Jump to content

diamonddriller

Members
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

diamonddriller last won the day on September 4 2018

diamonddriller had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Good

About diamonddriller

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,313 profile views
  1. Thanks Coop. I'll give it a try later.
  2. A little disappointed that v1.01 does not appear to show any improvement in the G1000 contrast. I thought we were to have a toggle in settings. I tried looking at the G1000 screens at dawn, midday and night, and they look exactly the same. This is not a sun or glare issue. Sorry, but the background should be black, unless the whole screen has the sun straight on it. Anyway, thanks for all the other corrections. Especially grateful for no CTDs
  3. @robder I had already. No difference, sadly.
  4. I get pretty good performance, but I'm currently on my older iMac, which has the 4GHz i7, 32GB (DDR3) and the 4GB m395 graphics card. Not a slouch, but the weak spot is the graphics card. However, if I dial the textures down a bit, I still have enough VRAM, so quite why the SR22 is running so slowly in metal, I'm not sure. As it's very flyable in OpenGL, I'll soldier on! Metal is OK with other stuff, but not so much faster that it's a game changer for me. This iMac is due for replacement, so I'm waiting to see what Apple come up with in the next week or two (or three!). It will probably be the last of the Intel line, but I would rather stick with that, than be a beta tester and run a lot of my software in an emulation mode, when they go ARM.
  5. Hi Coop. I experienced this situation yesterday, and reported it to Keith Smith of PE - who was equally mystified. I just told him you had sorted this out, but he'd love to hear from you about what the problem exactly was. Your post was a bit ambiguous, in that maybe you meant that the CTD issue was fixed but, anyway, Keith would appreciate your findings. So, would you tell him, please at: info@pilotedge.net (which you probably knew anyway!) Thanks.
  6. Sadly, no difference after new .prf!. Frame rate is over double in OpenGL(35-38 fps). Even your Islander only manages 22 fps or so in Metal, but no problem in OpenGL. In 11.41, I can get 48 or so in the Islander. I get a better frame rate (in Metal) with other complex planes, but none of them performs nearly as well in Metal as in OpenGL (11.41 or 11.50). This has to be an LR problem. The SR22 definitely is a frame rate killer for me (no offence!), as, for example the TBM900 will run at 50 fps in OpenGL, as will Carenado's PA46 Meridian, and they both have a lot of G1000 hardware. 35fps is plenty, so no worries. Metal is a non-starter at the moment, for me. Maybe the 2020 iMac will be a better bet - we'll see in a few weeks, I believe. This could simply be the current Apple AMD driver not getting the best out of LR's efforts, of course! It's easy to blame LR
  7. If you don't want to see this, you really have to warm this up on the ground, otherwise I've also found the oil pressure in the yellow. Once the oil gets to 180 or so, it's no problem, but Cirrus recommends getting the temperature up to 100 before take off.
  8. Yes, Coop. I've sometimes replaced my whole prefs directory from Time Machine when X-Plane misbehaves. Also, just the actual .prf file replacement has worked, but I never thought of trying this with in the beta - so thanks for reminding me to try it. Mostly, with just the .prf replacement, I just have to recalibrate the controls, and re-assign the odd button. It only takes a couple of minutes. I haven't saved any profiles in the beta - and I've never bothered to think about where they are saved (i.e in the actual .prf file, or elsewhere in the directory)!
  9. Thanks Coop. On the metal front, I trust LR will get this sorted before the final release, because I have yet to see the amazing advantage that I was expecting......... Hopefully, they will leave us the OpenGL option, just in case. These sort of things are made more difficult when there are so many permutations of the users' hardware to be satisfied. I'll be surprised if MSFS2020 satisfies a high percentage of PC customers, as well. The ideal 2080Ti costs around $1700+, so that's going to be a problem for many.
  10. Took the SR22 (Non-turbo) for a spin today, and a yellow CHT warning appeared in the PFD. All the CHT values were in the green, but I adjusted the mixture (which really only affected the EGT more - as expected) and throttled back a bit, but the message never went. Also, it did not show in "Alerts" when I pressed the caution button. It did not even disappear when I had landed, and was idling. X-Plane 11.50b16 on a Mac. Also, I could not use the plane in "metal" as the frame rate was 15. Over double that in OpenGL. I tried adjusting all the usual sliders and rebooted X-Plane a couple of times, then gave up on Metal. A much less complex plane (Aerosphere's Warrior) gave me 45 fps in Metal.
  11. @OuterMarker Exactly. It didn't really make much difference, which is why I was disappointed. The background is still gray, and it shouldn't be. I'll probably end up using resized pop-ups for some of the time ;-) However, I just read , in another thread, that this plane will only work properly in 11.50! That's a beta! I couldn't see anything in the manual that said that, but it is indeed on the product page - which I barely looked at when I bought the plane. So, I'll move it into my beta setup and try again......... I don't expect much difference in the screens, but maybe other things that weren't working may do so now. Also, sorry to Cameron and Coop, but in my defence, I would have put the requirements at the beginning of the manual. In all my years with X-Plane, this is the first complete product that I have ever bought that was designed exclusively for a beta installation of the sim. However, I acknowledge that it's sensible to have a new product that can take advantage of the latest coding, particularly as 11.50 must surely be pretty close to release as the definitive version.
  12. Well, I edited the files in both versions. It made very little difference, I'm sad to say. If there was a change it was pretty much unnoticeable - and that was a surprise. The PFD, with synthetic vision, looked reasonable, but there are no blacks on the backgrounds, and contrast was still poor. I even tried it with HDR enabled. I just re-installed the plane from scratch (so as to get the original supplied .obj files), and will wait till this is resolved. Please make it look like the pop-ups. Also, for some reason, the heading knob, course knob, altitude knob, etc. won't work on the pedestal, but everything works from the pop-ups, and the changes are then reflected correctly in the plane's screens! I get the curly arrows and hands on the pedestal, but they are non-functional. I can get the AP to work from the pedestal. I've had a few CTDs now on my Mac so maybe I'll wait till 1.01. I even tried reverting to the stable Gizmo. When I get it going, it's lovely - looks and sounds great, and flies nicely. Also, others report the rudder pedals don't move - but you know that. I've been running this in 11.41. Am I supposed to be doing it in metal in the 11.50 beta for it all to work and look right? The beta can be fine, but can also be not so fine
  13. @Attitude Fantastic. This will be a job for tomorrow! Thanks a million.
  14. Hi Coop. Sorry, but this is in no way realistic. I took the plane up in a thunderstorm, under solid cumulus. No sun anywhere. I even flew a 360, with very little difference. Still had the low contrast poorly legible screens. Then, I put it on the runway at night. Still had gray backgrounds to the display, and it looked poor. I won't post any photos of the above, but I have been flying G1000 RW for years, and they don't look like that. Sure, at certain times, if the sun can get right on the screens, they are a bit harder to see well (occasionally very hard), but the Cirrus has a more pronounced roof than, say, a Diamond, and reasonable shading for the screens. They have super contrast now - better than the early versions. Most of the time, even in a very sunny environment, they are great. You can see this, without getting in a real plane. YouTube from Nico, and loads of others show pin sharp, high contrast screens with black backgrounds, even at high altitude, above the clouds with a load of sun. What owner would pay $3/4 million and upwards for poorly legible instruments? The FAA, CAA, EASA and all would never have passed what is pictured above as acceptable, and Garmin (and Avidyne, etc.) wouldn't have otherwise beaten the six-packs into submission I would prefer the displays in the sim to look great all the time, and accept the fact that it is a sim., and just forget that, on occasion, the sun can make the display a bit less than ideal....... I'd rather not be squinting at my monitor, and then just keep using the pop-ups anyway. You and others may disagree with me on the above. Fair enough I still think that this plane is sensational, and please don't you or Cameron think me rude!
  15. Yes, I take the point with the Stationair and Carenado, but the G1000 operation is XP11's. Also, the high wing v. low wing point is true. However, again, same runway, same time, same weather: here's the Mooney I recently bought from you v. the SR22. Quite a difference, I'm sure you will agree. I love your comment on X-Plane being a little too smart. You would get more of an ear with Austin and Ben than I would, if you showed them this lighting problem. BTW, none of this detracts from a fantastic plane, which is well worth the money I have paid for it. This, and other minor criticisms from others, are just that - minor! Those of us who have invested in this thank Coop and you for all the work you are doing.
×
×
  • Create New...