Cameron

@Shobhan Nandy Sorry dude, but the vast majority of customers don't agree with you. If this product doesn't fit your goals, I'm sorry. We get endless comments daily in e-mails and support tickets praising this product and the immersion. I'm not claiming perfection, nor is the rest of the team (though it's desired), but you're in a pretty small pool right now with these comments. You're sitting here saying you'll "ask a 733 pilot do do an FMC and navigation challenge and will submit a report." This is ridiculous. Truly. @Litjan was a rated captain up till retirement of the aircraft at a major airline. I'm quite certain we have all the pilot validation we need (never mind the fact more were involved in the actual testing of it), and where any shortcomings may be; all of which the team has been open and public of in a single topic. The rest of your reply is really hard to read without producing a headache. The words could be articulated a lot better, and the tone of you being the almighty payware God speaking to the days of half baked goods being done and asserting such an accusation here could be done without. Another example of you having no clue what you're talking about and throwing accusations. No, "the easy way out" was never taken. The simulation was based off the fleet of a particular airline who contributed the most help to the project. If you feel they had some form of simple systems then that's pure coincidence and nothing more. I have never heard a customer say something like this in all the time this product has been out. Hahahaha. Remind me. How many employees does Airbus have? You have no grasp on simulation content production if you're using an analogy like this. Consider the facts and budget of such a company before you try and compare it to an X-Plane project. ...for YOU. And so many already do. There's improvements that can be made in this project. This much is certain, and the team is very acknowledging of such. That said, I maintain what I said from the beginning. You have some very wrong perceptions. The bolded word in this quote is important. It's how I feel about quite a number of things in your post, including this very sentence quoted.

Cool project! Thanks for sharing.

Hardly, especially in the X-Plane world. There are many who are. There are many who are not, and it goes beyond just some opinion. He can have his, and I can have mine. We're humans in the end. Just because there's some saying that exists in the world does not make it true. People tend to become warriors behind a keyboard when they don't have to face you in the flesh, so perhaps that saying works better in a retail space environment, although Jan said how he feels about this saying of yours too. I believe Jan validated some of my points in his own assessment of not even knowing some of the items Shobahn was discussing. I did not tell him he was wrong for having an opinion, I stated I disagreed, and that I felt he had some wrong perceptions. But, on the same token, going around typing nonsense that some code must be non-optimized because he says so IS wrong, and I'll happily point that out. The customer is not always right.

Which contradicts your statement of appreciation. This product, even in its current state was a 6 year development time. There are numerous version of an FMC and even systems in 737s, so while I won't comment on everything you listed, I will leave it to @Litjan to do that. I could not disagree with you more about the price and value of the product. Jan specifically, as a longtime Captain in the 737 Classic worked tirelessly on the systems simulation, and from the FMC standpoint, crucial/vital parts to what were used in everyday flight were implemented. Accordingly, IXEG was also very candid in what was not simulated, and has always been (albeit, in our eyes non-crucial). VNAV is a debatable topic. I think we'll all agree that it's the sore point that needs to be worked out next for the team. That said, simulation enthusiasts tend to have this dependency on VNAV that is really not so present in the real world. That may be due to the fact we do one-man pilot operations (I'm making up excuses for why a simmer depends on it more that an real world pilot) in our cockpits, but in the real world, VNAV was not such a heavily used item for Jan. I'm sure he'll reply to your other points when he can. It sounded to me like you may have a wrong perception about how certain things are done, irrespective of the FCOM reading you're doing. Jan can further clarify that for you. This is an indication of you likely not knowing anything about "unoptimized programming". It has nothing to do with that at all. In Gizmo's tool tray menu you'll find a Garbage Collector icon. Utilize that and adjust some values to get a more favorable, smooth experience. I'd start with a value of something like 500.

No, we cannot. Laminar has not released any kind of SDK for VR, and has indicated they likely won't be doing so for some time when it comes to plugins.

Yes. I contacted Nicolas about it this morning and he's very well aware of our legal stance on it. I would do the same for him if he were in a similar situation with our file library.

It works in 10 and 11. One license/purchase covers both versions.

The ND has never shown a route. It's essentially a CDI for the GPS.

No, but you already knew that from your other posts about it.

Change your X-Plane UI zoom level back to 100%.

No, there is no news on the next update at this time.

You made a topic about this three weeks ago and received the same information.

I need to troubleshoot some things. Very strange, because I can't reproduce it and have only had about 3 reports of this or similar since release. I'll get back to this topic soon.

Hey Jan, That in sim error is the result of an incomplete package. The error in the installer signifies an incomplete download from the server. It must be cutting short at the tail end. Any firewall active?

Glad it helped. Laminar now has this bug patched for an upcoming 11.21 release.