JGregory

Here are the normal and expanded normal checklists from the Saab Manual... SAAB_Checklists.pdf

You must hold the gustlock release to unlock it... then you can drag the gustlock handle. To make this work you will need to set up a key or joystick button for the gustlock release.

Bill, Prop PRM really isn't the issue. It's the N1 value that restricts the auto-start. We need to do this to make sure the engines have "settled down" prior to an engine start. I don't have a better solution at the moment. As for "real life"... well... they don't have Auto-Start ... so they don't have this problem to contend with.

This CANNOT be a serious question.

Sorry Vinny, this has NEVER happened to me and no one else is reporting this as a problem. There must be something else going on here but you have not given us enough details. Screenshots or videos would be very helpful.

Nobody has reported any problems with the brakes. FYI... ( is for brakes... (V) is for parking brake.

Vinny, Of course you can do as you wish. I was just pointing out that what you are doing is beyond the "certified" altitude and "unrealistic".

How are you applying the brakes?

Vinny, You're missing the point entirely. ALL aircraft have a maximum operating altitude. Most, if not all, aircraft are capable of flying higher (yes, in real life too!) but are no certified to do so. If you want to "simulate" real world operations in XP you SHOULDN'T fly higher than the maximum operating altitude.

or 20,000 ft... or 15,000 ft... or 10,000 ft.... or whatever fits the flight mission. There is NO bug. The max operating altitude is 25,000 ft. It doesn't mean the plane can't go higher... it means you shouldn't.

Vinny, You're wrong. The TCDS indicates the Maximum Operating Altitude for the Saab to be 25,000 ft.

The only other possibility I can think of is that you have set the CTOT too high and the engines are overheating. This would result in an automatic reduction in torque until the condition is resolved. If that isn't it, you will need to give us ALL the specific steps you are using for startup, etc. Since no one else is reporting this problem, it may simply be something you're doing wrong or a step that's missing in your procedures.

There are many things that need to be done right to fly the Saab properly. Can you tell us what position the condition levers where in when you had this problem?

I doubt it. I can't see how a plugin conflict would cause that type of problem. No, that is the current version.

Hawkeye, I am unable to reproduce this issue and no one else has reported it. See the screenshots attached... I put the aircraft at airport 7NY0, then set the range so it shows 10nm at the compass rose. You will note that airport KMSV is exactly on the compass rose ring, therefore it is 10nm from 7NY0. When I look at this on the local map it shows KMSV to be exactly 10nm from 7NY0. This was done with the HD mesh. So, it appears that everything is working as it should.

V9 was was not based on OSM data, v10 is. If you don't like it you can edit the OSM data and add the lakes that are missing so when Laminar cuts new DSF's you will have what you want.

No, as that would require an ADF radio tuner and, as stated above, the G1000 version in this Corvalis does not have an ADF radio. There are two "bearing" needles available for use with the NAV radios (VOR).

Yes, the G1000 has full VOR/DME functionality. You can track VOR's by tuning the radio frequencies or entering the VOR ID in a flight plan. There is no ADF radio (as per the Garmin version of the G1000 that was modeled in this aircraft) so you cannot track an NDB frequency. However, you can enter an NDB ID in a flight plan.

The button lighting is controlled by the pilot instrument light rheostat. As well, the aircraft must be powered for the Audio Control Panel to be functional.

This bug has been fixed and will be in the 1.1 update. See this post (Listed as... Fixed bug causing an error when CTOT was on and engines overheated.) BTW... this error will only occur if CTOT is "ON" and you are overheating the engines. So.. either don't use CTOT or be very careful about your torque settings.

Here is fine.

As per the manual... you must "hold" the switch in the "ON" position for about 2 seconds or it will not actuate. Next time you have a problem, please start a new thread. Your issue has nothing to do with the original topic.

Exactly. Laminar will NOT be producing ORBX level of detail scenery as default. It would make NO SENSE for them to do so. However, as you state, the technology is available to any and all third party developers (i.e.. SkyMAXX) to make the sim shine...even better than what the competition is currently displaying. Again, I think John's work is amazing and P3D will be put to shame by his stuff, and what X-plane is capable of.

Lockheed Martin had gross income of almost $5 billon dollars last year. The amount of money they make selling P3D is not even a blip on the radar of their financial statement. Because it is SO inconsequential, you can be sure they will not defend their position, with respect to their agreement with Microsoft, with very much vigor. It probably also means that the upper management sees P3D as a "toy", or at least a drop in the bucket (especially where the consumer market is concerned) in the overall picture of their business plan, and in their eyes makes it's continued existence rather fragile and certainly not significant. It may continue to be available to the consumer, it may not, and that uncertainty is something everyone needs to consider when making a choice as to where they will invest their simulator dollars. BTW, John, P3D has got nothing on SkyMAXX... your product makes X-Plane far superior to anything they have shown yet. And then they (P3D fan boys) will argue that SkyMAXX is an add-on and we shouldn't be comparing it to "stock" P3D... Oh! the irony!

And you have apparently misunderstood me as well. You say want improved textures. I'm asking if you are suggesting that the X-Plane developers (Laminar) create (improved) default scenery that is equivalent to ORBX payware add-on scenery? Otherwise, why post the ORBX pictures? Anyway, that's not going to happen... but third party X-Plane developers could certainly match or exceed what ORBX has done.