Saab340 Sounds.

[Delroy]

GizmoLog.txt

[JGregory]

There is nothing in the log that indicates any problems.  Most of the sounds are "custom" and will not be heard during replay.  This is something that should be resolved in the future with FMOD in v11.  If you are having any other sound issues, please describe them specifically.

[Delroy]

ok

[ionfresko]

Really nice to hear that also custom sounds will be possible to hear in replay, if I'm understanding things correctly

[kentwerickson]

On 12/2/2016 at 8:45 PM, JGregory said:

There is nothing in the log that indicates any problems.  Most of the sounds are "custom" and will not be heard during replay.  This is something that should be resolved in the future with FMOD in v11.  If you are having any other sound issues, please describe them specifically.

I don't quite understand why this is an issue with XP 10. I have other payware aircraft with custom sounds that are audible during replay mode. Can you please explain, in a bit greater detail, why this is problematic for the Saab 340A? Thanks.

[JGregory]

1 hour ago, kentwerickson said:

I don't quite understand why this is an issue with XP 10. I have other payware aircraft with custom sounds that are audible during replay mode. Can you please explain, in a bit greater detail, why this is problematic for the Saab 340A? Thanks.

We are using a custom sound engine that those other aircraft do not use.  The current version does not provide replay capability.  Since we will be converting all sounds to FMOD at some point (for v11), we will not be upgrading the sound engine that the Saab currently uses.

[kentwerickson]

1 hour ago, JGregory said:

We are using a custom sound engine that those other aircraft do not use.  The current version does not provide replay capability.  Since we will be converting all sounds to FMOD at some point (for v11), we will not be upgrading the sound engine that the Saab currently uses.

I understand. But this plane is now over three years old, and existing customers like me have been waiting for quite some time now for a fix for this issue (and which I am willing to bet large sums of money is not technically infeasible). So, what have you guys been doing for the past three years?

This is kind of snarky way of putting it, but my point is this: I've grown tired of spending big $$$ on payware aircraft only to discover, after purchase, that they are not fully compatible with XP (despite advertisements to the contrary). The way I see it, replay mode (with playback of aircraft sounds) is an integral feature of XP. And so if an aircraft does not support this functionality, then in my view it is not 100% compatible with XP. Notice that this is not equivalent to saying, for example, that just because XP also supports carrier tail hook landings, every payware aircraft should come equipped with a functioning tail hook. Rather, replay mode (with sound) is a feature that was designed/intended to be supported by all aircraft, payware or otherwise (just ask Austin).

Ok, I've said my peace. But in my estimation (and I assume that I am not alone here), LES/X-Aviation owes existing customers a version of the 340A for XP 10 that supports custom sound playback in replay mode before its retirement.

Edited December 8, 2016 by kentwerickson

[Cameron]

I understand. But this plane is now over three years old, and existing customers like me have been waiting for quite some time now for a fix for this issue (and which I am willing to bet large sums of money is not technically infeasible). So, what have you guys been doing for the past three years?

This is kind of snarky way of putting it, but my point is this: I've grown tired of spending big $$$ on payware aircraft only to discover, after purchase, that they are not fully compatible with XP (despite advertisements to the contrary). The way I see it, replay mode (with playback of aircraft sounds) is an integral feature of XP. And so if an aircraft does not support this functionality, then in my view it is not 100% compatible with XP. Notice that this is not equivalent to saying, for example, that just because XP also supports carrier tail hook landings, every payware aircraft should come equipped with a functioning tail hook. Rather, replay mode (with sound) is a feature that was designed/intended to be supported by all aircraft, payware or otherwise (just ask Austin).

Ok, I've said my peace. But in my estimation (and I assume that I am not alone here), LES/X-Aviation owes existing customers a version of the 340A for XP 10 that supports custom sound playback in replay mode before its retirement.

If you want playback of sounds in replay then rename the sounds to something default X-Plane 10 will handle with it's own, crappy sound engine. There's a reason Laminar introduced a new sound engine in 11, you know...

Your compatibility argument is hogwash, and there's obviously not a clamoring of people hounding us for this either. We made a sound engine. There is no "compatibility" situation here when Laminar doesn't make situations for custom sound engines like ours anyhow. We bent the rules of possibility to make something exist that never did because what was there by default is awful on so many levels...just ask any serious X-Plane user.

[JGregory]

19 minutes ago, kentwerickson said:

I understand. But this plane is now over three years old, and existing customers like me have been waiting for quite some time now for a fix for this issue (and which I am willing to bet large sums of money is not technically infeasible). So, what have you guys been doing for the past three years?

We NEVER promised that we would provide a "fix" for sound not playing during replay.  We also NEVER said it was infeasible.  We have put out updates to this aircraft, the last of which was in June of 2015... that's NOT 3 years.

26 minutes ago, kentwerickson said:

This is kind of snarky way of putting it, but my point is this: I've grown tired of spending big $$$ on payware aircraft only to discover, after purchase, that they are not fully compatible with XP (despite advertisements to the contrary). The way I see it, replay mode (with playback of aircraft sounds) is an integral feature of XP. And so if an aircraft does not support this functionality, then in my view it is not 100% compatible with XP. Notice that this is not equivalent to saying, for example, that just because XP also supports carrier tail hook landings, every payware aircraft should come equipped with a functioning tail hook. Rather, replay mode (with sound) is a feature that was designed/intended to be supported by all aircraft, payware or otherwise (just ask Austin).

Replay mode is an integral feature of XP, but certainly not the PRIMARY feature.  One of the biggest features of X-Plane is the extensive flexibility it provides to aircraft authors in doing modifications to the default product.  That flexibility allowed us to provide a custom sound engine to offer much better (than default) sound in the PRIMARY mode, which is normal flight simulation, not replay.  The Saab is not the only payware product with this limitation.  If you purchased the Saab to primarily run in replay mode, you are not using the sim as it was "designed/intended".  As I also work for Laminar, I talk to Austin almost every day, and I can assure you he would understand and be sympathetic to our position. 

 

34 minutes ago, kentwerickson said:

LES/X-Aviation owes existing customers a version of the 340A for XP 10 that supports custom sound playback in replay mode before its retirement.

No, we don't.

[kentwerickson]

24 minutes ago, Cameron said:

Your compatibility argument is hogwash, and there's obviously not a clamoring of people hounding us for this either. We made a sound engine. There is no "compatibility" situation here when Laminar doesn't make situations for custom sound engines like ours anyhow. We bent the rules of possibility to make something exist that never did because what was there by default is awful on so many levels...just ask any serious X-Plane user.

I agree that the sound engine in the 340A is very good. And in retrospect, I may have made my purchase despite (with knowledge of) the sound limitation in replay mode. That said, I believe my argument is sound. What's not valid is to simply insist, unilaterally, that "we gave you something better."

I of course cannot prove this. But I would not be surprised to learn that the custom sound engine for the 340A was first developed, and then later someone realized: "Oh sh*t, this doesn't work in replay mode. Oh well, as they say, it's easier to beg forgiveness later..." (or make up some lame excuse; Donald Trump is a master at this!).

In short, and with all due respect, let me repeat/clarify my earlier point: If there is an inherent known limitation with an aircraft design, this should either be eventually corrected or clearly indicated on the website spec sheet so that potential customers can make a fully (or anyhow better) informed purchasing decision. I seriously doubt that any sensible XP user/customer would disagree with this principle.

[Cameron]

I agree that the sound engine in the 340A is very good. And in retrospect, I may have made my purchase despite (with knowledge of) the sound limitation in replay mode. That said, I believe my argument is sound. What's not valid is to simply insist, unilaterally, that "we gave you something better."

I of course cannot prove this. But I would not be surprised to learn that the custom sound engine for the 340A was first developed, and then later someone realized: "Oh sh*t, this doesn't work in replay mode. Oh well, as they say, it's easier to beg forgiveness later..." (or make up some lame excuse; Donald Trump is a master at this!).

In short, and with all due respect, let me repeat/clarify my earlier point: If there is an inherent known limitation with an aircraft design, this should either be eventually corrected or clearly indicated on the website spec sheet so that potential customers can make a fully (or anyhow better) informed purchasing decision. I seriously doubt that any sensible XP user/customer would disagree with this principle.

At this point you're slightly shifting gears.

To be very clear: nothing on this will be changing, we almost never hear about it, and it's not just because we're lazy. It took significant effort just to create a sound engine to begin with.

Further discussing this will literally be a waste of time for all.

[kentwerickson]

Just now, Cameron said:

At this point you're slightly shifting gears.

To be very clear: nothing on this will be changing, we almost never hear about it, and it's not just because we're lazy. It took significant effort just to create a sound engine to begin with.

Further discussing this will literally be a waste of time for all.

Agreed. But I hope at least my feedback, which was intended to be constructive, will result in more candid disclosure of such limitations in future products.