Femke

Well looking at their product line whatever they decide to produce as their entry level to X-Plane it will be only good to have another quality plane maker into The X-Plane marketplace

Well that would rather negate the reason for upgrading my computer to 16 gig ram and the graphic card to a 7850 radeon HD. If I wanted to fly in 32 bit mode I would have stayed with FSX, 6 gig of ram and my 550TI nvidea card. I also use Windows 7 64 bit. It is not crashes I am having as I would need to get my realistic payware craft out of the hangars and into the air to be able to crash. I purchased X-Plane because of all the 64 bit hype and it seems to be turning out to be that, just hype at this time. Perhaps the future will change that, we will have to wait and see. But ask yourself this, if you want X-Plane to be No. 1, you will need to entice flight simmers from older sims that are still stuck in the 32bit stone age, does it make sense if you want to get that user base to X-Plane to ask them to use X-Plane in 32 bit mode? By the way I never bought from a shop or an online store, I purchased direct from X-Plane by going to their .com website and seeing the wonderful (cough) advertising blurb and hype that didn't mention 9. I did notice there was a 9 so I am not totally gullible but I saw nothing to suggest that 10 was still in some form of prepubescent beta. Silly me eh.

Seems to be affecting the Bombardier Challenger 300 Captain Edition Seems to be affecting the Bombardier Challenger 300 Captain Edition in a similar way. The green information digits disappear as does the background colour of the PFD display whenever HDR is enabled. In 64 bit since the new SASL 64bit plugin was updated a couple of weeks back that is, as regards 32bit the same problems apply. It isn't intermittent either it is every time HDR is enabled. Sigh! This was the only one of my top rated payware planes that was flying without problems. Think I will go sob quietly in a corner.

Thanks for your comment there Kris but if I purchase something advertised as 10.1 was originally, how was I supposed to know that I was in fact buying a version that was unstable and that I should have purchased a 9 series version. If what you say is correct then perhaps the manufacturer should have made me aware before I parted with my cash, as your comment there just lends gravity to my view I was purchasing a beta version of x-plane. While I don't have an aversion to testing betas and I have in the mmorpg world frequently, I do have an aversion to paying for that dubious pleasure. I can't share your underlying assumption of all being fixed eventually. My experience with software companies is often that fixes are often introduced to repair problems that thorough testing in the first place would have isolated, and that as time passes new problems overtake the good intentions to fix original problems, then often niggly things are left in the software and never fixed to the point of a new version of the software being issued. This new version starting another merry-go-round of further problems. I guess I will just have to wait and see if X-Plane can fulfil its promise of becoming the great program it can become and in the meantime fly the Bombardier Challenger, and the one or two excellent freeware craft I have downloaded between returning to FSX to for some more disneyish flying with fluffy clouds and pretty scenery.

Thanks Steven and I have to admit that "The Perfect Storm" scenario exists and has always existed. Even with the quality controls of my younger life the odd rogue managed to slip through. What I am seeing at the moment though as a customer, is major problems, whether by developers of the Flight Sim or developers of the addons, that take your money and ask you to use the products in a substandard way. The following silences as no one seems to feel they need to keep the customer base regularly updated with progress are only addressed when customers get a little irate and get somewhat bellicose in wanting answers to the many delays they experience. I think it is compounded with the releasing of new models as this thread describes that appear to have a working 64bit plugin.

Oh dear so now problems are being moved further back to 10.30. Gosh I didn't realize I was buying a beta key for a flightsim and for addons. Sorry for the sarcasm but perhaps I grew old in an era where items sold where expected to work well and fluently out of the box, and things were not released until the quality testing gave them the thumbs up. To me from what I have seen in the past of this, what in my opinion seems to be a cavalier attitude to the customer, is a gradual decline in a customer base until eventually it becomes uneconomical for a company and its associate companies to continue to trade. The most glaring example being British Leyland, leading to the loss of near enough 100% of British made cars and a loss of the many engineering companies that relied on them. Agreed that computers and their associate programs are very complex, but despite operating systems developing many faults the manufacturers of these opsys are very quick to keep updating them while they run their life period.

It claims 64bit compatible and yet the C337 Skymaster is still waiting for its 64 bit plugin. I would like to patronise Carenado again but until they make my existing V10 models compatible with X-Plane 64 bit, I think I will spend my cash elsewhere. I am using my earlier version challenger's SASL 64 bit to be able to fly it at the moment, but it is an unsupported mod and I am not sure if the odd crash I get when using the Skymaster is down to this mod.

Errm its not made by Carenado its ddens bombardier challenger. My problem is not apportioning blame for the incompatability problem it is the fact that this particular developer only provides support through the org which I have no access to for asking for help. Ahh my bad I hijacked the thread a bit, and I think you answered both mine and the OP's posting. My apologies.

I checked aircraft failures first, nothing was showing and the fact that enabling and disabling HDR multi times with each change resulting in the same fault seems to be pointing to some sort of compatability problem between the updated plugin and X-Planes hdr.

I found a similar problem to the missing figures and backgrounds on the glass panels on the Bombardier Challenger from dden PFD and MFD panels that is. It has only happened since I installed their latest 64 bit SASL and only happens with HDR enabled. As ddens' support only appears to be available at the borg, from where I am banned I have no way of contacting the developer to find out if he can give me some advice on the problem. Shame we cannot get him to come here and join our forum also. It just means I no longer purchase addons from developers who only supply support at the .org exclusively no matter how desirable.

I know we are still waiting for sasl and gizmo plugins to make some of our aircraft fully compatible with 10.20 64bit, but I would be interested to see what members here would like to see on their wish list for the next iteration of the 10 series of x-plane.

File Name: New Manchester Control Tower File Submitter: Femke File Submitted: 13 Mar 2013 File Category: Objects X-Plane Version(s): X-Plane 9 This is my first forage into making anything in a flight sim, so I am a total newby, be kind please. The item was made exclusively in Google Sketchup who I would like to thank for their great free program, and I would like to thank Marginal for his wonderful Sketchup to X-Plane exporter. Constructive criticism would be wonderful. Oh, and all files are in the package as I am not sure which files I can delete from the Sketchup export process Click here to download this file

For information if you have the Dash * listed in the thread headline from FlyJSim, they posted today that the .org is updating their customers 64 bit plugin now and FlyJSim will be emailing their own customers today or tomorrow for them to upgrade their 64 bit plugin latest release. See patience with the developers does bear fruit.

Its cool thanks Tonka, and the exclusion zone worked a treat and took out all the brown and cream shaded airport buildings. I think you were right that x-plane may have inserted some OSM data, as I recall doing a scenery save in the middle of creating runways and aprons. With no buildings the program may have tried to be helpful and insert some. Thanks for your help.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I understand the taxiways and runways are in the global apt.dat as I have already successfully imported the airport from the global apt.dat in the past, to 10.1 but there seemed to be bits of taxiways missing and an area where the cargo apron should have been that wouldn't show. So to avoid a repeat of that situation I decided to go from scratch this time and make my own runways and taxiways. The only custom scenery folder with the EGCC data is the one I am creating, but just in case something is sitting in one of the folders of other imported UK airports I have downloaded I shall rename mine to go to the top of the custom scenery folder as a trial. The airport buildings that are loading are extremely bland and although there are slight similarities to some of the Manchester layout the actual buildings are nothing like the true airport. The OSM data you mentioned I suppose is a possibility but I wonder if that is a recent development for 10.20 as it wasn't there the last time I started making the airport when I was using 10.1 I tried to paste a clipboard piccy of the airport here but after a few minutes it self deleted with a message saying the post was too short and the jpeg was wiped so I had to use the auto saved reply. Perhaps copy and paste is not allowed in posts, I am not sure and am loath to go upsetting anyone here and getting banned as I was at .org

AS I live about 20 miles from Manchester airport I decided to download a free version of the scenery someone had made. Looked great but even with 16 gig memory my aircraft were crawling down the runway trying to get speed up to take off. Now I have made a couple of attempts in 10.1 to make my own version of the airport one in wed and another in Marginals overlay editor to sort of teach myself the tools. In 10.1 if I started a new file in wed and renamed it to EGCC I had 2 choices. I could import the global apt.dat file part that gave me runways and aprons which I did sucessfully or I could start from scratch and build my own runways and taxiways then populate the airport buildings. This time I decided to start from scratch. So I created a new airport in wed 1.2, called it EGCC, created the airport, placed the runways and made half of the taxiway. Just to check all was running ok, I then opened 10.20 64 bit with my VW car on the runway, there were my runways and the first of my taxiways and spread around the gras was a blooming airport. Nothing shows in Wed. Nothing shows in Overlay Editor. But I definitely have some rather bland looking airport buildings. This is what has me scratching my head in puzzlement where did they come from and why. Any help would be wonderful as this is driving me batty.

That's a shame I was starting to enjoy playing with him.

Its ok Steven you should see the stuff I miss when it's late. I know how you feel.

Although until Carenado have issued the 64 bit plugin, unless you place another SASL 64 bit plugin in the C337 Skymaster plugins folder you will have a pilots head blocking your view of instruments.

Do you think that a 67 year old grandmother is incapable of using the internet as effectively as a much younger male user. I have been using computers since the days of Ian Sinclair's ZX81, and have owned amongst many others Commodore, Amiga, Atari, IBM PC's, and I have been a user of the web since the early days of its conception. There are a number of ways to circumvent bans from forums which a short search with Google would easily show an experienced user how to do so. I have another account because of the community there who try to help others and are so great with giving up their free time to provide software, tuition, add ons and advice.amongst other information. I shall not post with that account and will merely use it for access to the wonderful resource. I never claimed I was banned by IP address although I thought I was, as what happened to my partner's account, who incidentally doesn't post there or anywhere else, gets the same no permission messages, as I do . I do not know why you seem to question all I say, both here, and on the .org is down thread, and I seem to sense a barely concealed insinuation that I am actually not telling the truth. If you read my posts You will find that I said at one point that the message I get now on any page of the .org forums except the store of course, is "you do not have permission to do that". My other account is still logged in and I cannot even operate the log out button to take the account out of the signed in phase. If I was paranoid I may have started to think that you are an alt of the very person who locked the thread or even Nicolas who doesn't even have the decency to answer my email. But as I am not paranoid It is just a fanciful idea that drifted across my befuddled old brain dear.

Ok can we leave it there please. I accepted you didn't insinuate I was a liar, and I have given you all the information I could to show the veracity of my posts and follow ups, and as I said, I understand why you may have trouble believing it happened the way described when I still have trouble believing it myself. Lets just let it go now and all get along nicely with each other.

Thanks Jim, I really hope nobody does try to defend me as I wouldn't wish to be the cause of another losing their account.

Below is a copy of the email I sent to try to make sense of why I was being treated so aggressively. So if anyone thinks there is more to the story, you can either believe me or not. It is not that important. I do know I was telling the truth and if you doubt the veracity of what happened perhaps it is because you don't wish to accept others can do this. This is my last words on the subject now as I seem to have hijacked the thread a bit which is unfair on the OP. Femina to forums 13 days agoDetails I am sorry but after answering a question on a thread I merely asked that if a person had already shown support on .org by purchasing items from the store could the anti spambot rule of two posts be excused, as spambots would not be buying from the store. I received a terse reply on the thread from xdave moderator with the thread being locked referring to store questions. Then I discovered that my permission to access the forums had been withdrawn. I was asking nothing about the store only if the forums could return support shown by members who used the store, as regards the spambot rule. How was I to know that such an innocent question was going to be treated so aggressively. I apologise at upsetting someone so easily but as a 67 year old grandmother I was amazed at being treated so harshly. Could you advise me how long I will be refused entry to the forums or is this a lifetime punishment. Femina