Cameron

I think the issue here simply becomes one of fill rate, where you're pushing the limit so high against that limit that the difference between the two still pushes the card to its limit and thus the difference is negligible. It's similar to the effect of having a 4GB video card, installing 2GB of textures, then uninstalling the 2GB of textures and replacing them with 1GB worth of textures. Because you have so much overhead still available in this scenario, you will see no increase in FPS. The difference here is we're talking about geometry and how it's rendered in HDR.

Yes, it does. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't have the Saab, but to appease you, I just loaded it up with the exact settings you specified. The props do not rotate. Please do not go telling people to do adjustments on a product that: A.) You don't even own to know that what you're saying is even the issue B.) Is heavily customized and programmed to mimic the real deal The props spin in the wind, just as they would in real life. There is no prop brake on the A, and as has been mentioned by Dhruv here who worked in the real world with the B (which does have a prop brake), even those would spin in windy conditions.

It has everything to do with the wind...if the wind is not present, the props do not rotate. Messing with ANYTHING to do with engines on this aircraft will void your support AND cause you MAJOR issues. We entirely override every aspect of the engine model in X-Plane to properly simulate the CT7.

Please realize that if you are having a manipulator grabbing issue where the lever will not move when you grab it, this is due to your camera angle (as has been discussed here) and X-Plane not being able to realize what way to go. There is nothing we can do to fix this. Laminar has had it this way since X-Plane 9.

Can you please confirm that you did a generator reset PRIOR to your flight starting to begin with?

Looking further at your images, your CRS arrow is pointed pretty much 180 degrees behind you. Did you forget to adjust this correctly?

Thanks for the compliment, sir!

We may change that in the long run, but for now all documents with the exception of charts are searchable. Let us know if you need help finding any others and we'll certainly be happy to help.

Okay, let us know if you need help! Yes, you're right, it was here. I hadn't heard other reports on it, but being we now have two it's time to start looking harder into it!

So to be clear, you are experiencing the issue between YCF and YYZ? What I see in your screenshot is that the VOR is not captured, so the AP doesn't seem to know where to go. The most logical reason for this to happen would be distance from the VOR not being close enough. Can you confirm this screenshot is taken at the time you experience the issue? I'll be happy to look into this for you!

Anything in particular we can assist you with, or are you just looking to explore for the time being? Thanks for the task manager trackings. For the moment nothing pops off in my head as "aha", but we definitely need to investigate this.

Well, it seems like you're being a PITA. Somehow you wish to drag this into some awkward battle, when in reality I had a simple request to bring in further assistance to the original developer of XACARS. This topic is closed.

Starting on page 38 and extending to 51 of the charts manual you will find what you're looking for.

Does the correct VOR pop up on the EHSI showing distance to it? Can you tell me which VOR you are flying from and which one you're going to? Or better yet, your whole flight plan leading up to this point?

"....It also doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist on ours...." "...it's one we're actually willing to investigate for you..." "...I stated we would be investigating this for you." The above are from multiple posts in this thread. Direct quotes by me. At the end of those all, you came back with: "...and now you say you do not deal with with this program?" Read what I just quoted above. It's not about being always right. You deliberately stated I said something that I didn't. You don't need to come back with the silly rolled eyes, or the PITA remarks, but you choose to. I'm hoping you misread or misinterpreted what I said instead. Thanks. Understood.

Who the heck is Chris? Um, what? I said we WOULD look at it and investigate it for you. I also said we would appreciate you contacting the regular developers in addition. I don't see the relevancy of this point. You have an issue, we said we'd look at it, we asked you to contact the original developer too. The only one being reluctant at this point is you, not me.

If you could let them know, that would be great. We do not deal with this program on a daily basis and they'll likely know where to look first. Anything else is shortsighted. Did you, or did you not say the following? - "The very bad news is that I might not be able to fly SAAB..." Perhaps I misunderstood. Did I not understand you right, or did you basically say that if the Saab does not work with XACARS you cannot fly it? No offense, but I think the tally thus far is about three bugs, all of which have been resolved and slated for an update. Most other topics are general questions of people not reading the manual and wanting quick answers. No one brought up perfection but you (probably impossible by any standard), but none-the-less.... They aren't meant to be offensive. It is how YOU decide to read it. See above question about what I believe you stated. Why are you disappointed? Looking back at my post, I stated we would be investigating this for you. I also insinuated that contacting the original developer would be good. Now I'm a bad guy for this? Come on.

I know what you said. This doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist on their end. It also doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist on ours. I asked you a direct question. Did you, or did you not let them know? Understandable, except for the part where you're throwing papers into the fan where if this doesn't work, you apparently won't fly it any longer. At that point, with that attitude, it becomes a bit of a PITA, even if it's one we're actually willing to investigate for you.

Hey, there's a smiley at the end of it for good reason, but if you want to retire to a buddhist temple and reflect upon your past mistakes, or reflect on the possibility that you should have written to your grandmother more often, that's your prerogative. Not something I would have ever suggested, but to each his own. Technically you could have read it and then "f*ck'ed" off if you chose not to buy I guess, right? But that's a discussion for another day and not really why we're here. At the moment, we consider these value added. Quite a bit of care and execution went into writing them. This product is extremely thorough.

Hey, XACARS might be the cause of it malfunctioning too! Have you brought it up with them?

So basically you're saying it works with Gizmo. That de-bunks your previous theory that disabling it fixes the problem.

I always used to wonder the same thing when I walked into my local flight school and they wanted me to buy literature to learn to fly. For some reason they think it's right that I should pay money to read some literature that someone spent many hours and care in doing that is full of knowledge and teachings. Who knew?

Hey, thanks for the compliments!

X-Plane does not run the plug-ins and their custom datarefs in full when using replay mode. Considering these sounds are using a custom built 3D sound engine, the sounds will not work in replay mode.

There's no optimizing on our end. HDR is what it is, and as is overly clear, the Saab gains significant FPS with HDR off. Hurry up and wait is the name of the game. I don't know if it will ever be "fixed" but they will certainly further optimize. By nature, HDR is inherently a big performance hitter with or without the Saab due to more geometry being drawn multiple times. It's only now when you get such a beautifully detailed aircraft that you realize how little overhead is available to you as a user (normally seen by sceneries like you have already mentioned). A good example showing the impact with just the CRJ rather than the Saab. Thanks to Ola.