Cameron

One of those two. That's a classy shirt, ain't it?

Falco landing at DCA:

Can't say I know for sure, but sounds like they haven't ran a credit card authorization for your purchase just yet. Give it a few and try it again soon...I'm sure it'll get processed soon enough.

There are some reports of poor frame rates: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=42535&view=findpost&p=498414 There was a lite version released to help compensate for this, but it's on and off as to whether the fps are good or not.

Hi, there, Many of us are running Windows 7, myself included. To add to that, my version is 64-bit. Theoretically, if something works in version 8 of X-Plane on the same machine, it should work straight away in version 9 as well. The main thing I gather here is that you mention the brakes not helping to slow the plane. To me it sounds like there is some movable axis on the joystick configured to operate the throttle, but it is not set correctly. Have you set it to work in reverse by checking the check box to do so when in the axis property section for joysticks? You may need to do this, as it sounds like your 0% throttle is acting as 100% and 100% may be acting as 0%.

Hi, Jim, Yes, FSBuild is Windows only. Good to see Goodway has put their product back up for ordering!

No. Not at this time.

You can do so here: https://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/account_newsletters.php

It's simple, Matthew. There are a lot of projects because it's a team environment. Goran strictly does 3D modeling. When he gets done with his part, he passes it along to the next person. It goes from UV/Texturing, to programming, to animating...there are various people involved. As such, Goran makes the best use of his time by creating a new model in the mean time since his job is "finished."

Hi, Jens, Yes, this is exactly what I was speaking of. A little clarification: The rheostat in the Falco will not adjust the brightness of the Garmin. This will only work for products like the Reality XP Garmin. For the default Garmin shipped with the Falco, SeaMax, and generics used on the C400, any brightness levels are saved just the same. Again, you'll need to make adjustments to these prior to loading a new aircraft, or by restarting sim. This is an X-Plane problem, and not something to do with our products. It goes for any aircraft using the same numbered light as the previous you had opened. If you wish, you can report your findings to Laminar and discuss it further.

Hi, Jens, I'm not sure if Laminar considers it a bug. There are a number of lights available to use in X-Plane, however, almost everyone uses the same numbered light value for their instruments or gauges. As such, the setting flows over to whatever you load next. I'm pretty sure we had looked into this in the past (hence the reason I know what's happening), as we noticed this prior to release of another product. However, I don't believe there was a work around programmable at the time. I may have to revisit it, but the simple answer is what's been said...X-Plane saves the last light values unless the sim is exited. If you're talking about the Falco and not the Falcon, then you should be able to just up the lights from the rheostat if the lights are dimmed down too much (or off for that matter).

Hi, Jens, For aircraft that use 3D lights, X-Plane remembers the last light setting from the previous aircraft.

Hi, Riccardo, Please see the following: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=751.0

Hi, Riccardo, There's not much to say here other than it will be an FMS that utilizes the AIRAC data and simulates functions as per the CRJ-200 spec. It's nothing different than you would expect from those like PMDG in the FS world.

On a properly calibrated monitor, the above image is borderline "terrible." Just to be sure I've cross verified this on my Mac's as well. What you have to remember, Jack, is that X-Plane brings in textures much darker than they are when exported from any program used to edit or save them. The result of the above image from within sim would be far from ideal. Additionally, because of the wide range of gamma out there, as well as how X-Plane portrays things, screenshots will often times come out BRIGHTER than they appear in sim. X-Plane does NOT export gamma settings to screenshots. As someone who develops an aircraft, I'm surprised you don't see this, Jack. Perhaps when you get into aircraft that have solid colors (red, blue, etc), you'll begin to see this some. Lastly, the image you edited (that Eric originally provided) is NOT what is our final output seen in sim. It's what we showed you PRE-PROCESSED, to compare with other pre-processed vendors. Again, we want Norcal to be the best it can be. We've been around the block on color corrections so many times that we're sure of our decision for what has been made final. It is leaps and bounds above any other package we've other released, and we stand by that comment. For those that choose to purchase, we're confident you'll feel the same. Thanks, all!

Garrett, Please refer back to my last post. Non-enhanced sceneries have some washed out areas, but the Norcal package has been in production for nearly a years time, and has had a tremendous amount of color correction done. Tennessee (which you mentioned) would fall into the Non-Enhanced category as mentioned in my previous statement posted above. Norcal comes from different sources than traditional packages we've done, and we've gone that extra mile to enhance not only the imagery, but the roads and night lighting as well. As such, Norcal is the first "Enhanced" package available, and should definitely not be compared to any previous packages we've ever published. It's honestly an entirely different animal when compared to previous packages and time spent working on it. We don't use satellite photos for RealScenery. I'm sorry, but having been one of the few to fly over the Enhanced imagery and Norcal, I don't agree with your statements. It is our desire to ensure we do Norcal right, and if it really were a problem we would definitely fix it! We want Norcal to set a new bar, but of the various people I have asked, in addition to others posted here, you're in a minority at this point. If we were talking about one of our previous packages I may agree in some areas. This time...I don't.

No smooth option in FS X. The same can be easily achieved in X-Plane, but extra polys in the wrong places can cost you, and using them on knobs when you can get them to look relatively good already is not where they should be spent.

Hi, Guys, Nothing to show at this time. Working as hard as we can. Thanks for checking in.

Hi, Jack, I can't say I agree any bit with what you are saying. Non-enhanced sceneries have some washed out areas, but the Norcal package has been in production for nearly a years time, and has had a tremendous amount of color correction done. It's stunning and beautiful in sim. X-Plane's atmosphere can add brightness dependent on your gamma settings and time of day/visibility, but that's about it.

A few quotes from Heinz: "This plane will not be cheap to produce as a licensed product." (licensed meaning by Boeing) "Like every other virtual plane the realism is limited to what can be done in a simulation so 100% realism to the real plane is not possible. There are also limitations to what is allowed to be released .....that is some things will remain classified by Boeing. In short the project will evolve through updates after release as more information becomes available." Do I even have to say anything? I question a lot of the authenticity here...

For the Javelin: There is a 1.3 update available. Since you're not a customer of X-Aviation, Javier will have to get with you on that. For the CRJ: The questions you have asked have been asked countless times. Please read through the forum and do some searches here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?board=42.0 For a list of FAQ, please read here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=543.0

Hi, Guys, It's perfectly normal and not the cause of what's happening here.

Approaching Darrington in the C400 with RealScenery:

I've had some further discussion with Laminar on this issue, and we'd like some more diagnostics done. Here's what we'd like from those experiencing this issue: 1. When the FPS are down to a low level, please state what your FPS are in: 3D view, 2D view, Exterior view, and Forward No HUD view. 2. What is your CPU usage when your FPS are low? One important test in addition to the above: Turn your texture resolution down one level. Restart the simulator and see if the low FPS can be reproduced again. The point of this test is to help see if this is a resource exhaustion. Thanks!

For those experiencing this issue: The following is a questionnaire to try and help narrow this down. Please answer the following (please do not reply to this unless your high FPS drops down to 19): Before answering, please try the following procedure the next time you have low fps: 1. Open X-Plane and open the Corvalis 2. Go to the rendering settings menu 3. De-select the checkbox to keep X-Plane at full screen 4. Close the window and view your FPS. 5. Go back to rendering settings and select the checkbox again for full screen. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. When does the FPS drop usually occur? Upon load of aircraft, midway through a flight, or random? 2. What happens when you go to a different view? Do your FPS improve? 3. Does this always occur in the same view? If so, which one (Cockpit, exterior, 3D)? 4. Did you try the procedure in bold above this questionnaire? Did your FPS improve after? 5. What operating system are you on? 6. What video card do you have? 7. If on Windows, what video card driver version are you using (n/a if on Mac)? 8. Please list your system specs (CPU, RAM). Thanks for your time!