Cameron

Coolio. Thanks!

This sounds as though you've discussed this with Dan? Did the OP purchase the product or not?

I don't know if criticizing an aircraft authors work comes across as a "tiny problem" to them. Some tend to take this in a very bad way. I know a certain other forum that does magical disappearance tactics to users who so much as say something the leaders don't like. It does make you wonder. But, the wondering doesn't take away from the fact that a valid customer is a valid customer and always will be until you refund them. Calling them a thief doesn't work. Again, my statement above remains. I get some wild people that would make some want to punch a hole in the wall sometimes. We have a very wide array of customers in X-Plane, and some assertions or requests are out of this world, BUT, they did pay money, it did end up in our bank accounts, and we MUST tend to these people. Telling them they will never be tended to for any support from here forth is unacceptable. Regardless of the he said, she said, what truly has been said according to this post is that Dan feels the customer never bough the product and is not entitled to support. The customer, regardless of how whacky or not his request or support seeking may have been, presented a screenshot showing an order days prior, which appears quite valid. He was met with a response even still that he is not a customer and that he would not be entitled to ever write in support requests again, as they would be ignored. Simplified: Dan called an (apparently) legitimate customer a pirate. That's where the problem really lies here. Hopefully Steven has more info in a followup.

Awesome board, Jim!

To me this seems very black and white. If a customer has a valid order, then it's pretty much end of story. There's already a screenshot provided not only to Dan, but this very thread. Nicolas is not known to respond to folks who ask questions like "Did Dan ask you about me?" who are not legitimate. More to the story, yes. Definitely. From which side? I have no idea. It could be as simple as Dan not appreciating criticism. Bottom line, this guy spent his money, so regardless of comments made about a flight model or anything else, he's entitled to support outside of the scope of requests, and not to be labelled as a pirate. I look forward to your followup on this. I think we all do, because as the story is currently represented, it's unacceptable.

Steven, I know you like to give the benefit of the doubt, but this is frankly ridiculous. Dan straight up told this individual he would not be getting future support. Period. As the developer and provider of support, I would expect Dan to do his due diligence in assisting a customer in this, and not tell or assert to the customer he is a thief prior to doing so. Dan has other avenues, like contacting Nicolas to verify this (which is obvious it's in the system based on the screenshot). It's not good business, and frankly, it's not welcoming to any non-X-Plane individual just joining in to the community. We want people to buy add-ons and not to believe they're taking some kind of a gamble of future support depending on lazy investigation, time of day, weather, and mood from the developer. There's only so many developers....and there's a lot of eyes watching. I hope Dan changes his tune on this issue, and since you're great friends with him, I hope you followup with him on it.

I agree, but.... Referencing Dan, who does a lot of support for Carenado and is the go-to guy: Not from the .org nor on any other outlet.

Well, the topic title seems a little strong, but so too are Dan's words. This seems troubling. So if I understand you correctly, Dan Klaue says you did not purchase the C208 in question, yet clearly you have, and you have shown him such screenshot reference? And the org? Obviously this is in their purchase system, so did you approach them to clear this up with Dan?

Hi, Rich, That seems like very odd behavior and not something I have ever heard or witnessed before. Have you ever taken this up with Laminar in a bug report before?

Left mouse button.

Nope!The plugin and functionality between both shops is the same. It's possible a component in one installer vs the other for VC++ installed differently, as that's what drives the displays, but since Nazze wanted to re-buy instead of troubleshoot through email, the world may never know.

Nazze, If spending more money on something rather than responding to tech support emails from us to you is your way of solving issues, then so be it. I can rest easy knowing the ball was not left in my or X-Aviation's court due to your non-response. It's obvious this add on works for everyone else here. You're back to discussing 32 and 64 bit again (which you could have done here too), but I can't personally help your own unwillingness to resolving your own issues if you can't assist us in helping you. At the very least, have fun and enjoy!

Considering that's an app and not a feature is say that's not what they had in mind for this kind of prize.

...Or you could just re-install 1.5.2 and have it live side by side 1.5.3. It works, so what's the problem? This seems silly. Why? Because thousands of people can run it fine with the exception of you? It begs the question that something is not right on your machine. 'What' is the question. Okay? I don't see any "F'UP" here. Seems to me people are pretty happy with their update. If only you could see the thanks and appreciation in e-mail. If that's what you consider a "F'UP" then I like it! Right, you were experiencing an OOM error in 32-bit. This was widely experienced by many customers at every store, and the solutions were slim. 64-bit does indeed solve this problem for people, but if you still have some form of a display issue, then there is something amiss on your configuration at home. Given all of this, I think the relevance of your complaint that you can't install 32-bit side by side (even though you can) is moot anyhow. Your computer won't take it, so we shouldn't even be contemplating that point.

X-Plane.org is no business of mine, so you'll need to seek any support from them. As the update indicates here, the list of changes is a reminder and carry-over from 1.5.2.

Outstanding!

Wouldn't make sense. At all. Those other aircraft are only active when selected, and you can bet yourself some big money that those org people almost all have an XA product as well. The only common factor would then be Gizmo, which has been in proving runs for a while now, and co-exists even on the ORG CRJ, 777, etc. It's definitely not that. Philipp is saying this behavior is NOT new. It's only new in the report he got from the one, lone Mac guy here.

No? The G1000 in the C400 we have doesn't count? Yes, there is. Like their aircraft with the G1000 and various other glass displays. TBM 850 SR22 GTSX TURBO PA46T MALIBU JETPRO etc... I hope so! It sounds to me after discussions with various developers and Laminar that SASL has hit somewhat of a wall for forward movement on many of the necessary items glass displays need. The G1000 comes to mind.

Good thing your computer screen doesn't reflect back much of what's in front of it. That's correct.

Amazing how some people just can't and won't listen to advice. Do as you may, but this will, without doubt, screw things up down the road. You as well.

Uh, what? This has absolutely zero to do with DRM. That works no matter where you put it, so better to not jump to conclusions. Those logos you mention, and the fact that you're in demo mode are clear indicators you are trying to open the 32-bit CRJ. Again, the folder you want to open is located in Aircraft/X-Aviation/Bombardier CRJ-200. If you moved this to your regional jet folder, move it back to X-Aviation.

This sounds like you are opening the old 32-bit version. It also sounds like you moved the CRJ from the X-Aviation folder. DO NOT DO THIS. Now that that is out of the way, the CRJ you want to open is located: Aircraft/X-Aviation/Bombardier CRJ-200

That's precisely what it means. 1.5.2 is the exact same as this update, except it is for 32-bit. If you want to stick with 32-bit, then stick with 1.5.2. There's no difference to the features.

I wasn't implying you got it elsewhere. I'm implying that over time we could have made changes or improvements to the actual compiled installer code, and as such you should be safe and download a fresh version.

As page 94 indicates in your manual, wing inspection lights are not operational. It's been that way since day one.