Cameron

The normal procedure would be LVL CHG. Jan made some very nice videos that go with the product, and you'll find links to them in the product documentation on how he, as a real world 737 captain, would fly the plane for the airline he works for.

Turn on texture compression in X-Plane.

Well, it may disappoint you to figure out that about 95% of the market developers are hobbyists. We don't really consider us that so much as being in a position where one of our core team members was pulled away from this project for a work obligation temporarily, and as he stated, is about to come back full time. I would say it's a strong indicator of what some of the customers are feeling, but not majority. Still to this day we are receiving a very large number of compliments on this product. It's very rare a complaint comes in. That said, for those that have "waited 2 years for a finished product and are losing faith in the IXEG team," I guess they're due to be surprised when they learn the team is still very much committed with more updates coming forward. Almost every update has been focused on stabilizing bugs. Literally hundreds of bugs have been fixed in a two year period. That was priority number one. If you flew the release day aircraft vs the current one it would be a night and day experience. Just because everything is not visual does not mean that each incremental update did not have a lot of work that went into it. But, because you have also said that the team is barely keeping up, I must refer you back to what @tkyler said: "My participation in this startup is relegated to this "deliverable phase", by my own volition as my passion is flight simulations.....and while I have loose ends to pick up....documentations and such, I am getting poised to get back into XP dev work. I will say, that the release of XP11 also contriubted to some of the 'wait and see'." In other words, more time is to be dedicated back to X-Plane after work was made an obligation long before IXEG was released. But, you're unfairly projecting experiences from other companies on to a group of guys who has stuck with X-Plane development since 1999. That's 19 years (minus Jan). And, @tkyler has had his MU-2 on the market since 2008, which to this day is still updated, supported, and has had numerous free updates along the way. You have no idea the financials of the product. At this point you're purely speculating. It would be safe to say that the entire team disagrees with you, and the customers deserved a free update. Our commitment to the price sold was for a solid and complete product. Until that time is reached, no forced payments for updates are going to happen. Again, I must provide you the real reasoning for delay by quoting @tkyler: As it stands, I got involved in a space startup about 9 months before the 733 came out. I managed to 'stall' my participation in that startup for about 9 months and worked solely on the 733 with no income, living on savings during that time to get the 733 out. Wtihin 3 months of the release of the 733, the startup was in full swing and I was the prime designer for our deliverables to NASA. There was a lot riding on the line, many big groups involved, NASA, ESA, Airbus, Boeing, etc....and I could not back out. Because this project was deadline based, and i was already behind, I've been working at it solid for about 2 years to meet the deliverables...which I recently completed just last week by handing over our hardware to head to the ISS on SpX-15 here in about a month....which is why you've seen two whole posts in as many days from me as I can finally take a breath. What does this even mean? LES had a free update to 11 as well. There was no charge. In other words, IXEG did the same thing as LES. We got in touch with xEnviro months ago. Ball is in their court, but the problem does not lie on our end. They're aware of the situation, and the developer was investigating. He has publicly acknowledged it, but I have zero clue on when he'll have a fix. All in all, this is a lot of huff and puff for nothing. And by nothing, I mean @tkyler took the time to reply and give real reasons for delays, and you basically dismissed every word he said to still write a response as if he had never said it. It's okay to still be disappointed, but to sit here and dictate to the world that the project will not go forward and you have mathematical calculations in your mind that put 2-3 years still at an abysmal point for the project is...silly. Relax. Fly. Enjoy. The team is still here, alive and well. That's the end of this thread. Happy flying!

SkyMaxx and Real Weather Connector work together for producing visuals. Any turbulence or wind is controlled by X-Plane itself.

Your English is not clear. It's words that don't provide much description, and likely words you don't really mean to use. We can't really understand what you're saying. I suggest you find someone to help you write the issues you're experiencing in better English so we can understand what it is you're saying.

Turn on texture compression in the rendering settings of X-Plane. Running it without this setting is a massive waste of resources anyhow.

There's a lot more going on behind the scenes with that product and where code came from than you think.

@Shobhan Nandy Sorry dude, but the vast majority of customers don't agree with you. If this product doesn't fit your goals, I'm sorry. We get endless comments daily in e-mails and support tickets praising this product and the immersion. I'm not claiming perfection, nor is the rest of the team (though it's desired), but you're in a pretty small pool right now with these comments. You're sitting here saying you'll "ask a 733 pilot do do an FMC and navigation challenge and will submit a report." This is ridiculous. Truly. @Litjan was a rated captain up till retirement of the aircraft at a major airline. I'm quite certain we have all the pilot validation we need (never mind the fact more were involved in the actual testing of it), and where any shortcomings may be; all of which the team has been open and public of in a single topic. The rest of your reply is really hard to read without producing a headache. The words could be articulated a lot better, and the tone of you being the almighty payware God speaking to the days of half baked goods being done and asserting such an accusation here could be done without. Another example of you having no clue what you're talking about and throwing accusations. No, "the easy way out" was never taken. The simulation was based off the fleet of a particular airline who contributed the most help to the project. If you feel they had some form of simple systems then that's pure coincidence and nothing more. I have never heard a customer say something like this in all the time this product has been out. Hahahaha. Remind me. How many employees does Airbus have? You have no grasp on simulation content production if you're using an analogy like this. Consider the facts and budget of such a company before you try and compare it to an X-Plane project. ...for YOU. And so many already do. There's improvements that can be made in this project. This much is certain, and the team is very acknowledging of such. That said, I maintain what I said from the beginning. You have some very wrong perceptions. The bolded word in this quote is important. It's how I feel about quite a number of things in your post, including this very sentence quoted.

Cool project! Thanks for sharing.

Hardly, especially in the X-Plane world. There are many who are. There are many who are not, and it goes beyond just some opinion. He can have his, and I can have mine. We're humans in the end. Just because there's some saying that exists in the world does not make it true. People tend to become warriors behind a keyboard when they don't have to face you in the flesh, so perhaps that saying works better in a retail space environment, although Jan said how he feels about this saying of yours too. I believe Jan validated some of my points in his own assessment of not even knowing some of the items Shobahn was discussing. I did not tell him he was wrong for having an opinion, I stated I disagreed, and that I felt he had some wrong perceptions. But, on the same token, going around typing nonsense that some code must be non-optimized because he says so IS wrong, and I'll happily point that out. The customer is not always right.

Which contradicts your statement of appreciation. This product, even in its current state was a 6 year development time. There are numerous version of an FMC and even systems in 737s, so while I won't comment on everything you listed, I will leave it to @Litjan to do that. I could not disagree with you more about the price and value of the product. Jan specifically, as a longtime Captain in the 737 Classic worked tirelessly on the systems simulation, and from the FMC standpoint, crucial/vital parts to what were used in everyday flight were implemented. Accordingly, IXEG was also very candid in what was not simulated, and has always been (albeit, in our eyes non-crucial). VNAV is a debatable topic. I think we'll all agree that it's the sore point that needs to be worked out next for the team. That said, simulation enthusiasts tend to have this dependency on VNAV that is really not so present in the real world. That may be due to the fact we do one-man pilot operations (I'm making up excuses for why a simmer depends on it more that an real world pilot) in our cockpits, but in the real world, VNAV was not such a heavily used item for Jan. I'm sure he'll reply to your other points when he can. It sounded to me like you may have a wrong perception about how certain things are done, irrespective of the FCOM reading you're doing. Jan can further clarify that for you. This is an indication of you likely not knowing anything about "unoptimized programming". It has nothing to do with that at all. In Gizmo's tool tray menu you'll find a Garbage Collector icon. Utilize that and adjust some values to get a more favorable, smooth experience. I'd start with a value of something like 500.

No, we cannot. Laminar has not released any kind of SDK for VR, and has indicated they likely won't be doing so for some time when it comes to plugins.

Yes. I contacted Nicolas about it this morning and he's very well aware of our legal stance on it. I would do the same for him if he were in a similar situation with our file library.

It works in 10 and 11. One license/purchase covers both versions.

The ND has never shown a route. It's essentially a CDI for the GPS.

No, but you already knew that from your other posts about it.

Change your X-Plane UI zoom level back to 100%.

No, there is no news on the next update at this time.

You made a topic about this three weeks ago and received the same information.

I need to troubleshoot some things. Very strange, because I can't reproduce it and have only had about 3 reports of this or similar since release. I'll get back to this topic soon.

Hey Jan, That in sim error is the result of an incomplete package. The error in the installer signifies an incomplete download from the server. It must be cutting short at the tail end. Any firewall active?

Glad it helped. Laminar now has this bug patched for an upcoming 11.21 release.

Please contact support@x-aviation.com explaining this and include your order number. We'll be able to sort you out there.

Hi there, Do you have the X-Plane UI setting at a larger size? Something above 100% may cause this issue from what we're discovering with Laminar. If you have a X-Plane UI setting higher than 100%, please set it back to 100% and report back here.

No, there is no contact at all about this, and we maintain our position about the effects working with all other weather products. I don't know who that person is that's saying otherwise.