results for a rather small amount of money. If you buy a totally new PC you will get even better resuts but the the improvement per dollar decreases dramatically. Your CPU is no longer up to date but it is still decent. If you don't really have to think about money you could buy a new PC but I don't think that it is really necessary..

Well, it depends. AMD cards have a tendency to be a bit touzchy. They can profit from a bit of fine tuning. That's one of the reasons for mantle. On OpenGL on the other hand there is NO finetuning from the program possible, the inteligence has to be in the gtraphics driver that the ca5rd deceloper delivers and that's the problem. The OpenGL drivers from ATI have a pretty bad reputation.

Well, the B200 is slightly faster but I wouldn't describe this as the main difference. If you already have the B90 you more or less know the B200 especially if you patched the B90 to use the new GPS. It flies nearly identical. The CT206 on the other hand feels more like a much smaller plane although it can fly quite fast and climb easily. Its flight behavious is a bit like the Grand Caravan but much more refined.

I am not sure if I ubderstand your post correctly: Why would you shy away from NVidia, while you say that the NVidia Drivers are the standard? I must say my last AMD card worked quite well till X-Plane really started to use its reserves. Suddenly I had many crashes of the display drivers that had to be restarted. In general especially the OpenGL drivers of NVidia are much more reliable than their AMD counterparts.

Ok, your processor is slightly older than mine. Your Motherboard can only handle up to 16 GB of RAM so you should replace the RAM with 16GB. With your older moherboard and processor I would switch to a 770GTX4GB.

They have updated, although the link doesn't inidicate it. And don't worry soi much about the 3 downloads. You would simply have to contact the Carenado support.

Well that's mainly a result of the guess work that is the result of the METAR weather reports. For a real weather simulation they leave a lot to be desired. And I must say I haven't seen this so dramatically sincwe 10.25 and 10.30, unless the normal weather report already talked about weather conditions where you don't want to use a GA plane.

Yes. I simpl like to fly this plane, The Garmin 530 is nice and the flight behaviour is good.and needs only tiny corrections to compensate the torque.

IMHO it is much better. It flies pretty level, doesn't need a lot of rudder control in turns and has quite a balloning tendency at landing. IMHO one of the best Carenados to fly.

In this plane there is even a Volume control in the view menu ( the C at the left border of the screen).

Well IMHO the AS 350 is too nervous but according to some helicopter specialists (they even modified their hardware) the AS 350 is in fact exactly as the original. According to them the AS 350 is pretty unstable and since they are able to master this beast i have no real reason to doubt their words. But the 407 flies totally different. And exactly that is the point if they behave differently in real life they should behave differently in the simulator. IMHO you are in no position to critizise the general helicopter handling in X-Plane with only one example.

It totally depends on what you do and where you fly. Helicopters? Sorry the FSX Helicopters are a joke nothing more. And with photoscenaries and World2Xplane they are an ORBX killer in Europe especially if you use GA aircrafts.

According to Da Klaue this won't happen since it would mean severe redesigns of most cockpits. You can currently modify all Carenado planes with a GPS to use the new popup but for most planes this is it. ( http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=76715&page=8#entry825071 )

Well the AS 350 is very light and reacts rather nervous. The biggest problem with smaller and rather nimble helicoptersare the tiny movements you can make with a joystick compared to the normal controls of a helicopter.And without Rudder pedals they are simply unflyable. But the bigger the heliocpter is the easyer it is to control. They do no longer depend on tiny corrections, you have to plan ahead instead. The Dreamfoil 407 is a pretty good compromise. With a bit of training and Rudder pedals it can be controled much better than the AS 350, but it osn't as stable as the BKK 117, the Agusta or the Sikorsky S-92. The Alabeo R66 is iMHO not realsitic even without Artifical Stability. For me The Dreamfoil 407 is currently the best helicopter for X-Plane 10 with the BKK 117 as a close second.