Litjan

Ok, I have just tested myself: The same thing happens to me, if I only assign one axis to "yaw", but no other axis to "left brake" and "right brake". Iirc Austin talked about this - as a mean to "help" people turn the aircraft if they can´t use brake pedals. Some smaller aircraft need to use the wheelbrakes to help turn the aircraft... I am not sure when they implemented this, but I will file an (angry) bug report right now. For you the only option right now is to live with it, or assign some other axis to "wheel brake left" and "wheel brake right". Ideally get some rudder pedals with brakes, they are pretty much essential for realistic flying, anyway. I will let you know what they say, Jan

Thanks for the nice words and welcome to X-Plane! We aren´t sure what and when and if we will do another aircraft (have to finish this one first!), but we will see . Happy landings, Jan

Hi Paul, Again, thanks for the nice words! The pictures are taken from a different distance, different focal length, different zoom, etc. We are not really taken "pictures" as cue or proof, there is too much that is dependent on the way that they are taken. I am not saying that I can guarantee our width to be correct - but changing it would be a major undertaking and so far you are the only one who has ever mentioned it. So please don´t be disappointed if we leave it as it is! Have fun flying, Jan

Hi Stephan, you are correct, the control wheel stabilizer cutout has not been simulated. Cheers, Jan

Hi Stephan, put out the values for gear steering and brakes to screen (using the Data Out tab). That way you can see what is going on. I don´t know how you control the wheel (rudder pedals, twist stick, mouse?), so I can´t say anything but that this is not what I see on my end Cheers, Jan

Hi tristar, welcome to X-Plane and thanks for the feedback. I have not noticed that the front center windshield frame is too thin compared to the actual aircraft, and I have stared out of that window for 10 years (6 through the right one, then 4 through the left one). So I don´t think the developer will change anything with regard to that in the next update. Happy flying, Jan

Thanks for the feedback! No idea why your autobrake disarms . All other points are known, noted and agreed upon, we hope that we can remedy those in the near future! Cheers, Jan

If you check out the airport in the map view (M) you can see that the opposite ILS (runway 10L) also has the frequency 111.10. I think it may be possible that you are catching a signal for that ILS inititally. To check that theory, click the checkbox on the general setting page in X-Plane 11 that says "Disable downwind ILSes". Let me know how that goes! Jan

The answer to your question is in the text you quoted. Please post again if you are having trouble finding it! Cheers, Jan

Hi, you will need to file a ticket with X-Aviation if you are having a problem with the license. The normal download contains the latest gizmo version, so there is no need to download that extra. If you are having problems with your license, only the support at X-Aviation can help you. Cheers, Jan

Ok everyone, I have worked a bit more with N55E008 and he has been very helpful in identifying and isolation the problem in XP10. Indeed it turns out that in our move to support XP11 I have made a mistake in changing the script for the fuselage drag. This will indeed result in a drag in XP10 that is too high. This error is most prevalent at higher speeds (of course), so you will notice mostly during speeds in excess of 250 kts (climb and descent). Cruise and lower altitude operations should still be ok, although technically the drag is a bit too high as well, naturally. I have fixed the script, we will run it through some internal testing (I would like to avoid another embarrassment!) and then we will distribute it to those interested (= still on XP10). I expect this to happen very short-term. Thanks for everyone´s patience and especially N55E008´s help! Cheers, Jan

Hi Base, if the wind is coming from the side, an airplane must point the nose towards that wind to keep going in a straight line over the ground. Imagine yourself in a boat, rowing across a fast river. If you want to keep going straight towards the dock on the other side of the river, you need to point the bow of the boat upstream, right? Otherwise the river will flow your boat "off course". Same with an airplane in a moving airmass. Cheers, Jan

Steering with the rudder pedals should not disarm the autobrake - I will try on my end to verify that it doesn´t. I find it extremely difficult (on my CH Pedals Pro) to steer a lot without accidentially triggering the brake pedals, though. And there is not "null zone" that you could set for those. We are using the default autobrake logic for X-Plane for now. The real plane requires a certain amount of brake deflection over a certain time to disarm the autobrake, I think in X-Plane ANY short tapping of the brakes will disarm them. Custom joystick axis polling is a can of worms and VERY difficult to achieve (due to the need to detect the correct axis on a multitude of devices and setups) and therefore we try to stay away from it as much as possible... That being said, you also need to watch carefully in the real plane for accidental disarming of the brake, it happens easier than you think and the pilot monitoring must carefully watch the light and call it out "Autobrake Disarm!" when it illuminates. Cheers, Jan Edit: I just tried in 1.21 and XP11.20b5 and in both RTO mode and regular autobrake mode (tried setting 3) I can fully deflect the rudder/nosewheel without disarming the autobrake.

The estimated time over the next waypoint is calculated with the ground speed calculated by the FMS dependent on speed planned - just like in the real aircraft. So it is more or less independent of the ground speed indicated. The real plane will calculate the waypoints downstream with the FMS speed (converted to ground speed by applying wind entered either in the LEGS page per leg, or by the cruise wind or the wind component) - wind is not calculated by the IXEG yet. The real plane will also consider actual wind for a small portion of the current leg. The estimates calculated in our IXEG simulation are very rough for now - we hope to improve them along with further refinement to our FMS calculations. Jan

Hi, I have run this performance test on X-Plane 11 (I don´t even have XP10 installed anymore), but I don´t think anything should have changed with regard to the performance. I have used my official flight planning data for the 737-300 I used to fly. These are the test parameters: Airport at sea level Temperature ISA +10 (25C). Brake release weight 58.000kgs. No wind. Climb schedule: V2+15 to 1500 feet. Then 250kts to 10.000 feet. Then 290kts until Mach is 0.74. Then 0.74. Full climb power. Watch for the IAS/MACH changeover, if you are on FL CHG it will automatically change from 290 to 0.71 at ca. 26.000 feet. That is too early, you need to revert manually to IAS and switch over when the speed reaches M.74 (c/o button). Here are the values I get (first the flight test values with IXEG 1.21, then the values from the book): Altitude Distance(IXEG) Distance (Real aircraft) Time (IXEG) Time (Real aircraft) 6.000 11.2 10 3:25 3 10.000 18.2 17 4:54 5 14.000 29.8 29 6:59 7 20.000 48.3 47 9:59 10 24.000 64.9 65 12:29 12 28.000 86.4 89 15:33 16 31.000 102.3 104 17:46 18 33.000 117.0 125 19:50 20 Climb rate just before reaching 33.000 feet was 800 feet per minute. Cheers, Jan