Bulletin BoardRule Changes:.Self-promotion is limited to the weekly self-promotion thread only.Accounts younger than 12 hours are now permitted to post both comments and submissionsPlease see this threads for more information:.Join us on Discord!Rules.Be respectful.No NSFW content.No piracy.Absolutely no advertising or self-promotion outside of the weekly self-promotion thread.Absolutely no spam.No off-topic/low-effort postsMore about our rules can be found here:. Flight Sim Internet Radio.Guides.Flight Sim News and New Releases.Flight Sim Add-On Sites.Multiplayer Flying.IRC: freenode #upvotevaRelated Subreddits.Contest Winner. I purchased it after reading a recommendation in another thread on this sub, and reading some reviews and watching youtube videos of the aircraft.I applied the most recent XP11 patch for the aircraft.
Which was linked in the X-plane.org store in the dev thread, when I purchased this plane.For the most part I'm pretty happy with it. The performance seems reasonable compared to the real world version. The current version uses the XP11b FMC, which is not perfect (but quite a bit better than the XP10 FMC, from what I understand). Occasionally, the autopilot does something I don't want, but at this point I'll chalk that up to my own mistakes. I will say that if you don't program a flight plan close to your STAR or final approach, it seems to bug out and lose the destination airport. Not a problem with this aircraft, it's a problem with the XP11b FMC.It seems like most people who post here are either concerned with the heavy metal, or basic GA stuff.
It's funny that bizjets seem to be lost in the middle. This aircraft is basically a more advanced version of the CRJ, and shares many cockpit similarities, though Bombardier says it is a newer, clean-sheet design. For me, it was a good step up from turboprop aircraft (in my case, the default King Air C90B)The aircraft was apparently developed with help from an actual C300 pilot, and he answers a lot of questions in, which, despite being 5 1/2 years old, was very helpful to me in learning the aircraft.Using the aircraft in XP11b9, I've found out a few things:1) The default ATC assumes you're a prop plane, and wants you to descend from FL450 in 15 nm, and yells at you if you start a normal descent 120 nm out. I don't think this is a problem with the aircraft, rather this is a problem with beta ATC. When I fly this plane, I configure my flight plan in the FMC, and pretend that's what I was cleared for (though I'm interested in trying this in VATSIM).2) The RNAV approach to Toncontin will not line you up with the runway. I assume it's because I'm supposed to hand fly the plane from TG011 to land. Bollywood movies songs mp3 download. On my second attempt, hand flying it, I was lined up with the runway, and ran into a flock of birds, so I ended up pulling a TACA Flight 390.3) I'm not sure if it's a hardware issue on my side, but I can't get Mach Hold to work beyond a minute or so.
I can stabilize the speed at my desired Mach (0.80), and engage Mach Hold, and it will start oscillating until it exceeds the Mach Hold limits. I can basically set the N1 to 72%, and it stays close enough to M080 at FL450 over a long period of time that I don't really need Mach Hold.As someone who didn't blink at spending $70 on XEnviro, I feel this $30 was well spent.
Return man 6 linebacker workouts. Started to play around with XP11 a couple of weeks ago and so far I've only used the default airports but now I figured time has come to get some really good airport scenery and wanted to ask what airports you guys recommend? I'm interested in both freeware as well as payware but I do prefer airports that are designed for XP11 or will at least work in XP11 without any issues.I will be flying the Bombardier Challenger 300 and I mainly do my flying in Europe so that's the area I'm most interested in but might be interested in really good airports also in other areas.My home airport is ESSA so would have been great to find some good ESSA scenery like the Orbx version for FSX and P3D but so far I've only found some rather old scenery which also seems to come with some issues. So if there is some other ESSA scenery I didn't find I would be more than happy to learn about it.TIA for your input! Not so much in Europe but.The best I have visually is the FlyTampa Dubai (FS9 conversion) which I did for X-Plane. It looks absolutely stunning. So too does Paulo Ricardo's Mega Rio De Janeiro.
It converts really easily in less than 5 minutes and gives you buildings and a skyline as far as you can see. Both are jaw-droppingly good.I really like the recent Dallas KDFW payware. Also any of the MisterX's airports are great. Another good free airport is RCSS over at the XP forum.I do not fly much in Europe, but TDG's airports are decent (some very good) - again all free over at the XP forum.Whatever you download make sure you also download all of the libraries it asks for.
Otherwise you will get error messages all of the time. Sorry but not that great, IMHO. Interesting products, many thanks to the creators for the efforts and hard work, but looking at ground textures, 3D grass, handcrafted textures on buildings, etc. All that things that are visible from a cockpit POV. There is a great potential to exploit and developers are able to match the gap with P3D products and offer what X-Plane users deserve.Fredwhat airports are you basing your oppinion on? The stock lego ones?
I mean with those i can agree but they are hardly payware comparisonlook at this picture and tell me what is here worse compared to an fsx/p3d payware airport?for me this is comparable to the best of the p3d/fsx airports, even surpassing them because we haven seen a p3d airport purely developed for V4 yet without the constraints. I mean that flightbeam, taxi2gate, fsdreamteam, flytampa, etc. Top quality sceneries. But agree it is totally subjective.I use both P3D and XP11 and a bit frustrated the real capacity of the last one is not yet fully unveiled (as it is already for the aircrafts - e.g. IXEG 737 Classic.
What a bird!). At the same time I am really confident we are on the right way, the gap quality of paywares is closing more and more. I own a couple of masterpieces I consider good examples of what can be done for each XP airport scenery, the 29Palms KTNP or Beti-X CZST, just to name a few. To illustrate my mind. Look for instance this Aerobridge VHHH.
Hope it will see the light of the day very soon, looks very promising. Some other where also announced, like this T2G conversion of MMMX, but no more news. Once again I wish the developers to keep the momentum and to deliver. They all have my full support.
Have a nice day. Without wanting to go off topic, I dont know why more of the big scenery devs don't convert airports from P3D to XP and expand their market.I mean I have limited (if any) tech knowledge or prior experience, but managed to convert a FlyTampa airport from FSX to XP11 in the matter of a few hours by watching a series of three 20 minute YouTube videos. The texturing and lighting look far superior in the XP versions.If I can do it, I am sure a dev at FlyTampa could probably do their entire catalog of scenery and get it done and uploaded on the website for sale within a 40 hour work week. Then charge $20-25 an airport. Without wanting to go off topic, I dont know why more of the big scenery devs don't convert airports from P3D to XP and expand their market.I mean I have limited (if any) tech knowledge or prior experience, but managed to convert a FlyTampa airport from FSX to XP11 in the matter of a few hours by watching a series of three 20 minute YouTube videos. The texturing and lighting look far superior in the XP versions.If I can do it, I am sure a dev at FlyTampa could probably do their entire catalog of scenery and get it done and uploaded on the website for sale within a 40 hour work week.
Then charge $20-25 an airport.Could post or pm me with links to these videos? I'd very much like to try this technique. I'd rather hope they didn't go down the lazy route of just running FS2XPlane and calling it done. Any one converting scenery to X-Plane should do it properly, using the original 3D model source and making use of XP features and not just do a lazy low quality conversion in the hope of earning a few extra $$$ which is what many are in the habit of now doing.I agree.If converting scenery means you will lose some XP features I too hope serious developers will not go that route.Probably some will hoping to make some quick $ while the more serious and professional won't.That is usually the case both in our hobby and pretty much everywhere around us.In the end we vote with our wallets. Not so much in Europe but.The best I have visually is the FlyTampa Dubai (FS9 conversion) which I did for X-Plane. It looks absolutely stunning.
So too does Paulo Ricardo's Mega Rio De Janeiro. It converts really easily in less than 5 minutes and gives you buildings and a skyline as far as you can see. Both are jaw-droppingly good.I really like the recent Dallas KDFW payware. Also any of the MisterX's airports are great. Another good free airport is RCSS over at the XP forum.I do not fly much in Europe, but TDG's airports are decent (some very good) - again all free over at the XP forum.Whatever you download make sure you also download all of the libraries it asks for. Otherwise you will get error messages all of the time.Hi Richie,I just did a quick and dirty conversion of FlyTampa Dubai FS9 and the texturing looks amazing!! I just have 2 problems; large grey block in the middle of the apron, and some sort of elevation issue - as soon as the flight loads, my plane goes underground, leaps into the air, then crashes.Are these two an easy fix?
Will I need to download Overlay Editor? (It seems a bit unintuitive!). Yes, you need to go into the editor and delete all of the floating objects - you will probably notice random black boxes and floating lights too. Dubai was actually a little tricky and took me a few hours to do.
This is as you are also missing the runway lights at night. So you have to put them in and all the taxi lights.If I remember correctly you need to click on the runway and do something to the settings to make it a hard surface. The 3 part Thomas Rasmussen video series above will guide you through the process of everything or pm me for further questions. Not only the Dubai airport looks good. But the city looks amazing on approach also.The easiest I did was Paulo Ricardo's Mega Rio De Janiero. That is a direct conversion with no edits. You just need to put the freeware SBRJ Rio airport from.org forum above it in the scenery hierarchy to save having to edit the converted scenery.
And OMG wow - buildings as far as you can see and more. I remember I posted about this and some pics on here about 6 months ago.I certainly do not want to hijack the OP thread, so PM me or hit me up offline if anyone has questions.Thank you - I'll give that video a watch! At the moment I'm thinking Dubai is far outside of my knowledge of XP; just haven't got a clue how to execute any changes, such as adding runway lights etc, in OE, other than moving things around:)I might perhaps attempt a more modest first project!:)Cheers.
Welcome to a new era in X-Plane. The Bombardier Challenger 300 is a new generation business jet capable of transcontinental flights. The first flight took place in August 2001 and since January 2004 the aircraft is in delivery. This AddOn has been designed to let you fly this high-performance aircraft just like a real pilot does.All systems have been programmed to work the way they do in the Challenger 300.
Which was linked in the X-plane.org store in the dev thread, when I purchased this plane.For the most part I'm pretty happy with it. The performance seems reasonable compared to the real world version.
The current version uses the XP11b FMC, which is not perfect (but quite a bit better than the XP10 FMC, from what I understand). Occasionally, the autopilot does something I don't want, but at this point I'll chalk that up to my own mistakes. I will say that if you don't program a flight plan close to your STAR or final approach, it seems to bug out and lose the destination airport. Not a problem with this aircraft, it's a problem with the XP11b FMC.It seems like most people who post here are either concerned with the heavy metal, or basic GA stuff. It's funny that bizjets seem to be lost in the middle.
This aircraft is basically a more advanced version of the CRJ, and shares many cockpit similarities, though Bombardier says it is a newer, clean-sheet design. For me, it was a good step up from turboprop aircraft (in my case, the default King Air C90B)The aircraft was apparently developed with help from an actual C300 pilot, and he answers a lot of questions in, which, despite being 5 1/2 years old, was very helpful to me in learning the aircraft.Using the aircraft in XP11b9, I've found out a few things:1) The default ATC assumes you're a prop plane, and wants you to descend from FL450 in 15 nm, and yells at you if you start a normal descent 120 nm out. I don't think this is a problem with the aircraft, rather this is a problem with beta ATC. When I fly this plane, I configure my flight plan in the FMC, and pretend that's what I was cleared for (though I'm interested in trying this in VATSIM).2) The RNAV approach to Toncontin will not line you up with the runway. I assume it's because I'm supposed to hand fly the plane from TG011 to land. On my second attempt, hand flying it, I was lined up with the runway, and ran into a flock of birds, so I ended up pulling a TACA Flight 390.3) I'm not sure if it's a hardware issue on my side, but I can't get Mach Hold to work beyond a minute or so. I can stabilize the speed at my desired Mach (0.80), and engage Mach Hold, and it will start oscillating until it exceeds the Mach Hold limits.
I can basically set the N1 to 72%, and it stays close enough to M080 at FL450 over a long period of time that I don't really need Mach Hold.As someone who didn't blink at spending $70 on XEnviro, I feel this $30 was well spent.
I'm looking for a good regional Jet for XP10. With 'good' I mean at least on pair with a Carenado product (in example like the Flywings Avro RJ70 for FSX), so: credible textures and panels and good 3D models (no fake colors. Plastic looking and such).I've looked around, but I can only find sub-par looking planes. Nowhere near the FSX/P3D quality.Anyone has anything to suggest? (please no ugly looking stuff like the avroliner project or such.).Bombardier Challenger 300 Captain Edition by ddennorCRJ-200 by Jrollon.Both available on the.org store, the CRJ-200 also available on x-aviation. The CRJ-200 by JRollon is definitely worth a spot on anybody's hangar, very well done, great performance, granted is does need a cockpit face lift but aside from that, you can't go wrong buying it.
I got it when it was on sale, worth every penny even at regular price.I understand, but I have thousands invested in P3D, and before spending another thousands in XP I would apply the rule: buy only the above average stuff. I perfectly understand that the look isn't everything, but I just can't pass over the poor texturing (probably due to the fact that the aircraft was designed years ago for XP9).So until I find something that would put a smile on my face saying: holy C. This cockpit look so real!I don't think I will invest more money into this. It's gonna cost a fortune!:/@bonchie: oh I didn't know about it.
Now that cockpit looks well done. Lemme see some youtube videos.
Thank you, I'll give them a better look on YT. At first look the cockpit texture looked meh. On P3D i were used to fly the RJ70 and the Majestic Dash8.I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve. Why not continue to fly them if they are what you are looking for?That said: if it doesn't have to be a jet, the LES Saab 340 and CRJ-200 have both already been mentioned. Th Saab is a study level aircraft and the CRJ is very complex too.My impression is that you care more about the visuals (you mention Carenado), so the could also be a good choice in your case. As you correctly mention, the Avroliner should be avoided.
Not sure if that project is even still alive and kicking. I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve. Why not continue to fly them if they are what you are looking for?That said: if it doesn't have to be a jet, the LES Saab 340 and CRJ-200 have both already been mentioned. Th Saab is a study level aircraft and the CRJ is very complex too.My impression is that you care more about the visuals (you mention Carenado), so the could also be a good choice in your case. As you correctly mention, the Avroliner should be avoided. Not sure if that project is even still alive and kicking.It's also available at x-plane.org if that's the store of your preference:I'm not trying to solve a 'problem', I'm trying to find aircraft that matches the FSX/P3D quality.Yes, I look at the visuals, it's really important to me to have a realistic looking aircraft (visuals), the E175 you mentioned (assuming is this: ) is really sub-par under the visual aspect.
I mean, it looks fake if compared with the real thing.I'm looking for stuff that are on pair with IXEG 737 or something where the textures doesn't seem painted for a 90's videogame. Chatology download youtube. Because with P3D I have tons to chose from, with XP I'm struggling to find a 'good looking' aircraft, and I want to give XP10 a chance, that's why I'm recently flying it more. Is really sub-par under the visual aspect.
I mean, it looks fake if compared with the real thing.I'm looking for stuff that are on pair with IXEG 737 or something where the textures doesn't seem painted for a 90's videogameWell, for the outside (the fuselages): Good luck. Please note that unlike FSX/P3D, X-Plane is not able to render reflections on aircraft fuselages by default, so 90% of all aircraft outside textures look somehow artificial. The FlightFactor 767 has a plugin which renders some kind of reflection, and there's one Carenado aircraft which achieves a nearly-similar effect with some other technique, but usually, you will miss something.In the inside, though, I don't quite get what you mean. How do the 175's cockpit textures ( look like from a 90's videogame? I don't know what you expect from a cockpit that even in real-life is sterile and boring?
Sure, it's not IXEG quality, but certainly good. But if good is not good enough, then, well, sorry, there is no regional jet that fits your needs, because either it's too old (CRJ-200, Challenger 300), or to '90's'. No it's not about the exterior view, while in fact I can accept a subpar external view (99% of the time, I'm inside the aircraft).It's especially about the uniformity of the texture, it looks flat.
All the panel has the same color, the material appears to be fake, it doesn't take account of the light hitting it, neither it reflect the light in a natural manner.Look at those panels, how's possible that a whole panel has the same 'grey' color code on all the surface? It's like all the parts have been modeled by they forgot to apply the proper textures on them: a real surface is not like that, it has scratches, it has imperfections, it reflects the light differently.I don't know if it's me to pretend too much. But that's nowhere near the quality I'm looking for. And if I have to pay someone $40-$50, I pretend that they spend more than 10 minutes to paint a proper texture.
I don't know if it's me to pretend too much. But that's nowhere near the quality I'm looking for. And if I have to pay someone $40-$50, I pretend that they spend more than 10 minutes to paint a proper texture.Well, in case of the 175, there is no 'they', it's (mostly) just a one-man-show, and not in development for 6 long years like the IXEG. This is also something you need to learn about X-Plane: Most developers consist of one to a few people, and most of them started out as hobbyists, and are still learning.
And this shows. Don't expect A2A or PMDG quality, well, except from PMDG;-) or maybe IXEG.Back to the 175: I'm still not conviced that your description applies to the screenshots. When you display the screenshots from my link in full resolution (like ), you will notice that the panel texture indeed is NOT uniform.
It has a lot of scratches, parts that are darker or brighter, it has parts where the color has even peeled (as if this jet would be 30 years in use, which is a bit overdone imo). Sure, it is not perfect - but if you want graphical perfection, take the IXEG 737 or wait another 2 years. But the Challenger and the CRJ are bad designed for my taste, I've looked at the 340 already and it looks good enough. I need to find more videos and pictures, coz I won't waste my money on something that then i won't fly.I know I'm exigent, but I really can't look at a low res texture or a bad designed knob and stuff like this.
It really ruins everything after you spend so much time and money to tweak your scenery, upgrade your PC to pump the settings to the 'max'. Etc.I'm talking exclusively about the look of course. Not the physics, avionics, etc. It really ruins everything after you spend so much time and moneyI'm talking exclusively about the look of course.
Not the physics, avionics, etcReally????Why would you call the CRJ a 'bad designed' as you put it, if you don't even own it?Do you have the slightest idea of how much time and money (time=money) developers put on in such complicated projects? I Don't think so cause if you did, you would not be making such negative comments.If you don't like the looks then don't buy it.I can understand you are 'exigent' but to criticize in such manner an extremely well designed aircraft from every perspective, is just totally uncalled for. Really????Why would you call the CRJ a 'bad designed' as you put it, if you don't even own it?Do you have the slightest idea of how much time and money (time=money) developers put on in such complicated projects? Looks do matter to me. I like the way the CRJ looks. I have this one on my wish list.Just as important to me is the ability to enter a FP and use the AP to fly the plan and ILS approach.
If the plane can't do that, then I do not see a reason to buy it.Sounds add to the immersion. IMHO this is where XP 10 fails to deliver.Right. Im struggling to find the same quality I have with P3D, some of the models there does have the WOW factor.Talking about the scenery I find P3D at low altitude with ORBX more convincing, while XP10 with mesh performs better at high altitude because of the textures diversification.The weather (and the clouds representation). There's no story here, XP10 is ugly as hell if compared with REX, even with SkyMaxx+connector and RTH tweaks. 90% of the times the clouds are so fake that you must turn them off.Where XP is really ahead of P3D is about the night (so the lighting).
It's really well done and alot more convincing than P3D.But in general I agree, with XP I find it harder to replicate a 'real world' scenario, in example just for a nice screenshot. With P3D I found it easier as at every flight I was 'oh!' .Atm I'm still experimenting with XP, because i find the flight more smooth (despite the similar fps) and because P3Dv3.2 is a nightmare with the blurred textures. So i'm taking a pause from it.oh and i'm massively OT in this thread! PMDG 737 (talking about FSX/P3D) are well designed for my taste.LOL.did you ever see the B1900 cockpit graphics/instrument panel by PMDG when it first came out? I would guess you didn't.I bought it anyway, my way of supporting a company's first release.Edit:I would think and maybe even bet on it, that JRollon (CRJ creator) traded cockpit looks for fidelity in the hopes that performance would not be an issue.
Bombardier Challenger 300 Cockpit
If that is the case, then he did right on doing so. Now a days, we have GPU's 3 or 4 times faster then what was available at the time, so 'bad designed' cockpit graphics as you have put it, is a thing of the past (IXEG 737). I'm sorry, but I'm not talking about donations (because for me purchasing something that I won't use, will be just that. I want to buy something that I will use, not giving my money for 'support' (I do often, but I didn't open a thread to ask for who needs support. ).Donations.LOL.By buying something you are actually supporting it, that is what you and I have been doing all the time and that is precisely why companies like PDGM, REX, etc, keep coming out with better products all the time.I we if all had that 'Donation' attitude these companies would NOT be where they are today. I'll add another vote for the LES Saab 340.
There's a huge - and I mean HUGE - quality gap between it and other aircraft that have been mentioned here, such as the CRJ-200 or the X-Crafts E175. The latter two are. Well, they're not bad for X-Plane standards, but honestly I would hesitate to recommend them unless they are on sale. The Saab 340 though, as well as the IXEG, are among the few X-Plane addons that can keep up with the best that FSX/P3D have to offer.Now for those who are feeling a bit more adventurous there's also the very excellent Felis AN-24 and his YAK-40.
I don't have the Yak, but the AN-24 is absolutely superb and chances are that the Yak is just as good. Also, they're both only $10 and at that price they're a steal!
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |