PelanPelan

@Goran_M - Thank you for the update. Your team is doing great and you all have been good on responding. I think many here appreciate your support. Even outside of the TBM community, I have heard nothing but positive experiences and praise for your engagement and commitment to fixing issues when they arise. I know you are trying to resolve the mac bug in the new update and I'm looking forward to the fix as soon as possible. With that said, two weeks to fix a bug caused by the release update is way too long to wait for the price we paid for this 3rd party addon, this especially unreasonable considering we aren't given the ability to reinstall the previous version. It is frustrating, and unbelievably disappointing. I'm one of the lucky ones because I didn't delete the previous installer. I am a full stack developer so I am more careful about how I manage my version control. I was able to revert back but I still don't get the advantages of an update that addresses previous performance issues, and bug fixes from the last dev cycle. I don't blame your team for the lacking options to obtain an earlier working version of the aircraft. It is out of your hands and I know that. However, it is totally unacceptable that paying customers who didn't think to backup their files before the update, can't even reclaim a previous working version. I just bought your addon on Cyber Monday, and was only flying the aircraft for two days before updating to a version that broke the model. I would have been extremely pissed if I wasn't able to fly the TBM after updating and couldn't revert back. In my opinion, having an option to at least download the previous update is the responsibility of X-Avation and X-avation should be doing everything they can to get a working copy back into our hands. They provide a bi-directional distributing service for for both the development teams here and us clients who purchase your product. The prices we are paying for one of the top, if the not the number #1 rated GA aircraft in the X-Plane market community should at the very least include support for a previous stable version. The fact X-aviation would even go so far as to deny us an older working version by request is a pathetically poor policy. As customers, we already don't receive a money back guarantee on digital product we may not be satisfied with. Which to be fair, for anyone reading this: That is standard practice with digital products and something I'm not complaining about about but a lot of companies in other industries have other ways to make up for this risk of digital purchase. So, yeah, I expect services such as this to have similar methods to assist us. X-Aviation should do everything in their power to satisfy frustrated customer, especially when there is very little recourse for us when things don't work as expected. Also, (and please correct me if I am wrong) but I have found no instructions or small print advising us to backup our files before an updating due to the fact earlier version aren't available to revert back to. While you'd think that would be common knowledge that everyone practices, the range of user experience here is vast; not to mention this product is uses an installer which is known to experience fewer issues warranting a backup. Your team is also paying for the X-Avavation service. You are more than likely giving them a percentage of sales to use their licensing protection installer technology, their branding, their digital market platform, and their high standing name recognition within the industry. It only hurts the reputation of your product and development. Not everyone who purchases your wonderful 3rd party add-on knows that you aren't in any way affiliated. I just wanted to share my opinion and my disappointment because I think it is only fair that we ask X-Aviation to revise their version control policy to include the last stable release as a download option on all of the addons sold from this marketplace and maybe if the actual product developers here also make a demand for this, then us dissatisfied customers who payed almost $70 wouldn't be completely screwed waiting around for the fix and instead could at least still use the product while we wait for the fix. I really hope I can update to the newest version very soon because it is upsetting me that I'm stuck with an older version and it is even more upsetting that other paying customer can't use your aircraft because they have no ability to revert to the last working copy and X-Avavation is doing anything to get a working copy into our hands. Regaudless, thank you for all of your hard work. It is an amazing addon despite the issue on the newest version. Pelan

@YYZSimmer. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was a part of the team here. I am not. I am actually new to the product myself, and I just purchased it last monday. I would have bought it even sooner but I was doing research on whether my system would be enough to run it smoothly. it was a toss up between the toliss and Hot start. My not too much older mac is definitely on the low spec requirement so i was honestly surprised when my fps were pretty good. They are between 24 and 32 the majority of the time. BTW: I ended up getting both products because the black friday deal on the Toliss was too good to pass up. Lol, I have not even flown the 319 yet. Someone posted my exact issue with the update in a separate thread in regards to the display not working. With at least two other people experiencing the same issues I have, so this new update is definitely not without its problems. Now knowing future updates may cause issues, and also now knowing that X-Aviation (not Hot Start) does not easily provide us with back compatibility options, I will NEVER delete the downloaded files of older versions of the aircraft packaged installers. Honestly, if there is one thing I would strongly criticize, it isn't the buggy update because that's just part of the process of ongoing development. Updates aren't always an improvement and anyone who owns an iphone can attest to but the Hot Start Devs from what I have seen first hand, and read will address this and help with support. They have a very positive view from the community in these regards. No, it is X-avavation is the responsible party here. They should be providing us with the ability to download earlier versions or at the very least, the last version prior to the update for backward compatibility. I'm sure, by request you can get one but It is pretty uncommon to distribute an update installer for simple plugins or addons without having an option to download the last version. I'm glad that I bought this product when I did otherwise I would be out of luck and with little proof that it most likely is a bug. This is my first payware purchase for X-plane but I have known for a long time that X-avation is known more for their lack of good support; rather than having a great reputation for support. I should mention, the complaints are mostly in cases where their own 3rd party distributing packages fail to properly install the addon or when the installer has registration conflicts. Here is my advice: Always keep at least the last version of the installer I'd also make a backup of the actual aircraft folders that were installed and take note of where they were installed. It might even be worth it to screen record the installing process because usually an installer will show every file and directory the content is being extracted to. By doing so, you can pause the video to slowly take note as the process moves quickly. Beyond that, @YYZSimmer, I have my installer for 1.1.09. If you would like, pm me, and I'll gladly give you a copy of my 1.109 installer. To be clear, I'll not share the actual aircraft extracted content because that could potentially be a copyright violation. The installer will only download the older version from their server and extract it into X-plane. You'll still need your registration info to extract the content and alao activate it within x-plane but I'd be happy to help if you want a working copy quickly. Just PM me to swap contact info, and I'll be happy to help.

I responded to this issue in a different support thread and said it might to be added to the bug report. I reverted back to .09 as a step to diagnose the possible issue. These are the exact same issues I was getting. I just bought the product last monday and then after the update I realised the screens were not acting right, along with the missing cas warnings, and maybe even some AP issues. Thankfully, I could revert back to the older version. If there is a quick fix, I'll gladly reinstall the update but I do hope this get resolved and updated quickly in a new packaged version.

@mokeiko, I actually don't have an antivirus program running because I am running x-plane on an iMac. The Mac OS doesn't have the same issues with virus attaching themselves to processes vital to core OS operations. To the point though, I don't even have an antivirus program installed that might flag the addon as malicious. @YYZSimmer, What you say is mostly correct, and a good practice in the majority of scenarios. However, the truth is, antiviruses are usually the culprit responsible for the majority of system incompatibility issues that result in software conflicts. Please don't take my response as negative or an attack, I just want to help clear some things up and in fact, my response may help you and others a lot, especially if you want better performance from your systems. First, there are many more false positives that occur than people are aware, and a false positive is not the result of a poorly built 3rd party program or installer like this one. Furthermore, it should not be the responsibility of 3rd party developers to program an installer to counter false security alerts. Not when the alert should have never been flagged in the first place. Instead, this actually falls on the development team of the antivirus program. They should be coding using standard practices that allow typical and legetmit scripts to run without being seen as a possible threat. Keep in mind, antivirus programs have a very complicated set of tasks to undertake with many different variables to consider, not to mention that the users themselves, can further complicate the matter if they don't properly configure them correctly. IMPORTANT!!! PC Antivirus software access (in regards the Windows OS specifically) the two major architectural components designed for the Windows OS. These two design layers are called, Kernel mode and User Mode. The fact that antivirus software have root level security clearance to interact with or manipulate the Windows Kernel mode (which is the most restrictive environment within Windows), means that the software can sometimes inflict the same level of damage as a virus. This essentially means your antivirus program has the ability to alter the most crucial parts of your operating system. Why? Well, because kernel mode is the only mode with full access to both the hardware and system resources. (e.x.: system drivers, external mice, joysticks, ect...) A better practice is research the antivirus software carefully and have one installed that leads in its class and hardly interacts with the system it is monitoring. Not all are built equally and many programs are extremely bloated which in return are unnecessarily taxing on a system. It is more commonly advised that you don't have an antivirus program even running during any type of PC gaming, whether it be a Flight sim or something like League of Legends. This is especially true if you experience a large performance hit. You'll see a vast improvement on FPS if there isn't an antivirus running in the background and it's why most of the more reliable security programs have implemented a game mode option. Although, if it were me, I'd shut it down completely while running X-plane. Security programs are widely known to cause conflict with other installed programs. This is why a lot of software require the user to shut it down during installations. However, if you feel more secure with it on, another less drastic option is to create a 'rule exception' within the preferences inside your antivirus software and also inside your firewall so that it knows not to flag the in/out port communication piping necessary for the software to run correctly. On a less important side note: Windows OS infrastructure implement the registry mechanism which acts like a spinal cord to the brain of operations. Everything installed is recorded into the registry whether the processes are installed through an installer (by the user) or a malicious process injected into the system by a bad script. Almost every process attaches to the registry in some way and therefore could possibly be programmed to interact on the top level user mode core operations. Every running process running in the user mode layer share the same environment so the script can send instructions to the user mode brain of operations, directing it to run its objectives or it can attach itself and spread systemwide. Extremely sophisticated viruses like a rootkit virus can even communicate with the Kernel mode explained earlier. In contrast, the mac OS is an unix based architecture, and the same can be said about the Linux infrastructure which is similarly based on the Unix concept. Unix Based processes act more like single cell organisms. It is as if every program or running process (i.e. app) is it's own individual computer separate of the OS. Therefore it makes it harder to spread malicious code to the core because everything runs independent and isolated. Also Unix ran OS's separate it's core modes into altogether separate containers and only make reference links into the lower level user mode container. Those links are largely, one directional. By the way, this post was not my attempt to discuss the pros and cons and the tireless argument of which system is better, Mac or Windows, it's just that many people don't fully understand the differences between these two OS architectures. I was just trying to help better explain the way security programs interact with windows and the complications and sometimes accidental damage that can occur when they interact with a system.

I kept my 1.109 and I am glad I did. It's easy, just uninstall the current, and reinstall the earlier version. After installing the update, I had a lot of cockpit issues with the way G100 instruments displaying. Both the main display and the multi were not loading correctly. I could not go into my map views, checklists or systems views. I also I had no speed tape indicator or cas warning messages, and only a few things I could look. I had no idea how fast I was going unless I used backup and some AP things were not working right. I tried the usual plugin conflict issues and this still could be related to plugin conflict, but after reverting back to v.09 I had a working plane again. I will continue to test the plugins for conflict, but if they work with 1.1.09 than I think 10 still has some tweaking. We might want to add this to the bug report . LB