Fab10

Now fixed. TTFN.

Anyone?

Hi, My V1.7.2 CRJ manages to climb at 3,000+ ft/min even when above FL250 using IAS270 or 0.72M even well below MAUW (XP11.05). I’m sure Bombardier would be interested in such phenomenal performance, but I’m not, as I’d prefer a saner and more realistic ROC. It is my understanding that the diminutive CRJ200 is known to have fairly aemaemic climb rates, all the more so at higher FL’s. Unless the temperature gradient has become inverted (!), I would love to be able to correct these climb rates. I am using xEnviro or NOAA for weather, but I don’t think that these climb rates are dependent on the WX engine in use. I plan to be the first in line when Javier releases the nextgen CRJ200, but until then the present CRJ is a firm favourite amongst many, including me. Please may I respectfully ask for advice and help in tackling this? With thanks, Fabio

The visuals remain as they were. For me, only the performance has changed, specifically that it appears overpowered.

Hi, Firstly, I'd like to thank Javier and all at X-Aviation for the CRJ200 as it is still a great favourite of mine. Running XP11.02r2 and the CRJ200 V1.7.2, I am finding that my mid-weight CRJ200 is climbing with a ROC >4000 ft/min even at FL200+ with N1 around 90%. Has it become a touch overpowered? Thanks, Fabio

Indeed, yes, take another look at the manual. Good idea, wish I had thought of that, but I did Google the question, so that's something I guess. However, I would still like to know why are there seemingly operational buttons, switches and knobs when in fact they do nothing other than make the cursor pretend something might happen. Nothing in the manual about those, or in the tutorial for that matter. You see, within the VC, some buttons, switches and knobs that have no operational capacity are just VC objects and as such are nothing more than detail, and these the cursor ignores, but then there are several that the cursor seems to respond to, yet no amount of clicking or dragging will elicit a useful response. Why the difference? By the way, it's a lovely aeroplane, and always has been. [This latest version tends to lose its way navigationally speaking on a certain approach into EGLC. I'll get more on this when next I try it.]

Hi, Firstly, I'd like to thank Javier and all at X-Aviation for this unexpected Christmas present - it is gratefully received, and the peerless JRollon CRJ remains an absolute favourite. This current version, as well as older versions, have had limited overhead switch/button/knob functionality even though the mouse cursor turns into a hand to "grab" and/or "actuate" the controls, yet clicking, dragging, grabbing, etc the knob or control, there is no apparent functionality. Have I missed a dependency or some other necessary operation to obtain function from these seemingly workable buttons/switches etc? Thanks again to all, have a great Christmas! Best wishes, Fabio

Appreciate the update, thanks.

Thank you for the update.

Yeah, right, linear, hmmm...

Phew! Working on it...

As long as it's linear!

Hi, I am writing a simple LUA script to enable v-speed call outs. However, I cannot identify the dataref's to reference, other than the obvious ones for pilot speed bugs, but their values do not correspond to ASI values. Hoping you may be able to help. Thsnks, Fabio

Hi, That works perfectly, thank you so much! I have attached my B733_Xsaitekpanels.lua and xsaitekpanels.cfg files for others. Please note that whilst my saitekpanels.ini works fine for me, it may not be OK for you, insofar as I like to use and interact with everything in this spectacular VC, with the exception of preferring to use my Saitek gear and flap levers. As JimBim says, this is without support and entirely at your discretion to use. Best wishes, Fabio Saitek Gear Off LUA and CFG.zip

Thanks, that's really kind and greatly appreciated - testing now!

Hi, However, not wishing to contrast and compare the IXEG with anything else, I feel hesitantly compelled to mention that other aircraft allow the middle gear off position, though probably these do not simulate systems in the same way. Can - or has - anything been done about it? Thanks, Fabio

Hi, What a fantastic aircraft this is, rich in features, functions, and personality - it's a thing of beauty and a seminal product, thank you. However, I need some assistance, please: I have been so far been unable to switch off the landing gear lever (so that the hydraulic gear circuit is off). Having watched the training videos, I know to just hold the lever gently and nudge it downwards, but try as I might, the lever springs to the top (up) position, even if I drag it to the middle (off) position. Could you please point me in the right direction, or perhaps retrofit a dedicated click spot on the gear trigger to switch off the landing gear? I use Saitek panels but ONLY for the tactile feel of the gear and flap levers, and nothing else (otherwise it would be a waste of a VC as it is too fabulous to not use!). Thanks, Fabio

Stunningly beautiful, such a treat!

Great news, looking forward to this with huge anticipation!

Appreciated, thanks.

I'm undecided, so I'm going to muddy the waters. What matters is a comparative index that clearly denotes expectations, so that we can say "wow, that's going to be great!" because armed with lots of precise information, we will know what to expect. What was good about the labels HD or UHDT, is that it gave us a notion of what to expect. Easy. What didn't work was that our expectations were mislead by inappropriate "marketing hype". We have all deleted poorer liveries as well as aircraft with rubbish VC's. What is good about the pixel/meter count is that it is uniform and beyond dispute - it's an absolute measure. What is missing though is the comparative index, because 50 px/m vs. 500 px/m may apply to different aircraft types. What I then need is an index to say that 50 px/m is ULTRA HIGH for aircraft of this size (an Airbus perhaps) or VERY LOW for this type of aeroplane (a GA type). Hang on! To this equation, as has been pointed out, we should add a date-stamp, because this is a factor too. Yet another issue is knowledge, because as experts, you guys know what these numbers REALLY mean in the context of what you are painting. Many, including me, do not. I'd postulate that if a livery carries the name Carenado, McPhat, or Jan, I'd know exactly what to expect, and that is the ultimate hallmark of quality. So then, we need a measure in px/m, the aircraft type, a date, and the artwork author. Perhaps we should investigate the implementation of an arbitrators stamp of good quality - "Quality Assured!", but then quality is so very subjective, especially in this multi-factorial arena. I often read comments levied at repaints that bemoan this lack of detail or that missing decal, and even a font type that wasn't quite right, and truly, I often fail to see what was wrong! And that is why I leave the exacting details to the experts. For me, I solely look for HD or UHDT badges, and if it didn't fit, it'd be deleted. Anyway, the few repaints that I have tried to make we're so poor that I never shared them. They were ultra low resolution, low detail and of smudged quality, and shaky and flaky in all departments. My 50 px/m or even my 500 px/m will certainly be far, far worse than a painter who's work is renowned for quality. Clearly I have misunderstood. Or have I?

Enthusiastically looking forward to a 64-bit Falco! That's the trouble with homebuilds, they do take time!....

In that case, I respectfully suggest that Tom needs a break (and I'd wager that he would heartily agree with me). Please give Tom the Falco manual instead, a cup of tea, two or three biscuits, and a deadline for next week!

Hi, Can someone please let me know whether the drop dead gorgeous Falco is 64-bit capable (this thread suggests it will have happened some time ago), and whether the Falco will run in XP 10.30. Honestly, there isn't a Carenado or Alabeo that can match the Falco, so even if you have something for Falco pilots to try even if less than 100% for now, then please let us have it! Thanks, Fabio

Hi, No worries, I really do appreciate that you have looked into this. It's completely understandable that the project cannot be reopened, besides, I'm looking forward to newer and fresher products from XA. Best wishes, Fabio