-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Huge X-plane sale at the Org
- Thread starter keithb77
- Start date
Daube
SOH-CM-2025
Thanks to this sales I bought my very first payware planes for XPlane11. I have been a P3D exclusive user for the past years, and started switching to XP11 only recently. So it was a bit difficult for me to understand which planes were worth it for XP11...
I got the following models:
- the XTrident Bell-412 and Harrier
- the Mustang HD
- The Me-262.
The Me-262 is very nice, with a bit better graphic quality than the Me-262 special edition for FSX/P3D. The flight model seems similar, but I've done only one flight so far, so I can't really compare. I haven't checked the engine behavior either, since I have "instinctively" handled the throttle with excessive care. I don't know if engine surge or engine fires due to faster throttle movements or overheating are simulated. Anybody else has this model ?
The XTrident Harrier has been the best surprise. It is superb on the graphics point of view (excepted for the HUD, which could use some graphic improvements). The VTOL flight model... is simply a real vectored thrust, unlike in FSX or P3D. I own the Razbam and the SSW Harriers, and they simply cannot compare for hte VTOL behavior. The VTOL of the XTrident Harrier is both smooth and logical. I cannot really estimate the rest of the flight model though. I have the impression the plane might be a bit overpowered for normal flight.
The XTrident Bell412 is also a nice surprise. That thing is not only beautiful, it also has nice sounds and visual features, with some options to change the layout of the VC to show some military crew or some injured passenger for medical transport. The flight model is less stable than the MilViz Huey (which is my absolute favorite helicopter still now) but there is a popup allowing you to choose how efficient the SAS is. I'm not sure how to get the most realistic behavior, though... Anyways, I also flew a bit at dusk and it was nice to see the landing light working properly, as well as the search light. Both are "real" lights (they do illuminate the ground and objects) and the search light can be directed through a button on the pilot stick.
The Mustang HD is the only "disappointment" so far. The main problem is that I compare it with the A2A Mustang with Accusim, and of course that model is far from the A2A one on the realism point of view...
The visuals are superb both inside and out. The engine sound is not too bad either. At idle it's looping a bit but it gets some nice variations depending on the RPM.
The plane is quite easy to start, like a default plane. It won't start if you don't set the mixture to auto-rich or auto-lean though, so the engine/systems simulation is much simpler than the A2A one.
Concerning the flight model, it seemed ok but I haven't compared the numbers really. The only differences I noted is that this Mustang is quite stable during approach at 100-110 knots, unlike the A2A one which was more easy to stall if I wasn't careful enough with the stick movements.
Overall, this Mustang is still the nicest warbird I have in my XP hangar right now, and the price was low, so it's ok
I got the following models:
- the XTrident Bell-412 and Harrier
- the Mustang HD
- The Me-262.
The Me-262 is very nice, with a bit better graphic quality than the Me-262 special edition for FSX/P3D. The flight model seems similar, but I've done only one flight so far, so I can't really compare. I haven't checked the engine behavior either, since I have "instinctively" handled the throttle with excessive care. I don't know if engine surge or engine fires due to faster throttle movements or overheating are simulated. Anybody else has this model ?
The XTrident Harrier has been the best surprise. It is superb on the graphics point of view (excepted for the HUD, which could use some graphic improvements). The VTOL flight model... is simply a real vectored thrust, unlike in FSX or P3D. I own the Razbam and the SSW Harriers, and they simply cannot compare for hte VTOL behavior. The VTOL of the XTrident Harrier is both smooth and logical. I cannot really estimate the rest of the flight model though. I have the impression the plane might be a bit overpowered for normal flight.
The XTrident Bell412 is also a nice surprise. That thing is not only beautiful, it also has nice sounds and visual features, with some options to change the layout of the VC to show some military crew or some injured passenger for medical transport. The flight model is less stable than the MilViz Huey (which is my absolute favorite helicopter still now) but there is a popup allowing you to choose how efficient the SAS is. I'm not sure how to get the most realistic behavior, though... Anyways, I also flew a bit at dusk and it was nice to see the landing light working properly, as well as the search light. Both are "real" lights (they do illuminate the ground and objects) and the search light can be directed through a button on the pilot stick.
The Mustang HD is the only "disappointment" so far. The main problem is that I compare it with the A2A Mustang with Accusim, and of course that model is far from the A2A one on the realism point of view...
The visuals are superb both inside and out. The engine sound is not too bad either. At idle it's looping a bit but it gets some nice variations depending on the RPM.
The plane is quite easy to start, like a default plane. It won't start if you don't set the mixture to auto-rich or auto-lean though, so the engine/systems simulation is much simpler than the A2A one.
Concerning the flight model, it seemed ok but I haven't compared the numbers really. The only differences I noted is that this Mustang is quite stable during approach at 100-110 knots, unlike the A2A one which was more easy to stall if I wasn't careful enough with the stick movements.
Overall, this Mustang is still the nicest warbird I have in my XP hangar right now, and the price was low, so it's ok
Bjoern
worst developer ever
As far as I know, MLADG sticks to default system functionalities and unless XP11 has surges, etc. out of the box, you can (ab)use the egines any way you want without consequence.
Daube
SOH-CM-2025
Thanks for that explanation, Bjoern.
Ah well, that's not my first disappointment with XPlane addons, that it certainly won't be the last
But I like XPlane11 anyways. I just wish there were more serious (non-liner) addons...
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Ah well, that's not my first disappointment with XPlane addons, that it certainly won't be the last
But I like XPlane11 anyways. I just wish there were more serious (non-liner) addons...
MLADG is a one-man show and you get a lot at a fair price, especially when on sale. I don't see any reason for disappointment there.
Daube
SOH-CM-2025
I'm not saying it's a bad addon at all. This Me-262 is actually a very nice offer, a very good quality/price ratio.
My remark was only about the lack of choice amongst the XPlane addons. Very few addons meet my expectations in terms of realism. XPlane has always been praised for the amount of "quality" addons by the XPlaners over the past few years (at least from the XP10 days, as far as I remember), but the reality is quite different, at least for the planes. I can clearly see the market is just starting to expand nowadays.
But once again, that's fine.
Yesterday I could find some time to explore a bit more the recent addons I acquired during these sales.
The Bell412 is clearly a gem, I'm loving it so much so far, and I still haven't activated the failures, because I don't know if they are smart failures or just random. Then I kept them disabled for now.
That copter is quite difficult to master at low speeds, since I don't have a rudder (only twisting joystick), but it's ok, I can land it more or less precisely anyways
The Harrier is also cool, but I still haven't found the time to explore its systems or weapons. The flight model is very pleasant, despite the seemingly exaggerated engine power. Took me a while to understand why the nose wheel steering was not working (the button is inverted, NWS position = OFF, TEST position = ON :/ ), but it's a load of fun to test the vectored thrust if different situation with plausible reactions (RAZBAM Harrier was utterly ridiculous in that area).
I have made a few flights with the Mustang over the Washington area (with OrbX True Earth) and despite the lack of Accusim technology, the plane offers a nice level of immersion thanks to its nice sounds and graphics. It's also quite easy to fly and will keep flying well over 200 knots even with very low power settings... But ok, maybe some future update will improve the flight model. In the meanwhile, I can ignore a few issues.
My remark was only about the lack of choice amongst the XPlane addons. Very few addons meet my expectations in terms of realism. XPlane has always been praised for the amount of "quality" addons by the XPlaners over the past few years (at least from the XP10 days, as far as I remember), but the reality is quite different, at least for the planes. I can clearly see the market is just starting to expand nowadays.
But once again, that's fine.
Yesterday I could find some time to explore a bit more the recent addons I acquired during these sales.
The Bell412 is clearly a gem, I'm loving it so much so far, and I still haven't activated the failures, because I don't know if they are smart failures or just random. Then I kept them disabled for now.
That copter is quite difficult to master at low speeds, since I don't have a rudder (only twisting joystick), but it's ok, I can land it more or less precisely anyways
The Harrier is also cool, but I still haven't found the time to explore its systems or weapons. The flight model is very pleasant, despite the seemingly exaggerated engine power. Took me a while to understand why the nose wheel steering was not working (the button is inverted, NWS position = OFF, TEST position = ON :/ ), but it's a load of fun to test the vectored thrust if different situation with plausible reactions (RAZBAM Harrier was utterly ridiculous in that area).
I have made a few flights with the Mustang over the Washington area (with OrbX True Earth) and despite the lack of Accusim technology, the plane offers a nice level of immersion thanks to its nice sounds and graphics. It's also quite easy to fly and will keep flying well over 200 knots even with very low power settings... But ok, maybe some future update will improve the flight model. In the meanwhile, I can ignore a few issues.
Daube
SOH-CM-2025
I think it should be able to perform these manoeuvers, but for me I can't really practise them: I do not have a complex joystick, I don't have any axis I can assign to the thrust vectoring lever. Then I can only manipulate this lever with my mouse. It's hard to do that while performing aerobatics, especially in VR
Bjoern
worst developer ever
I don't know why the lack of add-on content for X-Plane is almost universally regarded as a bad thing. It forces you to actually get some mileage from the handful of available add-ons that interest you instead of the endless buy - fly - buy cycle of the MSFS/P3D ecosystem. And never forget that the next big XP release might just break half of your purchases and that you might be waiting endlessly for the developer to update their products to feature any core simulator improvements.
My biggest pet peeve on the freeware front is lack of documentation by the authors. Do I put the unzipped folder in the scenery folder or do I place the folder inside with the same name in scenery. I don’t have a great memory so why can’t they include a “read me” with the libraries required listed? I know that many sceneries on the gateway are incorporated into the latest x-plane update so does that mean I can delete the file I downloaded from my scenery file? Can there be a way to have a separate folder for libraries in the main program. It’s hard for me to sift through all my scenery files to see if I have the required libraries Is there no other way to have scenery files in the correct order other than editing a file?
just a couple of things I’d like to see changed. Overall, I just can’t go back to P3D as imho XP is much better.
Bob
just a couple of things I’d like to see changed. Overall, I just can’t go back to P3D as imho XP is much better.
Bob
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Required libraries are usually stated on the scenery's page in X-Plane.org's download library.
If you can live without a particular library and its objects, there's always the backup library that suppresses the warning about missing objects.
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/25033-backup-scenery-library/
If you've downloaded a particular gateway scenery before the latest X-Plane update, you can delete it as it will, from then on, be included by default.
You could semi-automatically order your "Custom sceneries" folder by prefixing airport scenery folders with "000_" describing highest and "zzz_" least importance. Then simply delete your scenery_packs.ini and let XP regenerate it upon launch.
(Ordering is explained here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/442579-understanding-scenery-order/ )
But(t):
This might break some scenery installers, e.g. OpensceneryX or the X-Plane updater when it comes to particular folders that are isntalled by default (e.g. Aerosoft sceneries or global airports).
It's best practice to properly and manually set up your scenery_packs.ini once and then just add new custom sceneries by hand at the right level if you install them.
As long as there isn't an X-Plane bug at work as during one of the 11.30 betas, you won't ever have to touch the ini file when you don't want to. Mine has been left unchanged since 11.30 or so.
I am absolutely against any changes to this system. It's beautifully simple.
If you can live without a particular library and its objects, there's always the backup library that suppresses the warning about missing objects.
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/25033-backup-scenery-library/
If you've downloaded a particular gateway scenery before the latest X-Plane update, you can delete it as it will, from then on, be included by default.
You could semi-automatically order your "Custom sceneries" folder by prefixing airport scenery folders with "000_" describing highest and "zzz_" least importance. Then simply delete your scenery_packs.ini and let XP regenerate it upon launch.
(Ordering is explained here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/442579-understanding-scenery-order/ )
But(t):
This might break some scenery installers, e.g. OpensceneryX or the X-Plane updater when it comes to particular folders that are isntalled by default (e.g. Aerosoft sceneries or global airports).
It's best practice to properly and manually set up your scenery_packs.ini once and then just add new custom sceneries by hand at the right level if you install them.
As long as there isn't an X-Plane bug at work as during one of the 11.30 betas, you won't ever have to touch the ini file when you don't want to. Mine has been left unchanged since 11.30 or so.
I am absolutely against any changes to this system. It's beautifully simple.