diamonddriller

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.

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)!

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.

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.

@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.

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

@Attitude Fantastic. This will be a job for tomorrow! Thanks a million.

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!

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.

I understand, Cameron, and you are absolutely correct about X-Plane 11's lighting.......... However, OuterMarker (earlier post) seems to agree that this could be improved. For what it's worth, here's Carenado's Stationair taken on the same runway, and they seem to have beaten this problem, somehow. The default Cessna's G1000 is not much better than the SR22, and the sun (or just light - even with cloudy conditions) seems to fade the screen whatever direction one is pointing to, with the exception of perhaps 40 degrees of direction. Also, the filthy screens of the default Cessna aren't much help. It's a bit of a problem, RW, now and again, but this does look a bit worse (i.e. the Cirrus) than perhaps it needs to. After all, it is a sim Thanks for looking at these posts so quickly.

The base (background) color of the screens looks gray (quite a light gray), rather than black. Consequently, the displays lack contrast. I refreshed my memory of the real screens (haven't flown for a bit - as many of us haven't, sadly) in photos (and with Google and YouTube!), and the real G1000 looks a lot crisper - more like the pop-outs! I tried the menu key on the FFD, where you can adjust brightness RW, but this isn't simulated.

Hi Coop, The DME problem was only once or twice, and it may have been after another plane had been flown - which can muck things up. I had another problem today, with PilotEdge crashing the sim as soon as I connected. I removed the new XPRealistic Pro, and then things were OK. The trouble is, I have too many plugins and a lot of scenery. I have moved some of the plugins out, because things do interact. See your own support system for a couple of screenshots and the log.txt.

Using the latest PB5 installation (with the Ovation II) on an iMac, running Mojave. All the annunciatiors in the NAV2/GPS instrument don't seem to work. I can see that there are lamps for nav or GPS, but nothing ever lights up. There are no To/From indicators working either. The HSI does not seem to have any to-from indicators ever appearing on the needle. Once or twice, I have not seen the DME working after switching on, but if I reload the plane, it is OK. Today, I tried the beta version of Gizmo, but that did not help, and I reverted to the standard version. Also, the fuel flow meter remains dark, but perhaps it is not simulated. I also often get a master warning come up, but have no idea why, as everything is in the "green", and I cannot cancel the light. I must have done something wrong, or not! :-)

millibar would be fine by me (hint: hektopascals are millibars) I know. It's just that the name makes better sense. Why name a unit after Blaise Pascal, however an eminent scientist he was? Same with "Newtons". Perhaps it's no worse than calling a vacuum cleaner a Hoover, even if it isn't. I'm just a cantankerous oldie.......

Well, it was built on the Isle of Wight, and may well have been fitted (In those days) with a mb scale, not hPa. I still like to think of milibars, which makes much more sense than hPa - but there you go. A double window is not a bad idea. No one in the USA uses hPa

Looks good. Flies nicely too! Might be worth explaining (in the manual) the slave panel for the HSI, as you cannot assume that everyone who buys this plane will know much about it. It's rare to find planes made for XP11 that have this simulated.

I was also reinstalling, as I think I may have missed an update. I had the same message, and I'm using a Mac. I also got the same message when installing into X-Plane 11, and even with the liveries when I chose to "ignore" the errors. No installation at all in XP10, but I did get the files in XP11. Something is clearly wrong. Can someone please advise? ---------------------------------------------------------------- OOPS! Just needed to use the very latest installer! So, now all OK.

OK. Thanks.

I asked, in an email a while back, whether the installers for most of the X-Aviation products would be updated to 64-bit. I was told not to worry, but OS X Catalina will shortly become the standard. All new Macs will come with it installed. It will not run 32-bit programs at all. I just ran a reinstall of a fairly recently bought product, and got the warning. I would guess a lot of the older products have not been adjusted. This is neither a rant nor a complaint. I am just asking whether this will be addressed very quickly.

Believe me, Frank, if SWP loading weather was the only stutter I ever got (and once an hour, at that), I would be bl--dy grateful Have a great weekend!

Thanks Frank. That has clarified things. I was well aware of the https problem, virtually as soon as it happened! I had some correspondence with LR, and thought that they were looking at this, but nothing has happened for XP10. I suppose, as XP11 has this fixed, they are no longer bothering with XP10. As they have already written the code for this in XP11, I am surprised that they couldn't port this to XP10. kentwerickson has a point about bypassing Gizmo, but Cameron has said that Gizmo was being altered, and that it was not a simple fix.

So, Frank, your two statements below, from your last post, seem to indicate that SMP now downloads its own weather! Does it? "Always" mode to tell us to always download our own, detailed real-world data instead of depending on the add-on or X-Plane's default weather to do so. What we're doing is checking to see if Gizmo failed, and if so, we do it ourselves instead. Now, I'm really stumped. If SMP downloads the weather, why would Gizmo need to be altered? Also, if SMP is getting the multi-layered weather, we could dispense with XPGFS and set RWC to "automatic" and off we go (this is for XP10). If we wanted that SMP weather in XP11, instead of the default, how does one set that up? Disable XP11's weather, then set RWC to "automatic"? Also, of course, Cameron is entirely correct. RW Weather gets updated hourly, with exceptions when something out of the ordinary happens.

So, Frank, to clear my old brain (!!!!), does the "external injector" work properly with XPGFS? I would not have considered using "always" mode for that. I can see why one might, but is it more logical than "external injector"? Also, it does indeed seem that we await a change in Gizmo as another source of downloaded weather for XP10 (as the native method stopped working), and, when that happens, which setting in RWC would be appropriate? I would expect it to be "external injector" again, but you are the one who knows! Also, correct me if I'm wrong: in XP11, one continues to use RWC as we originally did in XP10 - i.e. Automatic setting (if we don't have XPGFS as well), because XP11 is downloading the weather. If we use XPGFS, though, the same question arises as above - what's the best setting? Thanks.

@kentwericksonHmm. RWC in "Never" mode for XPGFS. I still don't get this (although XPGFS will certainly work properly without RWC, as it was designed to do so! ). However, I would have thought that the "external injector" might work, as one of the points of RWC was (I thought) to smooth out transitions from one area to another, and I presume XPGFS is an external injector. The other thing is (useful only for XP10 real weather downloads, that had been stopped. XP11 works properly) that Cameron initially had pointed out that Gizmo would be altered to get HTTPS access to weather. This being so, one could (if preferred) dispense with XPGFS. In posts above, Cameron seems to now infer that the code is now in SMP 4.8, but Sundog does not agree - see his last post. Maybe the latest Gizmo (which one would automatically get in the 4.8 distribution) has the HTTPS thing fixed, although I doubt it, because the file creation dates seem to be in 2018. It's all a bit confusing, but I'm keeping XPGFS for XP10 at the moment, and I quite like it in XP11 too. How accurate all the depictions are is another matter, but I'm not going to let it ruin my day

Brilliant! Thanks, Cameron, for that quick reply! Regards.