Almdudler

x

cxld.

The Trick is doing it right.

@Bueb, identifyable over Forum Discussions or Feedback Platforms at some degree, observations, personal favourites, and a long year experience helps a bit. Can not recall an actual dedicated poll ever done, which is surprising. 5 issues to face: The list of aircraft is long, comparing it against platforms and development status huge work. There are online poll tools available but making it work the way it provides good response is challenging, and: there always remains the fact that consumers don't know what they want until they see the product. last issue is that not-so-good developers might pick a project (to make a bug) so excellent developers drop it. I would create a poll if guys wanna help me. @Stephen could facilitate the poll on this site, potentially a community's click booster. Let me know please. both of you. thanks. Due to the multi-role, multi-category, multi-nationality, propulsion variety of aircraft, production time and history (variants and upgrades), the list becomes quickly chaotic and should be published as pivot with filter only. Here a simplified list: 1 Civil aircraft 1.1 Civil air transport 1.2 Civil – general aviation 2 Military aircraft 2.1 Fighters 2.2 Bombers 2.3 Reconnaissance, electronic warfare and Airborne Early Warning 2.4 Carrier-based aircraft 2.5 Air support/attack aircraft 2.6 Training aircraft 2.7 Transport 3 Helicopters and Autogyros 4 Racing aircraft 5 Experimental aircraft 6 Seaplanes and Amphibians

Lionel confirmed the GA and BizJet Segment spilling over while sales numbers remain small. He supports other project holders in their ventures and may eventually look into a different segment himself. There were discussions on other forums. They havn't done a lot of market analyses before they started their projects in the past, it mainly came out of what they thought they like and tackled it. What sounds like a joke for you, maybe the start of a discussion, as developers sometimes need a hint from consumers into the right direction, nothing wrong about it. Laminar started it, Microsoft started it, and others have done it for long. It's called consumer dialogue or "Listening". My comment showed some options. The devs are networking behind our sight, each one cross-contributing in either project with their special knowledge, no matter which label, no matter fixed or rotor wing, mil or civil. You find Aerobask's Lionel's work in other products without knowing. In that context chances we will see some of these aviation icons proposed may rise while you keep doing april jokes. If that helps you understand: Real life Airplanes are also built by a cross network of suppliers. What we see as consumers is the overall assembly. So, dear Stephen, give consumer feedback and suggestions a fair chance and see how paths exist because they were made.

with all their talent, why don't they tackle something more wanted by the community, like the C-130, A-400M, NH-90, AH-1Z, MH-53E, EC-120, and 100 more.

sad they stole my "hub" idea from laminar's feedback forum. i should patent my ideas in order to be safe in this thieves community. i wanted laminar to create a hub - for x-plane. Didn't expect those junkies drive away with it for a different purpose.

re-discovered this plane, and getting happier and happier about it. i think the quality becomes apparent once you try to create a plane ourselves. it's a hell of a work behind, the more i apprciate RW's fantastic work. At his point i would like to ask whether somebody has the hawaiian livery for me, maybe Mahalo Air as well. I think first person pilots being made visible would be an asset, also put some passengers i would love. And the passengers should start crying when i dive down on St.Barts final.

Since version update 1.14 has been released early December 2020 i hope a new review is due. special attention needs to be given to city lights illumination, night sky, sky colour scheme, cloud shapes, real weather data translation, weather effects, overall settings like contrast, gamma, etc. and of course terrain look tweaks. I am a rather happy customer with them, but i also wanna keep pushing them into the right directions if things appear going the wrong way. One thing that terribly disturbs me is the dark horizon, especially at the edges of the day. Their techniques often work "deductive", that means they add something to hide something else. For example you can achieve a better airplane landing light effect if you darken everything around the light cube. The consequence is that you lose the great road lights all around that cube which you may have cultivated to perfection over the years. And i have a feeling the dark horizon is caused by some of that methods. To be on the safe side of interpreting colours right, i have worked out a one to one view between xenviro's sunset colours vs. reality, and i hope they don't take this as a critics but find a way to rectify. What i want to see in their next release is much more realistic sunsets, with a warmly glowing sun and the very right colour definitions along the 10 degree horizon sphere.

oh, i'd love to hear about that. thanks.

well said John, couldn't agree more with your editorial (despite we have 8 billion people, typo?) Being a Marketing Executive and Aviator myself, i don't spend a second on regrets that this state of evolution became reality. Sometimes visions stand way on top of commercial evaluations, and the A380 was a needed step in bringing the Aviation Industry to its current state. There wouldn't be a 787, nor a 737MAX nor a A350 if the A380 wasn't been built. They are the answer for both, market trends as well as techology. Imagine mankind would never know how big an airplane can make it, we needed to know. I am so anticipating the A380 - a cold manufacturer war's (Boeing vs. Airbus) status symbol - coming to X-plane, so we can preserve its uniqueness virtually and enjoy its extraordinary construction for the rest of time. If we wanted to look for errors, we would have to blame some Asian Airline Managers not Airbus Industrie. Their pressure into building such a sized plane was based on their expolaration/expectation of travel trends and home made status megalomania. I can't help to see similarities to Howard Hughes's H-4 Hercules story. History repeats itself.

X-Trident: Nice graphics over good Flight modelling. Usually being fascinated by 3rd party developments with such nice 3D-modelling i am losing caution when purchasing. The after purchase experience however sometimes feels like waking up in the morning after a heavy nightlong party. X-Trident has given me this kind of awakening, making myself a fool but much more careful for any future investement into such 3rd party products. Something feels weird about these italian developers. They take 2plus years to model their stuff down the road to visual perfection and then they come with this kind of arcade flight physics and flight handling envelope which has nothing to do with how real heli flying feels. Flying this Bell412 is like sitting in an elevator or even a remote autonom flying rail waggon, surely away from a real life experience. Despite adding xprealistic plugin and other improvements to this model, i couldn't connect to their idea of what helicopter flying is supposed to be about. That thing flies like by itself, there is nothing of heli piloting's peculiarities. To be fair, their graphics are excellent, they spend their lives for a nice look, which very much reflects the italian style of easy life. unfortunately flight sims are not a Milano Fashion Show or a Roman allday Cappuchino chitty chat, they are supposed to feature aerodynamics in the first. under complex conditions and with complex responses. X-Trident's product was a disappointment for me, i got trapped by eye-candy too much. We, the users, love to get trapped by eye-candy, that is why the place is filled with amateur developers like x-trident or colimata to mention 2 of those italo-devs, making their bugs on rookie user naivity. And they are famous for not taking critical questions by users, they simply ban such customers from their forums and delete their posts. This terrible practice is ongoing and unfortunately not inhibited by any authority to date. Okay, it's everyone's personal decision and preferences, with what quality level a heli should come with, i am in the rather realistic flight section, expecting such. If you like arcade, you should not even read this review:) For total beginners, this product might be a good jump into x-plane. But the same quality of heliflying could be found in simple ego-shooters like ARMA at a cheaper price. A fair price would be somewhere at 25$. for their effort on the 3D-modelling. There are several italian products out there with a caution-label on them. One is Colimata, always classified as "no buy!". X-Trident's current work on the Boeing CH-46 Chinook seems going the very same way. Lots of candy screenshots and promotional gossip overblending flight facts, i think we can expect the same level of amateur expertise but big noise for this one. Rumors say that developer x-trident is copy-pasting the flight model from other - probably the native S-76 - helicopters without undertaking the complex calculations that come with individual helicopter development. The S-76 covers a wide base of physics for any helicopter type, Laminar's purpose, but does not translate individual characteristics of a specific model's flight characteristics. This may explain the unprofessional flight behaviour of X-Trident's Products. While you think you fly an Agusta Bell 412, in fact you run an S-76 default, on a 412 model mock up. That is called a "Mod", a fake. Even in DCS combat simulator, you can find such "fakes", whereas some freak modiffies an F-15 into an F-22 and promotes it as F-22. Users with no real life flight experience, especially with no flight hours on the specific aircraft type, would never know the difference, how would they possibly. Instead, these nuggets listen to other nuggets, and often tend to overrate the product in their youtube cheerings without knowing, seaking for likes. The easier it is flyable the more they cheer a product, which transfers wrong expectations to other potential customers. As long as many of us customers favourize visuals and easy flying over realistic flight modelling, there will be these kinds of what i would call arcade products hitting the market. You can blend consumers easily with nice graphics and cool content, but that is not simulating flight. And X-Plane's reputation takes the debit. A flight simulator's quality associates through its flyable aircraft, that's how the world rates the sim. Unrealstic flying tells the sim is unrealistic or untrustworthy. If they ever knew the difference. Insisting on a one week trial for new products is always a good idea to protect demanding customers from disappointment. Some customers of the Colimata F/A-18 even forced their money back from the .org-store. I don't think promoting any level product is an actual problem, as long as it is admitted that it does not come with real life telemetrics/physics. Pay half the price if a dev comes on you without confirmed and licensed label by its real life manufacturing counterpart. Misdirecting consumers should be treated as such. I happened to notice that the italian developers were in a dialogue with users on a forum, asking questions about such real life manufacturer's official licence label to give reference for their claim of providing realistic flight models, like some other developers do (Toliss-Airbus, FlightFactor-Boeing, etc). These users got banned instantly from their (.org) forum, their posts disappeard secretly. It's like they never existed. Well, if you believe that's only how the mafia works, or some chinese or north korean regime, then i have bad news. it happens here and now. In the x-plane world. Conclusions: Beware, this review is based on my own personal experience and observations, and may not necessarily be representative. Everyone out there should make his/her own expierience. if you like purchasing x-trident products, go ahead and enjoy anyway. If you expect a simulation of real life flight characteristics, stick to quality developers only. Never give money to unknown or bad reputation vendors. You find reference lists of developers and their quality rankings on the internet. Maybe i find a good source, i'd certainly post it here on xplanereviews.com

cxld.

cxld.

Found an Issue which i need help to understand. whenever the helicopter reaches 50 or so knots, for example after take off, its nose swaps to the right very hard. Some setting in planemaker must cause this, unless it is an exaggeration of a wanted effect. I can not imagine that this would happen in real life. i was hoping to use the pitch (collective) more gently would ban the effect, but no, it comes at 70 knots. Any idea?