Leaderboard

I think this is a combination of several things. - Failed engine goes from full to 0 thrust in split of a second, probably not realistic, more likely would get a bit more time (spool down) in real to correct with the rudder in most cases. - At that speed there is very little side friction (weight) left on the nosegear (plus x-plane has a friction weakness we call "creep", long story) - You are using full engine TO thrust (not normally used) which will give the most problems, but it should off course be able to handle that. - Not sure what your elevator trim was but I assume it was in the green band. So thanks for reporting it, we might be able to do something about 1 and 2, but this is more Laminar territory, but we will put it on the list of things to look into.

The bug is solved !!!! Tests: Run X-Plane 11.20vr3 Load default C172 Load IXEG -> OK Load FF320 Load IXEG -> OK Load Aerobask Panthera Load IXEG -> OK All tests without restarting XP Great job @Ben Russell I send you some beers Make a backup of the previous one in another place. Remove the old Gizmo in XP and replace it with the new one. Do not copy over the old gizmo

Sorry Cris, i miss the correct arrival. Anyway, i have no problem with Hyper 7.

Just to follow up, we spoke with Laminar about VR. X-Plane at present does not support third party plugins that do 3D in VR at all. It's expected that SkyMaxx Pro would not work in the current VR betas of X-Plane, and there's nothing we can really do about it until a future X-Plane update that is planned. Remember VR is a BETA feature in X-Plane right now. It's still in development, and it doesn't work with plugins yet - including ours. As things stand, we can't support it yet even if we wanted to. The good news is that we have a very good idea of what needs to be done once Laminar rolls out plugin integration support for VR, and it shouldn't be too hard.

Holds have not been implemented yet. VNAV calculations can be problematic, especially when route modes are EXEC during descents, and we have resumed work on improving these calcs. LNAV is relatively solid statistically, but there are some combinations of procedures that can rear their ugly head. Supporting two datasets, Navigraph/Aerosoft has proven challenging due to the fact that Aerosfot uses "Runway Transition" data types and Navigraph does not...and I have found in many cases that problem routes are due to these difference. We are looking into our algorithms to see if we can hide the difference to the end user. It would have been immensely easier if we'd have just stuck with one dataset....oh well My current focus is on improving the FMS all around. -tkyler