Cameron

This is the 'A' variant, which has neither. It's a challenge to fly with all the systems, and a 'B' variant has been discussed at a later time. It's a very complex aircraft, so don't let that fool you. There's a reason it's taken years to produce.

Sorry, I do not understand this question. We are currently in beta testing.

A few quick quotes from our beta test crew thus far (remember, a number of them fly the real deal!): - I LOVE that the AP is so accurate to the real thing. So good. - Wow guys, what a detailed model! This is a lot of fun for a nuts ´n bolts and systems freak like me. - I finally have had some time away from the real aircraft to sit down and fly this one. First impressions are that it is an incredible piece of work. The replication of the systems and the actual cockpit are amazing.

Hi, Folks!, Today we're pleased to announce that earlier this week the Saab 340A had entered the beta testing stage! This means that a selected group of testers have been given copies of the aircraft for a more widespread testing phase of the final product, and to work out any bugs they may find. Our team consists of multiple Saab 340 pilots in the real world, as well as some well respected individuals in the community with technical expertise. For all of us on the team, this signifies a huge milestone! The Saab has been in development for over three years, and has gone through many phases of development, but with it comes an extremely complex, fun, study worthy aircraft! More importantly, this means there is light at the end of the tunnel! ...are you ready? Some quotes from our beta testers.

Did you have trouble reading about it being a joke? These complaints of yours are invalid for today's current customer: http://blog.x-aviation.com/2012/11/gizmo-and-sasl/ You've made multiple recent purchases at X-Aviation that utilize Gizmo over the past few weeks. I'll bet you didn't even know they use Gizmo because of the problems you don't get...

The CRJ was initially released with an agreement that X-Aviation was the launch distributor. This lasted for a better part of almost six months, and Gizmo's initial role was to handle customer database activations for this product. Keep in mind, for other products it actually was the driving force behind some simulated systems. As time does and has progressed, its purpose is expanding in many aircraft. So much so, that it's an essential tool to produce what are notably some of the most amazing add-ons in development and (some) currently previewed for any flight simulator to date. There's a few things to note here. Up until X-Plane 10.2 (basically when 64-bit came out around November of last year), Gizmo interfered with a number of plugins. Most noticeably of any of these was SASL. Gizmo and SASL both use the LUA library, and both used OpenAL for sound. This caused some major conflicts that were very hard to pin down, and in a lot of cases when the two were installed together, sound would go haywire to the point having them installed together was rather...annoying. It took a long time to pin down all the issues in this, mainly because we were years into the making already with Gizmo before SASL was around, and a lot had to be re-written and made better to fix these issues. Changes also had to be made on the Laminar side to accommodate both plug-ins. There are no longer conflicts that exist with Gizmo and other plugins. It took a lot of work, but we got there with an entirely new version of Gizmo. As time moves forward, you are going to see Gizmo used in a lot of the top add-ons being produced for X-Plane, and this extends into the systems simulation. There's nothing to be concerned about any longer (look up the date of the threads you see negative reaction on...they're old). Plainly put, it's not going away, and judging by the developers approaching us as of late, it's rapidly expanding. It's definitely reached its prime time. You can read more on the conflicts that used to be, and how/when we came to a resolution here: http://blog.x-aviation.com/2012/11/gizmo-and-sasl/ Hope this helps calm your nerves. We are extremely attentive to continually checking compatibility with add-ons these days...even one's we do not produce or sell, because we do not want to cause conflict and annoyance on others' computers. There are growing pains with anything you do to break the barriers in a market. We've finally nailed this issue and don't anticipate ever having to look back.

As has been stated in past topics, we're happy to make it available on request. I have heard in recent time that Laminar rarely hears grief about VATSIM not being 64-bit. That is a concern to me, as instead of bugging developers for old tech and dealing with it, we should be pushing everyone forward. After all, this all started with Laminar's forward movement themselves! I think this topic has pretty much ran its course now. We all are aware of the current situation, and the product page is quite clear on what's available prior to purchase, as well as what to expect. I don't want to overpopulate such a simple topic that should have been just a question and answer with further confusion, so we'll close this with good resolution now. Thanks all!

I think Santiago is the original poster, and the guy with the tone and posting negatively to my response is a different person. You're right about this part.

I think the only one with a negative attitude in this topic is you. There is nothing wrong with what I stated, further backing it up to show the customer it is even advertised in such a way. How you perceived this as rude is baffling. As John has now already noted, it's there in pretty clear to see graphics, under the product purchase section.

It's a novel idea, but I'll be very realistic with you and say the likelihood of us investing the time for it is next to nil at this point.

Santiago, As you'll note on the product page, 32-bit is not compatible.

This topic is now closed. I'm glad we could get to the bottom of this mess and clear Dan's AND Carenado's name from the bad accused of them. There is no tolerance for individuals who choose to take part in pirating aircraft here, as it hinders the good in our passion and hobby. As such, PilotHudson is banned without further notice. Thanks to Steven for investigating further and following up with responses as requested. If anyone has objections to this ban, please feel free to PM any admin here.

Not really. Either his credibility gets shot, or we get to the bottom of it. Either way the outcome and resolution is good for the community. The title has to do with immaturity. X-Plane is filled with younger people. That's part of it.

Should be fixed.

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.