Leaderboard

I just have to say, I can understand engaging in a discussion and defending this plane, but the way the founder of X-Aviation, Cameron, speaks to others in this thread, going so far as to disclose information regarding a customer's purchase, is unprofessional and, as a newer user of this forum (and this plane), does nothing but leave a bad taste in my mouth...

Sorry guys. I know that this plane was very advanced for it's time. But now it's simply neglected and badly hurt by xp patches. It's not only about the bank angle but also about the totally crazy engine behavior. It doesn't also help that it lacks a lot of sounds that are the standard now, especially for planes in this price range. I wonder if it takes that long because it's simply very old code with a lot of custom systems. Version 2.0 was supposed to make it a great contender again, but it's kind of an excuse now for 2 years to not do anything more significant on this plane. And it's hard to tell how profitable it would be now with the pretty decent Carenado model out. I would gladly recommend this plane, but now it's shelved and I can't recommend it. Also, Cameron, please don't publish info about individual customer purchases just because you want to shine in forum discussions. That's very unprofessional.

Adam Kudzin also has some excellent vids out on the TBM. They're short, concise and very informative. He's doing a startup one on the 900 series soon.

This kind of complain posts, about updates, comes over and over and over again. No matter what aircraft, weather engine, developer. People, please understand simulating the systems for aircrafts that cost + hundred millions on research, development and that have been engineered and improved by decades by manufacturers are not an easy task for 50 bucks?? I truly invite you to start your own business, try to come up with a close to real life simulation, offer daily updates, free updates for xp10, 11.... and impress us and make us extremely happy.

Hi, nice to see that you are working on it and are on the lookout for feedback. But I'm a good user I have already reported all my doubts related to sound/ bugs etc a long time ago, for example here: Goran was kind enough to respond that missing sounds is a thing you guys want to try to improve in 2.0. Which is fine for 2.0. Obviously, In my prior posts I haven't mentioned the missing engine sounds during replays as this is a well-known thing for the plane. I like engine sounds during replays, all my planes have them, probably not without reason, but it wouldn't be a biggie, if this would be the sole issue. That's perfectly fine. That's exactly how I see the current status of the plane. Obviously, your warning isn't visible on the store before the purchase, and "small" means different things to different people, so criticism shouldn't be very surprising in this case. As a general note. Goran has been always helpful and friendly on the forums and I think a lot of his work is just ingenious, but in the end I'm just rating the plane I have on my hard drive and not the developer. The current issues with the plane are significant to me, but of course they might not be to other people, that still immensely enjoy the plane. That's the beauty of having different opinions

Because people are inevitably going to come into this forum with misinformation, and I would expect you'd want to defend your product... And I completely understand and support you doing so. I'm have absolutely no issues with the development process of LES and recognize why you wouldn't want to announce release dates. Consider me a huge fan of your product and someone who is happy to wait for all the excellent work you deliver. My issue was specifically with regards to Cameron's comments... I suppose we have differing views on what is appropriate etiquette from a forum administrator, and I can't quite understand why you accept their overwhelming presence in this forum and their often coarse interactions with your patrons, when they are in no way involved with the development of the Saab. To be clear, I am not critiquing or disputing any of the information provided in this thread, only the manner in which some of it is provided. I'm only being honest with how it may be perceived by other users of this forum. None of that has to do with your discourse, Goran. I'm not starting any arguments. Haskell99's comment regarding their purchase was irrelevant (and perhaps inaccurate) to their point. Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate for you to use the private information you have available as an administrator regarding customer purchases to have a "Well actually..." moment, at least publicly. It does not matter that personal information was withheld, it is simply the precedent that it sets... I'm only being forthright with how I, and potentially others, perceive it. And I'm sorry, but I am not able to control that. I had already posted my comment prior to noticing this addition to yours. But if you still want to remove this comment, go ahead.

Why should we have to defend it in the first place? I actually find THAT unacceptable. The customer already disclosed, untruthfully, that he paid full price. Cameron corrected him. Cameron never brought up the topic of how much someone paid. If it's an untrue statement, it WILL be corrected. And I'm glad he did make the correction. I actually had a discussion with "Haskell" earlier, and everything is now straightened out. There is no bad blood whatsoever, and we just want to move on. Our final stance is...the update will be ready when it's ready. We don't announce ETA's, because if we miss that ETA by 1 day, it's "LES said the update will be out by yesterday and it's not out. They're unprofessional!" I promise you, it HAS happened to at least 2 products I have worked on. Lesson learned. We don't announce future projects, because if it takes longer than expected, the word "vaporware" or "abandoned" starts to circulate. As you can see a few posts above. If we decided to abandon it, we would tell everyone, almost immediately. Being slow, and making large changes to the product are 2 very different things.

I actually thought the sounds where pretty good. Would be curious for that statement to be expanded on, are we talking that FMOD surround sound stuff for external shots or are you suggesting the cockpit noises are missing something?

And to add to all of that. most developers have being holding off there updates waiting for a stable ver of 11 with its engine updates, before updating so they dont waste time chasing there butts. Now it is relatively stable the updates are slowly coming. And i will get ver 2 when its done. I dont get many planes,im not that fussy but when i find a good one, i dont let go. Thanks Goran for all that you do

Please don't take my defense of Carenado's updating as a criticism of LES. I was merely pointing out that he was incorrect. They DO update frequently. I am certain training departments aren't using the same version we are... that only banks 12 degrees on autopilot. Or are they? Isn't a 12 degree bank angle a "lack of realism in systems simulation?" If I "fell into that camp" I wouldn't keep checking this forum for the past 3 months to see if the bug has been fixed. I paid you full price for your software and I find your "enjoy Carenado" comment condescending. I support your work. Please don't reward that support by insulting me.

I bought the Carenado Saab because I was tired of waiting to fly this one. It is MUCH more than eye candy and, having flown both, find it lacking nothing in comparison. And, for the record, it has been updated THREE times since I've been waiting for this one to be updated. So Carenado is FAR from"waaaaaaaay worse." They are waaaaaaaay better as far as bug fixes.

Hello again. I'd like to give another update. During our investigation into updating our NavData to the XP1100 format, it became apparent that this must be the way to go for long-term future compatibility and more reliable route calculations, including holds, but would require a significant rewrite of the FMS base architecture to do so. So over the last 4 weeks, we have done exactly that. We now have the beginnings of a 2nd FMS running in parallel with... but independently of.... our original FMS. We are running 'newFMS' on CDU1 and 'oldFMS' on CDU2. We will NOT be simulating dual FMCs though. This old/new arrangement only exists so we can compare the new with the old while developing the new. It is much like building a new bridge alongside an old bridge...and when the new one is ready, we will remove the old. Much of the challenges we have faced with regards to drawing routes / vnav have been related to the limited nature of the navData format we have used since we began the project. Moving to a format which have been designed expressly for "navigation processing" will go a long way towards easing our algorithm development. The image below shows the two CDUs, both on the "IDENT" page, but clearly displaying differing data as they use differing algorithms/databases....and for those curious, the pilot CDU displays 'odd' formatting simply because we were testing our new display drawing code. We are very excited moving to this new XP1100 format. We have, in 4 weeks, accomplished what took us over 24 months to accomplish originally. Of course we have the benefit of experience, but the elegance and efficiency of the new navData format and architecture allow us to focus on the FMS functionality by orders of magnitude more than before. With the new infrastructure complete, we will begin working on the route editing. The current navData set only supports about 8 different waypoint types. Arcs are not supported, as is common in today's RNAV procedures, but the new format contains all path/terminator types typical in today's procedures. As usual, we thank you for any patience you have managed to muster as we work to improve the IXEG 733. P.S. Jan and myself will be at Flight Sim Expo in Orlando, FL/USA in a few weeks if anyone wants to talk shop. -Tom Kyler