Leaderboard

I had my conflicts with Gizmo, now with SASL & although Cameron & Jason have bent over backwards to help and fathom it all (Can't say the same for Carenado though) I'm shunting between installs to fly specific planes, a process which basically I should not be entertaining. Sadly my most favorite planes to fly are deeply involved in the various conflicts. We should not have to leapfrog around installs, take note of this-of that- or the other. When we want to fly a purchased plane in X-Plane (Not a cheap platform we have purchased) any add ons ect. that any plane producer requires should run for the duration of the flight of that aircraft and remove itself afterwards leaving the field 'Litter free' for the next team--That after all is Cricket!!

Just a customer comment here, not an argument (I hope). I think it's reasonable from the end-user's perspective to wonder why a plugin has to be enabled at the top level, when it doesn't appear to be doing anything useful when flying a non-Gizmo enabled plane model. The future plans for Gizmo -- "where Gizmo is headed, the fact that it is NOT to be utilized just for aircraft (yep, not aircraft-specific!), etc is precisely why it's been done the way it has" -- don't affect the current situation. Right now, it's only a plane model enabler. BTW, the latest conflict example I ran into is the Hydroz PBY Catalina. I have to move Gizmo out to the Windows desktop to fly that plane, otherwise there is an engine sound conflict. I haven't bought the new Carenado Seneca yet, or any future Carenado products that might use SASL, but this is rapidly turning into a situation where instead of moving Gizmo out temporarily to fly a non-Gizmo plane, I'm going to be thinking of Gizmo as something I leave out of the system most of the time, and only move it in when I want to fly the LES DC-3. Or the MU-2 and Falcon (although I haven't moved those into v10 yet, pending updates). Whatever future plans are in store for Gizmo as a universal plugin, it won't help if users are thinking of it as a special case to be enabled only for certain planes anyway. In other words, it's going to be treated as a plane-level plugin, whether it's intended that way or not. Again, this isn't an argument about what's "proper" for handling plugins, just a statement of the current situation from the customer's perspective.