martin.s

Hi Tom, The above discussion touches on the issue I'm seeing so I'm replying on this topic. I am using the 5 bladed GNS model and when I load a flight plan into the GNS530 and fly the plan, I find that in GPS mode the HSI CDI will react correctly as the next GPS active leg is sequenced, but the OBS course setting the course needle points to will not automatically update to the track of the new active GPS leg. The OBS knob must then be used manually to set the new track (even with the GNS530 in GPS mode). I have a hardware mapping to the OBS knob which works correctly using GoFlight RP48 rotary, however I expected that when the GNS 530 is in GPS mode the OBS indication is completely slaved to the track on the active leg (including auto sequencing to the next leg and any manual attempts to change the OBS course with the hardware or VC OBS knob while in GPS mode should be ignored). Right now the OBS course can continue to be changed with the OBS knob whilst in GPS mode. I expected this to only be possible when the GNS is in VLOC or OBS mode. Thank you.

Thank you mmerelles. The workaround you suggested works for me too. Although I use a shortened version of the workaround. I load the IXEG on the master. Then I start XP on the slave loading the SAAB immediately and wait for XP to autoload the IXEG. I agree it is a bizarre workaround, but effective. I also don't understand why it works. Its interesting that this shaking on the slave only happens for me with the IXEG 733 and no other aircraft. I did read some posts about changes LR made post 10.45 that I suspected could be a contributing factor, but it was all supposed to be fixed by 10.51. Since only the IXEG is currently showing this problem (assuming this continues to be an XP bug), there must be something specific to the IXEG that makes it more vulnerable to this XP bug. In any case, I am happy with this workaround so thanks again!

Hi, I just purchased the IXEG 733 following the v1.1 release. I run a second networked slave PC (for external visual with no panel view) with an independent copy of XP10.51/IXEG v1.1. I have noticed that as soon as the aircraft begins to move on the master PC, the view on the slave external visual starts to shake very rapidly. It looks like a yaw through at least 45 degrees before syncing again with the master. This repeats very rapidly until I apply the brakes and the aircraft comes to a complete stop. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the simulation on the master PC. This problem is purely isolated to the external visual PC and only occurs when the aircraft is in motion. The problem also seems to be unique to the IXEG. No other aircraft add-on installed on the external visuals PC exhibits the same issue. I'm wondering if anyone else who may be running a multiple PC setup with networked external visuals has come across this problem. Since I am new to the IXEG I cannot say if this issue existed pre v1.1 or pre XP10.51. Thank you.

I recently read on the LES Facebook page that v 1.4 (bug fixes) for XP10 is close to completion. I am just wondering if we can expect any changes to the performance numbers (as discussed in this thread) in v1.4, or is that planned for a later release? Thank you.

I was able to resolve the problem by: 1) Uninstalling the NOAA Weather python scripts 2) Restarting xplane (no crash) 3) Shutting xplane down 4) Reinstalling the NOAA python scripts I don't see the crash anymore, the only difference in my NOAA Weather Configuration is the METAR source has changed back to the default. It is now set to NOAA, it was previously set to VATSIM. Setting the METAR source back to VATSIM results in the SkyMaxx crash occurring again.

I am also seeing this crash with 3.2 and Log.txt also ends with: SkyMaxx Pro: Parsing METAR data I have been running 3.2 since day of release also with "Always" set in RWC. It worked ok initially but stopped working today. I am unable to start XP10 without temporarily zipping up Plugins\SiliverLining. Maybe it is a METAR parsing bug that has only surfaced now.

The source of BEW/OEW can be found in these links http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/prod/datasheets/340brochure.pdf (See page 17 of pdf for OEW and Max Payload) http://exclusiveaircraft.co.uk/aircraft-sales/saab-340a-for-sale- (OEW listed as 17,615 lbs) My initial attempts at accurate trip fuel planning in ISA conditions using the Trip Fuel table on page 72 (charts.pdf) were always inaccurate. The trip took significantly longer and used more fuel. The reason for this may be shown by the ISA SPEEDS, NORMAL RANGE table on pg 80. At 28,000 lbs is ISA conditions at FL200 I was expecting the published KIAS/KTAS of 180/244, but in the sim I was only getting about 156 KIAS (with engine temps close to Red Line and props at 1330). In other words, the model performed like it was heavier than 28,000 lbs requiring a higher AoA in level cruise and therefore 24 KIAS slower than published. The other performance figures I am still trying to reproduce are the Climb Performance (Dist/Time/Fuel) to a specific Flight Level. pg 91-93. I don't have any numbers yet. The LES SAAB 340A is an excellent aircraft and I don't expect the XP model to be perfect knowing XP has its own limitations. I also don't usually spend so much time with the performance charts, but on this ocassion my inability to use the published charts for reasonably accurate fuel planning got me more interested in the performance figures. If anyone is able to load the plane up to 28,000 lbs and get the published 180 KIAS at FL200 in ISA, please let me know.

Has anyone noticed that when you open the Saab 340 .acf in Planemaker, the Basic Empty Weight is set unrealistically low? The setting in Planemaker for BEW is 12,655 lbs. I did a Web search and found a Saab 340A sales brochure listing the average BEW as 18,800 lbs. I also found a Saab 340A for sale listing BEW of 17,615 lbs. The problem with having such a low BEW in planemaker is that it gives the impression the aircraft can take an unrealistically large payload. Since MZFW = 25,700 lbs Max Payload = 25,700 - 12,655 = 13,045 lbs! According to the brochure Max Payload is actually closer to 6,900 lbs. So why has the Planemaker BEW been set so low? After some experimentation my best guess is that it is an x-plane "tweak" to allow actual aircraft performance in the sim match the charts.pdf data. I actually modified the .acf, correcting the BEW to 17,615 lbs, but having done so, got nowhere near the performance figures in the book. So the trick with this aircraft seems to be to accept the fictitious planemaker BEW as a necessary tweak (leave it at 12,655 lbs), but treat that as BEW of 18,000 lbs for planning purposes. So if you add 30 passengers and bags (about 6,900 lbs) and 3000 lbs of fuel, planemaker will report total weight as: 12,655 + 6,900 + 3000 = 22,555 lbs However the aircraft will actually perform in the sim like: 18,000 + 6,900 + 3000 = 27,900 lbs I have seen some posts mentioning the Saab barely scraping into FL200 at 100-200 FPM. I got similar results with my modified .acf where BEW was set at the more realistic17,615 lbs and X-Plane Weight & Balance & Fuel reported a "total weight" of 28,000 lbs with 6,900 lbs payload and 3,000 lbs fuel. Going back to the original .acf with the same payload and fuel I got performance very close to what is published in charts.pdf. So I am documenting my findings here in case it helps anyone new to this outstanding aircraft. Don't add too much payload. When Planemaker reports a total weight of 22,500 lbs, read that as 28,000 lbs and you should not be surprised by bad performance. If anyone has got different results and thinks my findings are incorrect, please add to this thread.

Just wondering if any work was done on this livery?