For the OP's benefit: "A.R.O.W." is an acronym for "Airworthiness Certificate, Registration Certificate, Operating Limitations (basically the plane's manual), and Weight/Balance paperwork". The Airworthiness Certificate is a document issued by the FAA that says "this plane is airworthy". It stays valid for as long as the plane is properly maintained. Registration is basically "who owns the plane". Every 3 years it must be renewed, and must be changed whenever the craft is sold. The Operating Limitations are basically a list of rules you must follow when operating the plane, and they vary by plane. They're typically found in the Owners Manual, but they also include placards inside the plane. The Weight/Balance charts are big lists of every piece of equipment on the plane, how much it weighs, and the arm of the item (the distance it is from a standard reference point). These charts are used to calculate weight/balance to make sure your plane will fly properly. Non-pilots chuckle about weight/balance like "Oh, I don't know if I want to get on a plane where 50 pounds might make a difference", but it's no joking matter. If your weight is too high, or the center of gravity is off for the load (in other words, the weight is okay in total, but it's all in the back of the plane or all in the front of the plane), then the plane won't fly right -- the elevator won't have enough authority for example and you might be pulling back full yoke and not having much impact on attitude, which can make stalling more likely and difficult to recover from.
Hey man - thanks for taking the time to make a great video, nice editing, and just for sharing your thoughts in general. Very informative & useful video - thanks!
Unzipping is when you open up a .zip file. Computers often do it automatically. Drag the files into the "X-Plane 10" folder, which you installed somewhere, then the "Resources" folder, it's inside the X-Plane 10 folder, and then the "Plugins" folder, which is in the Resources folder.
I think the "chase" plug in is excellent. It allows free movement around and within the plane. Try a trip through the plane and see who's sitting inside Heinz's 787. You'll get a surprise. I assume he's still there, he was during the Beta phase. I found him and asked Heinz about him but he was keeping quiet :-) Actually I doubt many people have actually had a trip through the insides. Subscribed
AROW stands for : A: Airworthiness certificate, R: Registration, O: Owner/operator manual, W: Weight and balance. There is a missing R, and that is the radio operators licence. But, that missing R does not apply to pilots in the U.S.
Sure! I use a couple in the video though. One of them is Heinz B787 and it is available from the x-plane org store. Another is the default 747 with a Blue Horizon International livery. The third is a Piper Cub, which I honestly don't remember exactly where it's from, but most likely the org store. Fourth is the Carenado C152 which can be bought from Carenado's website, or the org store. Last is the ERJ140, which is from the org store.
I believe that just depends on the airport you are at, but I'm not sure. I don't actually have much experience with this plugin, but whenever I've used it, it's always been around this size. I'll look into it.
Cool Vid!! When you are describing the "Simple Pushback" I noticed that is KLAX airport. I'm new to X-Plane. What scenery do you use to show that detail of my home airport?
Sure! Well first off I love the 787 so I always recommend that. I also recommend ERJ140 by Dan Klaue. Those are the really good commercial aviation ones. Carenado makes amazing general aviation addons like the Cessna 154. You really can't go to wrong with payware aircraft, but also make sure to check out some payware scenery!
Nice Video! What Computer do you have and what are your? I'm gonna buy myself a iMac with i5 Core an a lot of other stuff... Do you think its good enough for X-Plane 10?
Ok thanks, i recently got some payware. And it does look a little better. And one more question. Did your defualt 747 come with a 3d cockpit? Thanks again!
Great video! Great to see you flying in Seattle! If you could do a tutorial on X-FMC one day would be awesome. Thats hard to set up, and no one has any good videos on it.
It's possible that you've downloaded plugins not meant for X-Plane 10, or you've downloaded plugins not meant for Mac. Are they the ones featured in this video?
A: Airworthiness. R: Registration. R: Radiostation License (no longer required inside the USA) O: Operating Manual (containing the emergency checklists, etc..). W: Weight and Balance (mathematical proof that the plane can carry the load).
I'v played the microsoft sim's back in the 2000's ...Great game, looking into getting into it again. I'v noticed pilots use this game as a precursor to there actual flight planes.
Thanks! Unfortunately I don't have any joystick experience besides the CH product yolk and rudder system, but I do recommend them. I got the system because I am on Mac, and they are the only system I know works with Mac computers.
Hey Pilotmaster! Im a total noob to xplane but beginning to learn how to fly different aircrafts. I really like how the Cockpit looks on the planes, but i have seen the "Payware" aircrafts and they look amazing. could you recommend any payware aircrafts besides the Boeing 787 that you have there:D? i know this havnt much to do with this video, but its always worth a try asking:)
I must admit I don't believe that! I have to ask: you're sure that you have X-Plane 10, not 9? And that it's the default 747, and not some downloaded one? What happens when you try to go into the 3D cockpit?
Hey can you do a tutorial on installing plug ins and other add ons such as cloud xpx. I can find the right folder to put that in and just installing them thanks.
Unfortunately, yes. The only system that I know for sure works with Mac is CH products. Saitek has a possibility to work, but I am not 100% sure that it will.
You need to install scenery for the airports that you want to see terminals for. You should go to x-plane(.)org and look around for the ones you want. As for moving faster, they are probably just choosing to go faster. I doubt that they speed up videos (I don't) but they might. Just throttle up a little bit if it really bugs you. Jealous that you have a special computer for it! Wish I had the money for that
with a hotkey like cntrl+shift+PageUp you can zoom in (make it bigger) and with cntrl+shift+PageDown you can zoom out (make it smaller). There are other useful hotkeys.
AROW= Airworthiness certificate, registration, operating limitations (listed on panel placards and POH), weight and balance (reminding you that you should have computed it prior to flight)
Thanks for the awesome plug-in suggestions, My PC will not run X-Plane 10 (I tried the demo and it looks more like a slideshow than a sim! LOL What would you suggest (hardware wise) for a new system?
Dennis Ayers Now if you want to max it out on 3 monitors You could use 3 GTX TITANS as your video cards. This will add a few thousand to the price though. :)
How do you launch it? I installed xplane 10 and launched after install just fine, but after shutting it down, there is no desktop shortcut; not even in the folder nor on the start menu...
Great video. I am trying to get my version to be as realistic as yours. How do I? and what is reverse thrust and ejection keyboard shortcut yoke and pedals getting repaired). Cheers
The commands are:- /view/scenic_flyer_on_off Great on a joystick button, this turns the panel on/off. /view/scenic_panel_larger Makes the Scenic-Flyer panel larger. /view/scenic_panel_smaller Makes the Scenic-Flyer panel smaller. /view/scenic_select Toggles the panel between GA and Glass. /view/scenic_transparency Alters the transparency of the panel. /view/scenic_force_on Forces the Scenic-Flyer panel to ON.
XP10 is ok. I really like the lighting and high definition of aircraft. I, too, came from FSX. The add-on shown here do not help with XP10's biggest issues. IMO XP10 really dropped the ball on ATC. It is not possible to file a VFR flight plan. It is not possible to make standard callouts at non-towered airports. Also, AWOS/ASOS is NOT the same as ATIS, yet in XP10 all airports seems to have ATIS information. IRL, urf runways usually do not have lights. I like the ground traffic at night, really cool. Another big beef I have with XP10 is the green grass in the winter, while there's snow blowing across the runway! Green grass in the fall when everything in the 4 seasons areas should be brown! Then there's the ability to flight through everything but the ground. Since I have windows 8.1 I cannot go back to FSX so I guess I'll have to hope for the best with XP10 - although I spend much less time simming now than I did with FSX because other than lighting and flight characteristics (on a few aircraft), FSX was simply more realistic.
To be fair, those are very small problems, I do agree that X-Plane does spend time on weather in the air but really did nothing to the ground. On runways while it is snowing at winter, the grass is still green, nothing is covered in snow, the snow rendering looks like rain, and all it is is that annoying repeating texture of ice on the runways and the taxiways, rain doesn't reflect on the ground, there are no puddles and the ground will be wet even though it looks identical to dry. But in Flight physics, characteristics and easy to modify files and it runs a better framerate than FSX. Good luck on X-Plane 10, I personally think that except "Checklister", all the plugins mentioned in this video is bad and useless and unrealistic. You might think that "Simple Pushback" is useful but I recommend EZPushback. The plugins I recommend to you are free and might not help fix your problems but they will sure make your flight sim experience much more enjoyable and realistic. Sorry I don't have links but simply type up the name of the plugin and type X-plane 10 at the back of it in google and you will find it. Realistic plugins/addons/aircraft/scenery: Realistic Sky Colours Headshake EZPushback Taxi HD UrbanMaxx free Enhanced Runways by FlyJSim For Scenery, go to gateway.x-plane.com Aircraft: Sikorsky S-76C++ by DMO An 148 by JAR and SLAVA Zroman's aircraft 747-400 "corrected for XP10"(make the default 747 more realistic Fokker F27-600 Falcon 7x for X-Plane 10 and much more in www.x-plane.org
Good news is, many of those things are stuff the devs know about, and it's on their todo list to try and improve them. They are well aware about the dubious ATC, and many issues surrounding AI aircraft in general. They also patched in some kind of support for changing to different scenery versions on the fly recently. Because up to now, even adding winter scenery in a mod required replacing the scenery for another season and restarting it. There's's lots of AI issues in general, and ground handling is awful. But they are considering any suggestions as to how to improve that in future patches. They the devs did acknowledge that what they added was a hack, because their terrain system isn't really designed with changing seasons in mind. (Keep in mind for instance that in a realistic environment, if you did a flight from Sydney to Ontario, Which is perfectly plausible given the included scenery, you'd be switching seasons continually during the flight, so to handle it realistically would require changing the seasons dynamically during flight.) Anyway, hopefully they'll fix the biggest weaknesses of the sim. There's good signs that they're working on most of the major issues, but it's anyone's guess how far they'll actually get, and how well any fixes, if they ever happen, will be. (Though apparently one major focus has been improving the plugin system to make more mods plausible. Meaning it gives third parties better options to try and improve the core sim's weaknesses. A 5 person dev team can only do so much after all. That's less people than some quite tiny 'indie' projects...) Now for something slightly different. Feel free to skip the rest of this. --------------------------------- As for the endless FSX/X-plane flight physics stuff... I saw Austin Myer's reply to that, and did some digging on how the sims work, and I think I'm starting to see the heart of the argument, and why nobody can agree on anything to do with it (aside from obvious fanboy issues aside, I mean) Here's an analogy that may work if you play games at all (though I guess it's still kind of technical) Let's say you have a game and want to create a virtual rock for it. One approach is to take pictures of a real rock, create a 3d object based on measurements of the real rock, then turn the pictures into a texture. Depending on how you took the pictures, and how you processed it, this can make a good, accurate model of the exact rock you took pictures of. However, if your pictures are bad, the rock won't look anything like the rock you are modelling, and may not even look like a rock at all. And while it will be realistic looking if you do it right, if you don't have pictures of certain angles, or you end up looking at it too closely, you'll see places where it's no longer anywhere close to realistic. An alternative, which is rarely used, but certainly possible, is to create a procedurally generated rock. Here, the entire rock is a mathematical model, and every aspect of it is determined by the rules of the model, and the parameters used. From a distance, this rock may look as much like a real rock as the one done using textures, but if there is anything wrong with the model, it can start to look really weird, and not at all like a rock. However, let's assume the basic procedural model is a good one. What you make will always look like a rock. And, better still, it will look like a rock from all angles, and all distances, and never look 'fake' for any reason. On the surface, this sounds like the second option is much better, and much more 'accurate'. But, there's a problem. While you can create a procedurally generated rock that looks far better than any texture mapped one, let's say that you absolutely insist on making a very accurate model of one specific rock. Now all of a sudden you have a problem. All the rules that determine how your procedurally generated rock end up looking are complicated and unpredictable. Even if you created the procedural generation system very carefully, chances are you will find it very difficult to get a rock that looks exactly like the one you are trying to duplicate. You may get very close, close enough that from a distance the texture mapped version and the procedurally generated version look very similar, but you probably will never match the accuracy of the texture mapped version. However, if you get close enough, the texture-mapped version will look blurry (or pixelated), and lack detail. The procedurally generated one will have detail no matter what angle you look at, but this detail may not match what the real rock looks like. So here's where it gets interesting. What happens when for one reason or another, you can't get pictures of the underside of the rock, (maybe it's too heavy to lift), and try and create a model of it? The texture mapped model will have an accurate upper surface, but the bottom will be completely wrong. The procedurally generated one will (assuming the model is based on something with predictable rules, like, say, physics, rather than something completely abstract), have a top surface that is as accurate as you could tune the model to be, but, and here's the weird part, the unknown bottom surface is likely to be as accurate as any other part of the rock model. Now, let's say you want to create a model of a rock. You are using the texture based system, but the rock is one you don't personally have access to, and you have to rely on other people's information and photographs to make a model of it. That model, because of lack of information, isn't going to be very good. Now someone else has direct access to the rock itself, can get help from people that know a lot about that specific rock, and (sticking with the heavy rock) may have access to a crane so they can get the underside of the rock too. This means the accuracy of the model of the rock is very dependent on how good your information is. The procedurally generated rock on the other hand, is made using certain rules. If we assume the rules are such that they accurately reflect how a rock gets it's particular appearance, then even with limited information, you will be able to create a model that is relatively accurate, as long as you pay attention to getting it to correctly match what you do know about it. The more you know about the rock being modelled, the more information you have to tell you if your model is correct or not, but because of the really indirect way of making things, it's much harder to get it perfectly accurate. Anyway, aren't analogies fun? What does this tell us though? FSX is like the textured rock. It can be very accurate, but only for parts of the model that the creator had reliable data for. For anything else, the behaviour of the flight model may not just be wrong for that specific aircraft, but just plain wrong for ANY aircraft... And if you have very little data, your aircraft will have a flight model that is very far removed from the real thing. X-plane is like the procedurally generated rock. Getting a model that behaves reasonably like the real thing isn't difficult. Getting one that behaves as well as a well made FSX model is incredibly hard, because it requires very fiddly and hard to understand tuning that has non-obvious consequences. Even then, the nature of the flight model means that even if you enter all the parameters 100% correctly, you may still find the model isn't quite right when compared to the real thing. What you gain though, is that your model's behaviour, while less accurate for known performance areas, will more than likely still be about the same level of accuracy even for situations for which there is no data. Of course, that puts X-plane at an innate disadvantage when you try and measure this objectively. Let's say a really good FSX model was made. and someone with the resources and skills to do so measures the performance of a real aircraft and compares it to the model. If the model is well-made, it should have reliable data for all flight regimes for which it is practical and safe to collect data in the first place. And if the model turns out to be wrong, the data collected in trying to verify if it is correct or not can be used directly to improve the model FSX uses. X-plane on the other hand, relies on it's physics model, and on completely different kinds of data. While FSX requires you to build a flight model from data that measures aircraft performance while flying, X-plane models are built from raw engineering parameters, and the physics model works out the rest. Real-world measurements of an aircraft's performance can't be entered directly into X-plane. Instead, the best you can do is flight-test the virtual aircraft, log the data, and see how closely it matches the real-world measurements. That doesn't sounds so bad, except that having identified a problem, you then have to guess what aspect of the design parameters is either incorrect (the entered parameters are different from what the real aircraft actually has), or needs tweaking due to physics system inaccuracies (the data as entered into the plane creator is correct, but the predicted behavior of the physics system is different to what the actual plane would do in the real world) Chances are, unless the physics system is flawless, and you entered the engineering details 100% reliably. (all engineering parameters are exactly correct to the limits of precision that you can measure them), the model will never be quite correct. It will be a tiny bit off no matter what you do. But, the upside is, while it will still always be a tiny bit off, it should be just as accurate for unusual flight regimes as it should be for more routine ones. (say an extreme stall, or a manuever that would be known to cause structural damage, or at least be too risky to try in a real aircraft.) And that, I guess is it's biggest downfall. X-plane is likely to be slightly less accurate most of the time, but vastly more accurate in unusual situations. Situations, which... Because of their nature are almost impossible to measure behaviour for a real aircraft safely or practically... This means the only situations under which X-plane is almost certainly to win out in accuracy terms all of the time, are the exact situations for which you cannot get measurable data for to actually determine if the behaviour is accurate or not. (And worse still, if you could get data for it, you could use that data to improve the FSX flight models) All of this means in practice though that FSX models can be both much better, AND much worse than X-plane ones. The main advantage of X-plane in this regard is that a person with little reliable information to work with can still make a semi-decent flight model, which, while probably not accurate to the aircraft modelled, will at least exhibit approximately correct flight behaviour given how it was designed. This makes X-plane much much better for amateur plane designers, but worse for people that are willing to pay for guaranteed accuracy. (Though with a side note that theoretically X-plane's plugin architecture makes it possible to rip the guts out of the flight model entirely and use an external program to model them using any technique an determined aircraft designer feels like. So you could make X-plane's accuracy problems go away if you were inclined to, and had the data.) To put it slightly differently, to create a good FSX plane, you need to know how the aircraft flies. To build a good X-plane one, you need to know how it is designed, and how it works mechanically. Very different. But you can guess the design to some extent just from pictures, while you can only get measurements of how it flies if you have access to someone that can fly the real thing and give you that information. So again, X-plane is far more tolerant of amateur modellers, but may be less accurate for well-resourced professional modellers. ------------------------------------ Yeah. Anyway, if you read my tangential stuff about flight models... I'm sorry for subjecting anyone to my weird ramblings about that... The whole FSX / X-plane comparisons get so weird and twisted so quickly though. So many people trying so hard to find fault with one or the other. They are merely different approaches, which, unsurprisingly, have different strengths and weaknesses. If you only count the strengths of one side, and only count the weaknesses of the other, all you get is a mess. Probably why the arguments get so stupid in fact. Because there is no clear 'better' sim. It's circumstantial....
I hate on the airport navigator that the frequency box doesn't disappear if you turn off the map, and must disable the whole plugin through the plugin manager
hey pilotmaster! nice work! I'm a noob on x plane lol I cant open aircraft that i downloaded in x plane because i made a mistake unzipping the folder. one to many folders in the hierarchy i guess...do u know what that means and how to fix it??
I have 3 different landing plugins. The one here, plus 2 others I forget the name of right now. They all provide interesting data. But they all say different things. Not sure which to believe the most. (by different data I mean that the FPM and G force rating is different between all 3, 2 of them cite landing speed, which varies - though they do all tend to roughly agree with categories, so they will all say good, ok, etc)
The default B747 that comes with X-Plane 10 does come with a 3D cockpit, and a rather good one I must say!
For the OP's benefit: "A.R.O.W." is an acronym for "Airworthiness Certificate, Registration Certificate, Operating Limitations (basically the plane's manual), and Weight/Balance paperwork".
The Airworthiness Certificate is a document issued by the FAA that says "this plane is airworthy". It stays valid for as long as the plane is properly maintained.
Registration is basically "who owns the plane". Every 3 years it must be renewed, and must be changed whenever the craft is sold.
The Operating Limitations are basically a list of rules you must follow when operating the plane, and they vary by plane. They're typically found in the Owners Manual, but they also include placards inside the plane.
The Weight/Balance charts are big lists of every piece of equipment on the plane, how much it weighs, and the arm of the item (the distance it is from a standard reference point). These charts are used to calculate weight/balance to make sure your plane will fly properly. Non-pilots chuckle about weight/balance like "Oh, I don't know if I want to get on a plane where 50 pounds might make a difference", but it's no joking matter. If your weight is too high, or the center of gravity is off for the load (in other words, the weight is okay in total, but it's all in the back of the plane or all in the front of the plane), then the plane won't fly right -- the elevator won't have enough authority for example and you might be pulling back full yoke and not having much impact on attitude, which can make stalling more likely and difficult to recover from.
Hey man - thanks for taking the time to make a great video, nice editing, and just for sharing your thoughts in general. Very informative & useful video - thanks!
When selecting your airport you can also select starting location. Some allow for terminal and ramp starts.
your videos are so much better than anyone else's and that last landing was pretty sweet!!
Unzipping is when you open up a .zip file. Computers often do it automatically. Drag the files into the "X-Plane 10" folder, which you installed somewhere, then the "Resources" folder, it's inside the X-Plane 10 folder, and then the "Plugins" folder, which is in the Resources folder.
I'll check it out for another video, thanks for the suggestion!
I think the "chase" plug in is excellent. It allows free movement around and within the plane. Try a trip through the plane and see who's sitting inside Heinz's 787. You'll get a surprise. I assume he's still there, he was during the Beta phase. I found him and asked Heinz about him but he was keeping quiet :-) Actually I doubt many people have actually had a trip through the insides. Subscribed
I'm working on that video as I type this, and it should be up on Tuesday! :D
I downloaded everything accept the last one. No need for it. Thanks for the great reviews.
AROW stands for : A: Airworthiness certificate, R: Registration, O: Owner/operator manual, W: Weight and balance. There is a missing R, and that is the radio operators licence. But, that missing R does not apply to pilots in the U.S.
Sure! I use a couple in the video though. One of them is Heinz B787 and it is available from the x-plane org store. Another is the default 747 with a Blue Horizon International livery. The third is a Piper Cub, which I honestly don't remember exactly where it's from, but most likely the org store. Fourth is the Carenado C152 which can be bought from Carenado's website, or the org store. Last is the ERJ140, which is from the org store.
I'm running it on a 27inch i5 Core iMac, and it's been pretty good to me, so I'd so go for it!
Always happy to help!
I'll definitely check that out for next week!
Microsoft Flight Sim 2020! :) Best plug-in ever!
Great video, i'd LOVE another newer video with even more free reccomended plugins!
I really enjoyed this video, it's probably one of the most helpfull I've seen for xplane
Thanks for the video, the Scenic Flyer one was reallly handy!
very helpfull video thanks for the share.
I believe that just depends on the airport you are at, but I'm not sure. I don't actually have much experience with this plugin, but whenever I've used it, it's always been around this size. I'll look into it.
Actually, AROW means 4 things.
Airworthiness Certificate,
Registration,
Operating limits,
Weight and Balance.
Gleim says ARROW
Airworthiness Certificate
Registration
Radio License (for international flights)
Operating limits
Weight and Balance
I'm also at KMIA! What a coincidence! I look forward to continuing to fly with you over at BHI. (I'm BHI096)
Cool Vid!! When you are describing the "Simple Pushback" I noticed that is KLAX airport. I'm new to X-Plane. What scenery do you use to show that detail of my home airport?
Sure! Well first off I love the 787 so I always recommend that. I also recommend ERJ140 by Dan Klaue. Those are the really good commercial aviation ones. Carenado makes amazing general aviation addons like the Cessna 154. You really can't go to wrong with payware aircraft, but also make sure to check out some payware scenery!
In your X-Plane 10 folder there is a folder called Resources. In there, there is a folder called Plugins, and that's where you put them!
Nice Video! What Computer do you have and what are your? I'm gonna buy myself a iMac with i5 Core an a lot of other stuff... Do you think its good enough for X-Plane 10?
I noticed your planes looked alot better then some of the outside textures. How do you do this? And great video!
That truck comes with the plane, so it only works with the 787, however I believe there are some plugins that include a truck.
Terrain & structure textures straight from the 80's :)
Nice job on this video - very informative!
Ok thanks, i recently got some payware. And it does look a little better. And one more question. Did your defualt 747 come with a 3d cockpit? Thanks again!
These were all great. Thanks!
Great video! Great to see you flying in Seattle! If you could do a tutorial on X-FMC one day would be awesome. Thats hard to set up, and no one has any good videos on it.
Great reviews man! It helped a lot! Thanks!
Hello can you do a tutorial on installing plugins, I've tried to read the forums but It just wont work. Also thanks for the tutorials on atc big help.
very interesting and helpful....thx so much!!
Waiting for the upcoming videos... :D
Thank you for making this video. I didn't even know that all of these plugins existed. I'll have to try them all now. Will these work in 64bit?
It's possible that you've downloaded plugins not meant for X-Plane 10, or you've downloaded plugins not meant for Mac. Are they the ones featured in this video?
The last plane is actually an ERJ-140, so I'm not sure where the transponder and radio are on the Challenger 300.
great vid! what was the last plane you were using?
A: Airworthiness.
R: Registration.
R: Radiostation License (no longer required inside the USA)
O: Operating Manual (containing the emergency checklists, etc..).
W: Weight and Balance (mathematical proof that the plane can carry the load).
don't forget placards and compass card :)
I'v played the microsoft sim's back in the 2000's ...Great game, looking into getting into it again. I'v noticed pilots use this game as a precursor to there actual flight planes.
Thanks! Unfortunately I don't have any joystick experience besides the CH product yolk and rudder system, but I do recommend them. I got the system because I am on Mac, and they are the only system I know works with Mac computers.
Thanks brah! This helps so much!
For number 4 all you have to do in Fsx is hold shift and click z 3 times.
This was the scenery (I'm assuming you mean KLAX) that they gave out as a promotion if you spent more than $40 on planes at the x-plane org store.
another great and helpful video!!
Hey Pilotmaster!
Im a total noob to xplane but beginning to learn how to fly different aircrafts. I really like how the Cockpit looks on the planes, but i have seen the "Payware" aircrafts and they look amazing. could you recommend any payware aircrafts besides the Boeing 787 that you have there:D? i know this havnt much to do with this video, but its always worth a try asking:)
Excelent video and great helicopter!! Thanks!!
Nice. I'll have to try some of these plugins...
If you mean 3D Cockpit View it is SHIFT + 9 i think. If not, you can go chance it in Settings -> Joystick & Equipment -> Keys.
I must admit I don't believe that! I have to ask: you're sure that you have X-Plane 10, not 9? And that it's the default 747, and not some downloaded one?
What happens when you try to go into the 3D cockpit?
That is the KLAX you get from buying $40 or more in the X-Plane Org Store. I'm not sure if they are running that promotion anymore however.
Hey can you do a tutorial on installing plug ins and other add ons such as cloud xpx. I can find the right folder to put that in and just installing them thanks.
nice LAX scenery! the tower is very detailed. where did you get it?
Were you at SEATAC when you showed the Airport Navigator?
Where did you get the Cub? Awesome video btw
Unfortunately, yes. The only system that I know for sure works with Mac is CH products. Saitek has a possibility to work, but I am not 100% sure that it will.
Where did you get the LAX scenery? Great Video!!!
Yes they do! :)
You need to install scenery for the airports that you want to see terminals for. You should go to x-plane(.)org and look around for the ones you want. As for moving faster, they are probably just choosing to go faster. I doubt that they speed up videos (I don't) but they might. Just throttle up a little bit if it really bugs you.
Jealous that you have a special computer for it! Wish I had the money for that
5 times more amazing than amazing its self...
with a hotkey like cntrl+shift+PageUp you can zoom in (make it bigger) and with cntrl+shift+PageDown you can zoom out (make it smaller). There are other useful hotkeys.
Thanks for sharing!!
Where did you get this plane? Thé 3d cockpit looks great!
Thank you for the video.
AROW= Airworthiness certificate, registration, operating limitations (listed on panel placards and POH), weight and balance (reminding you that you should have computed it prior to flight)
Thanks I will look for that plugin
Thanks for the awesome plug-in suggestions, My PC will not run X-Plane 10 (I tried the demo and it looks more like a slideshow than a sim! LOL What would you suggest (hardware wise) for a new system?
i7 4770k and gtx 770 everything else just build around your budget
Thanks harrio34!
Dennis Ayers Now if you want to max it out on 3 monitors You could use 3 GTX TITANS as your video cards. This will add a few thousand to the price though. :)
Thanks!
awesome video thanks a lot ;)
your video is very useful ! well done I have downloaded them all.
I would like to know where can I find your boeing 787 please ?
Thanks for this video! And please can you send me the link of the last plane that you used with the airport nav? :)
As far as I know there is nothing like that, but I haven't conducted any research. I'll let you know if I find something.
maintain the center line! You're driving me crazy with that lmao
he is used to formation flying take offs/landings... lol
How do you launch it? I installed xplane 10 and launched after install just fine, but after shutting it down, there is no desktop shortcut; not even in the folder nor on the start menu...
Awesome video
I saw tht you had blue horizon paint on tht 747 i also fly for them had a lot of fun with it
Great video. I am trying to get my version to be as realistic as yours. How do I? and what is reverse thrust and ejection keyboard shortcut yoke and pedals getting repaired). Cheers
Hey i was wondering on the small plane u were using how do u use reverse thrust and also where do u buy plugins
Some planes don't have checklists, so the plugin won't work for every plane.
Which plane is this ? I am willing to buy one, as I love the layout, and quality of this plane.
+Jay patel The quality of this plane? I'll sell you my week-old leftovers for $100 if you want.
I have come from FSX since it is crashing allot, how can I get comfortable with Xplane? (Planes, controls etc)
Use a Joystick/yoke but I use mouse.
Nice video!!! I was wondering if you could help me and maybe make a tutorial on how to active a copilot. Thanks.
The commands are:-
/view/scenic_flyer_on_off Great on a joystick button, this turns the panel on/off.
/view/scenic_panel_larger Makes the Scenic-Flyer panel larger.
/view/scenic_panel_smaller Makes the Scenic-Flyer panel smaller.
/view/scenic_select Toggles the panel between GA and Glass.
/view/scenic_transparency Alters the transparency of the panel.
/view/scenic_force_on Forces the Scenic-Flyer panel to ON.
1:14 ONE JOB!! YOU HAD ONE JOB!
XP10 is ok. I really like the lighting and high definition of aircraft. I, too, came from FSX. The add-on shown here do not help with XP10's biggest issues. IMO XP10 really dropped the ball on ATC. It is not possible to file a VFR flight plan. It is not possible to make standard callouts at non-towered airports. Also, AWOS/ASOS is NOT the same as ATIS, yet in XP10 all airports seems to have ATIS information. IRL, urf runways usually do not have lights. I like the ground traffic at night, really cool. Another big beef I have with XP10 is the green grass in the winter, while there's snow blowing across the runway! Green grass in the fall when everything in the 4 seasons areas should be brown! Then there's the ability to flight through everything but the ground. Since I have windows 8.1 I cannot go back to FSX so I guess I'll have to hope for the best with XP10 - although I spend much less time simming now than I did with FSX because other than lighting and flight characteristics (on a few aircraft), FSX was simply more realistic.
To be fair, those are very small problems, I do agree that X-Plane does spend time on weather in the air but really did nothing to the ground. On runways while it is snowing at winter, the grass is still green, nothing is covered in snow, the snow rendering looks like rain, and all it is is that annoying repeating texture of ice on the runways and the taxiways, rain doesn't reflect on the ground, there are no puddles and the ground will be wet even though it looks identical to dry. But in Flight physics, characteristics and easy to modify files and it runs a better framerate than FSX. Good luck on X-Plane 10, I personally think that except "Checklister", all the plugins mentioned in this video is bad and useless and unrealistic. You might think that "Simple Pushback" is useful but I recommend EZPushback. The plugins I recommend to you are free and might not help fix your problems but they will sure make your flight sim experience much more enjoyable and realistic. Sorry I don't have links but simply type up the name of the plugin and type X-plane 10 at the back of it in google and you will find it. Realistic plugins/addons/aircraft/scenery:
Realistic Sky Colours
Headshake
EZPushback
Taxi HD
UrbanMaxx free
Enhanced Runways by FlyJSim
For Scenery, go to gateway.x-plane.com
Aircraft:
Sikorsky S-76C++ by DMO
An 148 by JAR and SLAVA
Zroman's aircraft
747-400 "corrected for XP10"(make the default 747 more realistic
Fokker F27-600
Falcon 7x for X-Plane 10
and much more in www.x-plane.org
Good news is, many of those things are stuff the devs know about, and it's on their todo list to try and improve them.
They are well aware about the dubious ATC, and many issues surrounding AI aircraft in general.
They also patched in some kind of support for changing to different scenery versions on the fly recently.
Because up to now, even adding winter scenery in a mod required replacing the scenery for another season and restarting it.
There's's lots of AI issues in general, and ground handling is awful. But they are considering any suggestions as to how to improve that in future patches.
They the devs did acknowledge that what they added was a hack, because their terrain system isn't really designed with changing seasons in mind.
(Keep in mind for instance that in a realistic environment, if you did a flight from Sydney to Ontario, Which is perfectly plausible given the included scenery, you'd be switching seasons continually during the flight, so to handle it realistically would require changing the seasons dynamically during flight.)
Anyway, hopefully they'll fix the biggest weaknesses of the sim. There's good signs that they're working on most of the major issues, but it's anyone's guess how far they'll actually get, and how well any fixes, if they ever happen, will be.
(Though apparently one major focus has been improving the plugin system to make more mods plausible. Meaning it gives third parties better options to try and improve the core sim's weaknesses. A 5 person dev team can only do so much after all. That's less people than some quite tiny 'indie' projects...)
Now for something slightly different. Feel free to skip the rest of this.
---------------------------------
As for the endless FSX/X-plane flight physics stuff... I saw Austin Myer's reply to that, and did some digging on how the sims work, and I think I'm starting to see the heart of the argument, and why nobody can agree on anything to do with it (aside from obvious fanboy issues aside, I mean)
Here's an analogy that may work if you play games at all (though I guess it's still kind of technical)
Let's say you have a game and want to create a virtual rock for it.
One approach is to take pictures of a real rock, create a 3d object based on measurements of the real rock, then turn the pictures into a texture.
Depending on how you took the pictures, and how you processed it, this can make a good, accurate model of the exact rock you took pictures of.
However, if your pictures are bad, the rock won't look anything like the rock you are modelling, and may not even look like a rock at all.
And while it will be realistic looking if you do it right, if you don't have pictures of certain angles, or you end up looking at it too closely, you'll see places where it's no longer anywhere close to realistic.
An alternative, which is rarely used, but certainly possible, is to create a procedurally generated rock. Here, the entire rock is a mathematical model, and every aspect of it is determined by the rules of the model, and the parameters used.
From a distance, this rock may look as much like a real rock as the one done using textures, but if there is anything wrong with the model, it can start to look really weird, and not at all like a rock.
However, let's assume the basic procedural model is a good one. What you make will always look like a rock. And, better still, it will look like a rock from all angles, and all distances, and never look 'fake' for any reason.
On the surface, this sounds like the second option is much better, and much more 'accurate'. But, there's a problem. While you can create a procedurally generated rock that looks far better than any texture mapped one, let's say that you absolutely insist on making a very accurate model of one specific rock.
Now all of a sudden you have a problem. All the rules that determine how your procedurally generated rock end up looking are complicated and unpredictable. Even if you created the procedural generation system very carefully, chances are you will find it very difficult to get a rock that looks exactly like the one you are trying to duplicate.
You may get very close, close enough that from a distance the texture mapped version and the procedurally generated version look very similar, but you probably will never match the accuracy of the texture mapped version.
However, if you get close enough, the texture-mapped version will look blurry (or pixelated), and lack detail. The procedurally generated one will have detail no matter what angle you look at, but this detail may not match what the real rock looks like.
So here's where it gets interesting. What happens when for one reason or another, you can't get pictures of the underside of the rock, (maybe it's too heavy to lift), and try and create a model of it?
The texture mapped model will have an accurate upper surface, but the bottom will be completely wrong.
The procedurally generated one will (assuming the model is based on something with predictable rules, like, say, physics, rather than something completely abstract), have a top surface that is as accurate as you could tune the model to be, but, and here's the weird part, the unknown bottom surface is likely to be as accurate as any other part of the rock model.
Now, let's say you want to create a model of a rock. You are using the texture based system, but the rock is one you don't personally have access to, and you have to rely on other people's information and photographs to make a model of it.
That model, because of lack of information, isn't going to be very good.
Now someone else has direct access to the rock itself, can get help from people that know a lot about that specific rock, and (sticking with the heavy rock) may have access to a crane so they can get the underside of the rock too.
This means the accuracy of the model of the rock is very dependent on how good your information is.
The procedurally generated rock on the other hand, is made using certain rules. If we assume the rules are such that they accurately reflect how a rock gets it's particular appearance, then even with limited information, you will be able to create a model that is relatively accurate, as long as you pay attention to getting it to correctly match what you do know about it.
The more you know about the rock being modelled, the more information you have to tell you if your model is correct or not, but because of the really indirect way of making things, it's much harder to get it perfectly accurate.
Anyway, aren't analogies fun?
What does this tell us though?
FSX is like the textured rock. It can be very accurate, but only for parts of the model that the creator had reliable data for. For anything else, the behaviour of the flight model may not just be wrong for that specific aircraft, but just plain wrong for ANY aircraft...
And if you have very little data, your aircraft will have a flight model that is very far removed from the real thing.
X-plane is like the procedurally generated rock. Getting a model that behaves reasonably like the real thing isn't difficult. Getting one that behaves as well as a well made FSX model is incredibly hard, because it requires very fiddly and hard to understand tuning that has non-obvious consequences.
Even then, the nature of the flight model means that even if you enter all the parameters 100% correctly, you may still find the model isn't quite right when compared to the real thing.
What you gain though, is that your model's behaviour, while less accurate for known performance areas, will more than likely still be about the same level of accuracy even for situations for which there is no data.
Of course, that puts X-plane at an innate disadvantage when you try and measure this objectively.
Let's say a really good FSX model was made. and someone with the resources and skills to do so measures the performance of a real aircraft and compares it to the model.
If the model is well-made, it should have reliable data for all flight regimes for which it is practical and safe to collect data in the first place.
And if the model turns out to be wrong, the data collected in trying to verify if it is correct or not can be used directly to improve the model FSX uses.
X-plane on the other hand, relies on it's physics model, and on completely different kinds of data. While FSX requires you to build a flight model from data that measures aircraft performance while flying, X-plane models are built from raw engineering parameters, and the physics model works out the rest.
Real-world measurements of an aircraft's performance can't be entered directly into X-plane. Instead, the best you can do is flight-test the virtual aircraft, log the data, and see how closely it matches the real-world measurements.
That doesn't sounds so bad, except that having identified a problem, you then have to guess what aspect of the design parameters is either incorrect (the entered parameters are different from what the real aircraft actually has), or needs tweaking due to physics system inaccuracies (the data as entered into the plane creator is correct, but the predicted behavior of the physics system is different to what the actual plane would do in the real world)
Chances are, unless the physics system is flawless, and you entered the engineering details 100% reliably. (all engineering parameters are exactly correct to the limits of precision that you can measure them), the model will never be quite correct.
It will be a tiny bit off no matter what you do.
But, the upside is, while it will still always be a tiny bit off, it should be just as accurate for unusual flight regimes as it should be for more routine ones. (say an extreme stall, or a manuever that would be known to cause structural damage, or at least be too risky to try in a real aircraft.)
And that, I guess is it's biggest downfall.
X-plane is likely to be slightly less accurate most of the time, but vastly more accurate in unusual situations.
Situations, which... Because of their nature are almost impossible to measure behaviour for a real aircraft safely or practically...
This means the only situations under which X-plane is almost certainly to win out in accuracy terms all of the time, are the exact situations for which you cannot get measurable data for to actually determine if the behaviour is accurate or not.
(And worse still, if you could get data for it, you could use that data to improve the FSX flight models)
All of this means in practice though that FSX models can be both much better, AND much worse than X-plane ones.
The main advantage of X-plane in this regard is that a person with little reliable information to work with can still make a semi-decent flight model, which, while probably not accurate to the aircraft modelled, will at least exhibit approximately correct flight behaviour given how it was designed.
This makes X-plane much much better for amateur plane designers, but worse for people that are willing to pay for guaranteed accuracy.
(Though with a side note that theoretically X-plane's plugin architecture makes it possible to rip the guts out of the flight model entirely and use an external program to model them using any technique an determined aircraft designer feels like. So you could make X-plane's accuracy problems go away if you were inclined to, and had the data.)
To put it slightly differently, to create a good FSX plane, you need to know how the aircraft flies. To build a good X-plane one, you need to know how it is designed, and how it works mechanically.
Very different. But you can guess the design to some extent just from pictures, while you can only get measurements of how it flies if you have access to someone that can fly the real thing and give you that information.
So again, X-plane is far more tolerant of amateur modellers, but may be less accurate for well-resourced professional modellers.
------------------------------------
Yeah. Anyway, if you read my tangential stuff about flight models... I'm sorry for subjecting anyone to my weird ramblings about that...
The whole FSX / X-plane comparisons get so weird and twisted so quickly though.
So many people trying so hard to find fault with one or the other. They are merely different approaches, which, unsurprisingly, have different strengths and weaknesses. If you only count the strengths of one side, and only count the weaknesses of the other, all you get is a mess.
Probably why the arguments get so stupid in fact. Because there is no clear 'better' sim. It's circumstantial....
Visual Altimeter doesn't work for X-Plane 10 64 bit.
I hate on the airport navigator that the frequency box doesn't disappear if you turn off the map, and must disable the whole plugin through the plugin manager
This was the scenery the X-Plane Org Store gave me for spending more than $40 on an order.
You said airport navigator doesn't mark taxi ways, but it looks like on Boeing King Field it has the hotel taxiway marked.
hey pilotmaster! nice work! I'm a noob on x plane lol I cant open aircraft that i downloaded in x plane because i made a mistake unzipping the folder. one to many folders in the hierarchy i guess...do u know what that means and how to fix it??
hey pilots, nice work, but can u tell me if FS-X and X-plane; are the same game or program, tx
What do you recommend for x plane 11? TY
QNH and ALT setting is not exactly the same thing. It's used for the same thing but QNH is measured in HPa and ALT is measured in InHg.
How do you flying around the world? Like from JFK to MIA
did u get that scenery with the game or did u have to download it ifso what off
I have 3 different landing plugins. The one here, plus 2 others I forget the name of right now. They all provide interesting data. But they all say different things. Not sure which to believe the most. (by different data I mean that the FPM and G force rating is different between all 3, 2 of them cite landing speed, which varies - though they do all tend to roughly agree with categories, so they will all say good, ok, etc)
And also at what percent did you set your clouds on that video?