This post has been on my todo list for a while – long enough that X-Plane 11.40 came out before I had time to write up a post saying “X-Plane 11.40” is coming. But just to put 11.40 into context, here’s what our patch roadmap looks like for X-Plane 11 this year.

All Physics All the Time

X-Plane 11.40 is a physics release. Almost all of the changes in X-Plane 11.40 come from Austin’s work on the physics engine over the last six months. This is a new approach for us. In the past, when we’ve updated the physics or systems, it would be in a giant “omnibus” release, where everybody’s latest code went out at once (e.g. X-Plane 11.10).

The problem with the omnibus releases is that they would take forever to get debugged. With so many people changing so many things, we never knew what had gone wrong when a bug report came in. And with all of the code changed, we had to investigate every single bug report carefully (no matter how unlikely or vague the report) because anything could have been broken.

So far, at risk of jinxing the beta, it appears that the physics-only approach is working a lot better. It has been quicker to find bugs when they are reported, and the overall level of crazy is a lot lower than in past releases.

NaNNaNNaNNaNNaNaNNaN Batman!

There aren’t many open bugs left in the 11.40 beta, but one particular bug has caused the beta count to run up: we were seeing crashes due to NaNs in the flight model.

NaN stands for Not A Number, and it’s what you get when you have divide-by-zeros run amok in the physics. To catch them, we’ve turned on a lot of auditing code and we’ve been collecting automatic crash reports. At risk of jinxing it, I think Austin has fixed one of the two root causes in beta 8. We are going to keep chasing them until the other one is fixed, then turn down the checks once we’re done. So we may make it to beta nine or ten and we may have another week with two betas; the high tempo is just to get more checks in fast.

Experimental Physics

There have been a number of questions in the comments on the state of the experimental flight model, so I want to clarify how it works and what is happening in 11.40.

Normally, new X-Plane features get beta tested during the beta of an X-Plane patch. This means we have somewhere between two and eight weeks to debug the feature and get it ready to ship. Once it ships, if we change the feature, we have to consider how this would affect authors using the feature and whether it would screw up their add-ons.

That’s not a lot of time to debug! In particular, it’s really not enough time for the flight model, where people need months just to develop the aircraft and measure the performance to get us feedback.

The experimental flight model is basically a giant year-long open beta of a future revision of the flight model that hasn’t shipped yet. By checking the “experimental FM” box, you’re getting to beta test the flight model of the future, now. By keeping the experimental flight model as an experiment for so long, this frees Austin up to simply fix bugs and improve it, as opposed to worrying how the X-Plane 11.40 experimental FM changes will affect X-Plane 11.30 users.

To be clear: there is no attempt at backward compatibility between the experimental flight model from one sim version to another! The goal is to have the experimental flight model not interfere with the “normal” flight model at all.

Physics changes in 11.40 fall into two broad categories:

  • Simulation changes that can change how an aircraft flies, improving the accuracy of X-Plane’s predictions about the airframe. An example of this is the delay in wash propagation from the prop to the tail of the aircraft. This makes the aircraft more stable, but may change how it flies; an author might have added artificial stability or reduced control surface efficacy to work around the lack of this feature in the past, and these work-arounds would be inappropriate with the new, more accurate physics.
  • Simulations that change how the aircraft flies in unusual circumstances that you can’t tune your aircraft to. Examples of this include stalls and wake turbulence. There isn’t going to be a book value for the effect, so all we can do is try to produce the most sane results given an aircraft that simulates properly in regular flight.

Features in the first category require the experimental flight model to be enabled, while the second category of features is always on.

At some point in the future, the experimental flight model will become the flight model for X-Plane, but we are not there yet, and we are not planning to do this as part of making X-Plane 11.40 final.

Third Party Aircraft

If you develop a third party aircraft, you need to test it now against both the experimental and non-experimental flight mode. If the non-experimental flight model doesn’t fly the same as 11.36, please file a bug, and please provide flight testing details. For the experimental flight model, you may see book numbers change a little bit; the real question is whether the overall physics response is better or worse.

Vulkan and Metal

X-Plane 11.50 will be the next major patch once X-Plane 11.40 is out of beta, and it will feature Vulkan and Metal support.

The marketing guys showed the Vulkan build of X-Plane live at Cosford last week; that build did not have any support for texture paging. Since then, Sidney has a basic texture paging implementation running, so hopefully we’re in good shape to get this into developer’s hands after 11.40.

Our expectation for add-on compatibility is:

  • Add-ons doing supported things, like 2-d panel drawing and UI should just work in Vulkan and Metal – we’ll take bug reports to fix compatibility issues.
  • Add-ons doing unsupported things won’t work in Vulkan and Metal at all. Your 3-d drawing callback won’t be called, or your attempt to grab internal GL resources will just fail (because none of our resources are GL).
  • X-Plane running under OpenGL should “just work” for pretty much every add-on, including ones doing sketchy things, and should be faster than 11.40 but not as fast as Vulkan or Metal.

I expect the Vulkan beta to be a relatively long one. We want it to start this year, but it probably won’t end this year, and my guess is that initially Vulkan will be fantastic for some users and will crash for others. During the beta we’ll gain useful information about how well Vulkan works “in the field” for different cards and drivers.

One reason I am looking forward to the Vulkan beta: we now have tremendous visibility into what the rendering engine and driver are doing. With OpenGL, the driver was often a black box. We still get reports of “the 3-d mouse in VR make my machine really slow” and frankly, we may never know why this happens to just some users and not others with the same hardware, drivers, and version of X-Plane.

With Vulkan and Metal it is going to be different. A lot more of the graphics work happens inside X-Plane, and the work that happens inside the driver is much more predictable, bounded, and can be viewed via modern profiling tools.

So while we will have a lot of debugging to do based on user feedback, it should be straightforward to get the information we need to really make the Vulkan renderer scream.

After Vulkan

It’s a little too soon to discuss what comes after Vulkan, but I can say this: for almost two years now, Sidney and I have been rewriting the rendering engine with a rather strange goal: performance and predictability, but with the same visual output. So anything that looked ugly on the screen is supposed to keep looking ugly. Vulkan was a change of the how but not the what of our rendering engine.

Once Vulkan is out the door, that all changes. We have a number of fundamental changes we want to make to how we deal with light, with the atmosphere, with color, and with organizing our frame. Once we have Vulkan, we get to use it as our foundation for what comes next.

About Ben Supnik

Ben is a software engineer who works on X-Plane; he spends most of his days drinking coffee and swearing at the computer -- sometimes at the same time.

80 comments on “X-Plane 11.40 Beta 8 and a Roadmap Update

    1. maybe up the res of shadows a bit? or at lest give us slider for it have tested in the data refs up to 16k for the shadow cam the frame rate is less then using reflections

      changing from cube map to screen space reflections would be nice too faster and wouldnt update at 2 fps

  1. This sounds fantastically interesting and exciting. More of this please to keep me away from MSFS2020! Congrats and Cheers.

    1. We do have a revamp of the Plane-Maker UI on our road map – it’s something we had in mind when we hired Stefan. But things like the global mobile release are higher priority right now.

  2. Congratulations for the Team!

    I really like that you published X-plane roadmap for near future. It would be very nice if you would do this after each stable release.

    One question:
    – When do you plan to switch “experimental flight model switch” to be standard one and introduce “use old flight model”? I think it is important to do so to someday force 3rd party devs to switch to new one (or in worst case left it old, but we will still have possibilities to use it).

    Thanks, have a great weekend!

    1. I feel it would be nice to have the newer flight model to be the default, while the ‘previous’ default should be packaged as Legacy Flight Model. The usual check box can be used to enable X-Plane 11 revert to LFM.

      Note since I purchased X-Plane 11 early this year, I mostly use the Future Flight Model.

      Keep up the good work. Hope the see this implemented in 11.40 beta 9 😉
      Have a blessed weekend.

      1. It really should be a per acf planemaker option, half of the addons require it nowadays, half get broken by it and it’s a pain to keep track of.

          1. I get that that was the original idea, unfortunately it doesn’t really work in practice, many addons require it nowadays, for taildraggers it is even quite understandable.

          2. I would prefer an option in ACF to select flight model version, where the ACF devs can choose for which one the ACF is optimized .. like the flatten in APT .. first it was global only, then you added it to APT file

  3. Really appreciate you all working so hard as well as your dedication to X-Plane in general. Sounds like a heckuva hill y’all are climbing, just keep your positive attitudes flying high to success!
    Thanks for this update too!

  4. Hi Ben, I have a few questions.

    1) most of the article says Vulkan beta, when will Metal for Mac be in testing?

    2) Personally, I am not interested in physics or 11.40, so 11.50 + is more my speed. Do you have plans to add in more landmarks, new aircraft(it’s been a long time;F-14?) Enhance the weather and ATC? ie visuals.

    3) Is there anyway to make airports come alive by default, like a “game”. No add ons needed. Like your pushback truck, but make ground services, jetway bridge control, more traffic, etc. These may be “arcade like” to some but, MFS has had things like this for years and it would be nice to have an immersive environment out of the box.

      1. Gotcha cool. it would also be helpful if the crash reports for Mac automatically sent to you guys. I think that broke a long time ago. Happy to give metal feedback.

  5. Hi Ben,

    Thank you very much for all the clear explanations and the precious informations!

    Always good and instructive to test XP betas… You guys and the Professor Austin are so involved to make our flight sim experience better and realistic as much as possible, that it inspires admiration and respect!

    Always a pleasure to fly with Xplane as never and to maintain some flying skills especially for a grounded pilot like me until I get back in my cockpit, hopefully soon, meanwhile I enjoy XP a lot!

    My special wish is to avoid danger and severe weather conditions which is (almost) always the case when we are clear for take off, I’d like to feel the sky more alive (it’s getting so much better with the new physics of xp, the way of thermals are defined etc plus one of the reliable engine weather addon on top of that however it’s still missing some important stuff about it, (technically more than eyes candy visualization) …
    By the way, I’ve heard that it’s also some kind of features that Austin the magician would like to bring it out in a future as he said in a video on Youtube…
    Sounds exciting!

    I just say Yes You Can, keep going pilots!

    Happy Flyings honorable Captains!

    Lknfly, LFPL

  6. I want to personally thank you guys for all the hard work you and your team are putting into X-Plane. Absolutely love it. Keep up the Awesome work!!

  7. Will you support 2 Yokes and 2 rudderpedals for Home cockpit builders?
    I know its possible in P3d and I really miss that feature in Xplane having my two Seat cockpit.

    Maybe there already is a Way to get around it? The next best solution would be a switch that could decide if the captain side or first officer side is active.

    Best regards,

    1. Maybe someday – it’s a cool feature but it is _not_ obvious to me how we would do it.

      – For an aircraft like the A320, there is an obvious non-mechanical way to handle this, e.g. the computer defines the control deflection to be the sum of the two side-sticks.
      – For most aircraft the controls are physically linked, so you can’t have them out of sync; it’s not obvious how to handle that given discrete hardware.

      1. Right yoke at +30, left yoke at +50, sim control deflection = +50. Whichever is the greater deflection. Simulating more force.

        1. Sorry to object: If the trainee uses too much bank and the trainer tries to reduce it, that wouldn’t be possible (just for example).

        2. The problem with this method is around the zero point, where there would be constant swapping – probably fine if all the sticks are hall-effect, but if you have one noisy mechanical pot (eg most yokes, cheap sticks, most if not all throttles) it’ll throw off the good one.

      2. Software switch option? Set pilot or copilot to be the priority override…so the input of a single yoke works either side but if two inputs, the priority yoke always takes precedence.

      3. I’ve always thought something like detecting a significant deflection on an axis could make that controller take over that axis. May need a bit a bit of noise filtering/averaging but that would really help my use case of swapping between yoke and joystick, hotas throttle and saitek quadrant.

  8. I think you guys are great. Plane users are like a family with you.guys leading. It’s nice to see with so many users finding the time to communicate with its users.

  9. To me the important part: ‘We have a number of fundamental changes we want to make to how we deal with light, with the atmosphere, with color, and with organizing our frame.’ I’m very happy to see that you have recognized the incoming threat, and will be fighting back to FS 2020. I’m happy for the flight model improvements, but in my opinion your priorities should lay with graphical presentation at this point, in order to hold on to that high number of users you’ve managed to capture with X-plane 11 (which again, was the result of ‘populist reforms’, not flight model improvements). Flight model is important, but you are already market leaders in that category. Tweaking the colors and making the image less gloomy (probably less fog, X-plane is the ‘foggiest’ flight simulator I’ve ever seen, and it makes it look absolutely unappealing, no wonder you’ve introduced the ‘fog_be_gone’ dataref), plus adding some contrast to those colors would be nice to see, and these improvements can be done cheaply and easily. Having more variety in ground textures (since you won’t be streaming orthophotos, a higher variety of ground textures could make the ground feel more alive), and possibly develop (or more likely purchase the technology for) 3D clouds, possibly for X-plane 12. This way you could greatly lessen the impact of FS 2020 in my opinion. And proper ATC would be nice (at least on the level of MSFS 9), but I cannot ask for everything from a team of 10 people, you are already doing great, considering the circumstances :). I’m rooting for you guys!

    1. Lighting changes have been on our roadmap for _at least_ a year before this writing, if not longer – it’s something we considered almost immediately after shipping v11. So while they may become more important due to changes in the competitive landscape, they’re changes that we absolutely WOULD make even if we did NOT expect to have direct desktop competition. That’s true for a lot of our planned updates.

      1. I do recall Ben talking about getting X-Plane to be more photometric for a long while now. Amongst this, also improving lighting conditions inside the cockpit (I believe this may also be in reference to sunlight leaking from the back of the cockpit space). I’m sure there are plenty of other artistic directions the team wish to take too, so excited to see what Vulkan opens up!

  10. A sim that is on the lead in VR will be utterly important in the near future. That include support for handtracking. Hope X-Plane really emphasis this.

    1. Agreed. With MSFS2020 stating no VR (at least for now) you have a ton of people with no plans to leave XP. The Touch controller implementation is so close to perfect. A few polishes and tweaks would go a long way.

      Automatic functionality with 3rd party aircraft for the yoke is a big one.
      Also, still waiting on the fix for the yoke not automatically returning to center after letting go. I filed a report a year and a half ago (XPD-8952) but nothing fixed yet. Really destroys the need for trim without the yoke returning to center.

      1. So do you want it to return to neutral position, or don’t you want that it returns to neutral? IMHO returning to neutral is essential due to the basic instructions to trainees: If you are in panic let loose all controls, so the plane will level itself (more or less).

  11. Awesome work guys! Keep it up.

    Please do volumetric clouds! Yes, they are expensive to render, but so are the 2D clouds in the current version, so getting rid of the 2D clouds gives you a lot of frame-time to work with.

    Would also be great to see an integrated store for 3rd party aircraft; you have proven the business model with of an in-game store on mobile, and the current vendors of 3rd party aircraft are making more money from desktop X-Plane than you are. i.e. Sell addons within the sim, adding a lucrative revenue stream, then you can double the the number of developers working on X-Plane!

    1. We are definitely NOT bringing back the gamma control – ever!

      The gamma control adjusted what color space the input textures were treated as coming from. People used it as sort of a fake brightness control and this has a ton of problems.
      1. It ONLY affects textures, not the ENTIRE lighting model, so the lighting ends up massively out of sync. In some cases you can’t get more brightness, you can just make the textures look like crap.
      2. Since it applies to compressed textures, the results make texture compression look worse.
      3. It screws up the hues of the textures.

      I think the underlying feature request is a _brightness_ or _contrast_ control, and interestingly we are looking at technology that would make both of these things possible over the whole image in a much cleaner way, while being HDR-display ready. I’ll post more about this in a week or so.

      1. Well, for me the gamma control did indeed stand in for a brightness/contrast control and worked very well. If you have something better up your sleeve that’s great, but please, sooner rather than later.

  12. Ben, your work in X-Plane has been fantastic… Is it too far fetched to consider licensing Googles Earth API to replace OSM streets and utilize their Photo-geometry 3D rendering of trees buildings etc.? Gotta have something for the masses leaving to MS2020.

    1. I really don’t know how they will be able to compete against their stream tech and the unfair advantage MS has by owning the Bing Maps data-set (plus a ton of related stuff) as well as using the Azure infrastructure to augment it. That’s gonna be difficult if not impossible for everyone else and would probably feels cheap by comparison.

      A good example is FlyInside FS, they too stream Bing Maps with their last 0.6 release (they are not allowed to cache the data for offline mode I think), it is nice but the result is not as good as MSFS 2020, by far (it’s an understatement). Infinite Flight too stream a 15 m “satellite world” for their mobile sim… So it is possible but by comparison, the default scenery of X-Plane still is much better overall. The satellite maps and elevation alone are not enough. Except if you do it the MSFS 2020 “augmented” way…

      X-Plane has it’s own strengths like the flight model, Vulkan/Metal, VR (even if don’t care about that one), loved by the community, decades long commitment, etc. That doesn’t mean they should not try something against MSFS 2020.

      What? I don’t know. Supnik is probably going to roll is eyes but one idea, far-fetched for the current state and architecture of X-Plane (I guess) and time and money consuming as well, would be for them to have their own data-set to stream to users.

      I wonder if it would be possible to generate high quality DSF tiles based on a, let’s say, 15 meter satellite imagery. You would still have to find a global 15 m data-set to begin with, then use that and everything else (elevation data, OSM, autogen, etc) to build a “high-res” version. Probably using some AI and procedural wizardry to create details were there are not…

      To put it more clearly I’m thinking about something like what has done but for the whole world (pole to pole) and generated based on satellite imagery (instead of some landclass?) for the ground “texture look”. It would still be “generic” DSF tiles like the UHD meshes but even higher in quality (with a kind of “satellite look”) and it would be Laminar own way of doing things, without being a “lower quality” version of MSFS 2020 stream tech like what others are doing now (with due respect to devs of course, it is still a ton load of work and commitment).

      That is what we would stream from Laminar servers. You would be able to cache it depending on your storage capacity. And there would be no difference between an online and offline mode in terms of visual quality like you are going to have with MSFS 2020. All that of course require time and money…

      On top of that, let’s dream, you could stream data (but I don’t know if it’s possible or allowed) from a site like Flightradar24 to inject real time ATC trafic into X-Plane. Imagine the immersion! Now, don’t ask me how it would merge with X-Plane ATC engine… That is Ben problem 😉

      Oh well, all that is probably stupid ideas from a dev point of view anyways… I’m just rambling. But MSFS 2020 is going to be a tough competition if it is to be as good as it seems to pan out. Maybe it is just hype we shall see…

      Regards to the team !

    2. No, no, no: No Google APIs, please: Google changes their APIs way too often in incompatible ways. I have a commercial app that once could display Google maps, then only satellite views, and finally nothing at all. Google dropped the previous APIs.

    1. For the airliner AI – a bunch of bugs and issues got fixed, at least hopefully. The aiming point and glide slope were fixed, as well as flare distances. There were a few funny interactions. For example, _if_ the aircraft landed long, such that the ATC’s prediction of when the aircraft could turn onto a taxiway (which is based on conservative braking) was _past the end of the runway_, ATC would just give the AI the _first_ turn it could find (which is a terrible choice for a long, fast landing) and the AI would try to hair pin it and end up on the grass. So there were dual bugs – the long landings exposed the poor instructions, which the AI then blindly followed.

      Another long-time bug fixed: the ATC wasn’t communicating initial clearance altitude to the AI – it was in the text and audio but not the channel to the AI (which gets instructions as function calls). So every AI flying a short hop would get an “altitude spanking” clogging up radio coms. Finally fixed.

      1. Others sims maybe trick the problem with (Tower speaking) “Make next turn off”, leaving the choice which turn to take to the pilot. Then when the runway is clear, the plane is handed off to Ground, which gives taxi instructions based on the current position of the plane.

    1. Why? Because X-Plane 11 is finished? Because version numbers are so expensive? Because X-Plane 11 does not attract new customers any more?
      Actually I doubt whether you can make more money by announcing new major versions frequently. X-Plane 10 should have had better ATC already, so X-Plane 11 should have very good ATC _and_ realistic AI pilots (and ground traffic) already. Otherwise it would just be “unfinished” IMHO.

  13. Nom, Information good!
    I would think the whole Xplane community is rooting for Vulkan release and for it to be a successful implementation so you can quickly build upon it.
    Thank you for letting us know your plans for some of your intentions.

    There are still bugs outstanding from long ago though such as XPD-9512 which have never been fixed.
    Given this bug pretty much renders (pun not intended) reflections useless because nobody wants to use them because a) the horrible bouncing bug and b) the insane cost to performance (especially if you are CPU limited) and has not been fixed I’m wondering if this persists in you internal Vulkan build and if reflections and ground shadow rendering remain as costly as now?

    I’m hoping vulkan allows for the further beautification of Xplane with later releases once you have good data. Micro who?

  14. X Plane Priorities:

    1. Vulkan, multi-core and loading fixes.
    2. 3d clouds, maybe with Truesky?
    3. Much longer view distance, and end the sudden weather transitions. Further autogen draw distance.
    4. More detailed autogen. Make more types of default autogen and a tool for community to easily build out regions.
    5. Weather shader effects, snow/water buildup etc.

    1. Most of your list are really requests to intel to ship a 10ghz processor.

      2, 3 and part of 4 are well within LRs power to do today, but it’d melt your computer.

    2. No offense, but this isn’t really a request forum, and alot of these have already been stated by Laminar as goals already.

      All great achievements come with time…

    3. I hope for added attention to support more cloud layers….
      the weather engine needs extra love and attention as well to keep up with competition…

  15. Thanks for all the hard work!

    I recently picked up Aerofly FS 2 – it does a few things better than x-plane. Mostly the sky/hdri tone map (but not the lighting, which is basically static except the sun) and can drive a 5K display at ridiculous FPS.

    But, it doesn’t feel like flying at all. I took an F-15 to Mach 2.4 at 500 feet. I flew a 737 inverted with my hands off the controls. While the mix between objects and satellite imagery is pretty good in city centers, everywhere else it’s like playing Falcon 3.0.

    So. While I am excited for x-plane to get a little more cinematic (and for clouds to not be transparent at night??) and for ATC to stop vectoring me into mountains, I really really really appreciate the existing and especially experimental flight model. Holy crap.

    Everything else still feels like flying on rails compared to x-plane.

    So while I used to complain about FPS for silly reasons, now I am excited for metal so that we can get through the render loop faster for more flight model passes (yes yes I know about the slider)

    Thanks! Find a way for me to send you guys some more money.

  16. First I want to say that i absolutely love XP and I am really looking forward to see the wonders you can make with this sim. One thing I have been disturbed obout since I first bought XP is the ugliest thunderstorm lightning I have ever seen. It actually looks like a 3 y.o made it. Could you please fix something more exciting? A little bit more dynamic?
    Keep up the good work.

  17. Hi Ben,

    Great info and very much appreciated – thank you for all your hard work!

    Question…For users running current middle of the road graphic cards, will the move to Vulkan/Metal, allow them to experience greater frame-rates than that offered by the current OpenGL method?

    Thanks again!


  18. My short list for 11.50 is:
    – Major increase of FPS performance by multi-core and GPU optimisation
    – Fully functioning and reliable VFR and IFR ATC
    – Fully functioning and believable weather system (like Active Sky XP) combined with visually credible weather and atmospheric system
    – Overall graphics enhancement from dull colourless world to more lifelike colours, lightning and shadows (implement true HDR)
    – Better management of add-ons

  19. Do you have considered something like scenery and plugin organizer with

    – scenery check to reduce errors during flight and maybe detect errors in order or duplicates
    – scenery “pre-compile” to speed up scenery loading during startup and during cruise, because the checks are done
    – plugin (de)activation for plugins in plugin and scenery plugin folder

    I can’t count the posts in forums/on facebook regarding scenery order, plugin problems, …… which i see every day

    And i would like to see postponed scenery reload (or in background with much lower priority) and weather update during approach, maybe f.e. when height <200 above ground

    This are the things that annoy me most, especially when i crash the landing because scenery reload kills the fps to 1 digit numbers

  20. Nice; I’ve been flying with the experimental flight model and the 11.40 betas and so far liking it.

    One nice thing with the experimental flight model would be to make it a per plane preference instead of a global one. Mostly I fly with the experimental flight model but there may be a few planes for which this simply does not ideal.

    What’s the timeline for experimental flight model changes to stop being experimental? Is that with the next major release or still within the 11.x series?

  21. Hi Ben, I’m curious if Vulkan/Metal will improve the following issue:

    I noticed during flight on my Windows based machine the frame rate tanks significantly for several seconds when the hard drive is initially accessed to start loading the next set of scenery tiles. Once the load is in progress, the frame rate/smoothness starts to improve somewhat. When the load is completed, performance returns to normal.


    1. I would say if you _still_ see this in the 11.50 edition we may want to look at it. While an SSD will do you a world of help, there shouldn’t be any synchronous disk IO on the main thread in the Vulkan edition…if there is, we should fix it.

  22. How does Vulcan and metal affect networking,? If at all.? Any progress on the networking code? In the synchronization of the flight models over the wide area network i.e. Internet? Could you please add a topic for network in the “category section” it’s all about multiplayer now, and multi crew. But more importantly, multiplayer. But you know that already. Thanks, Ben.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please do not report bugs in the blog comments.
Only bugs reported via the X-Plane Bug Reporter are tracked.