kentwerickson

I'm noticing a drop in frame rate over v1.3. Also, camera zoom using my mouse wheel no longer works with the 340 v1.4.1 (yet works just fine with all my other planes).

Got it, thanks. My FOV is set at 65, and at this setting the rain falls like snow (I can visually track individual drops to the ground, yet which I cannot even come close to doing in real life).

Just an opinion. But in my estimation the image below is better representation of heavy snowfall than I am currently able to achieve in SMPv4. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, I would also like to see heavy rainfall represented more accurately in SMPv4; in particular, by increasing both the density and rate of rainfall (as it stands, to my eye some raindrops appear to fall too slowly--looks more like snow than rain). Thanks in advance for your consideration. (screenshot taken from stock XP 11):

Thanks Philipp. I did delete my preferences folder, and let XP create it anew. I need to test further, but this seems to have solved the issue with increasing sim time (although I also re-downloaded and re-installed the CRJ-200 from X-Aviation, and so perhaps this is what fixed the problem). However, I still see the CRJ autonomously engaging its thrust reversers on approach.

I tried re-setting my preferences, which does not seem to make a difference (and I have verified that I do not have two buttons/keys mapped to the same function/dataref). Regarding point 2) above, starting a plane in an approach scenario is a core feature of XP. And so if an aircraft does not support this feature, then in my estimation it is not 100% compatible with XP and, importantly, should be clearly advertised/marketed as such. I've had this debate with Cameron, who simply rejects the argument. But merely saying so does not make it so.

Having a couple of issues with the CRJ-200 v1.7 for XP 10.5x. 1) If I increase the sim speed while in flight (e.g., to 2x normal speed), the CRJ-200 automatically rolls back its thrust levers to IDLE (and holds them there). And of course with no thrust control the plane eventually falls from the sky. However if I set the sim speed back to real time, I regain control over the thrust levers. 2) Relatedly, if I start from say a 3nm approach (using XP's :Location" menu), the thrust levers become stuck in the IDLE position. (p.s., Not sure about this, but it seems that maybe the DRM verification has changed in v1.7. On some occasions, when I try to start from a 3/10nm approach, there is a delay in the plane becoming active (powered up), accompanied by "Waiting to connect to server," which impedes the ability to use this feature of XP to practice approaches). I use an Xbox 360 controller, with the thrust/power controls mapped to the two triggers. In both cases above, when I use the trigger to increase the thrust, the thrust levers in the CRJ flicker/flutter but do not move. I also have power/thrust control mapped to keys on my keyboard, yet with the same result. Likewise, I have tried using my mouse in the 3D cockpit view to move the thrust levers forward--same result; the thrust levers flicker but won't budge. UPDATE: I just noticed that the cause, in the second scenario above, is that the CRJ is autonomously deploying its thrust reversers. And if I pull them in, they just go right back out again. This is probably also what is happening in the first scenario above. The magic question is why this happens in mid-flight? (auto thrust reversers are not armed). I have tested this several times, with all of my third-party plugins disabled (so no conflict there).

Interesting; just visited an airport (LEPA) with thunder and lighting in the area, and I can hear heavy rain, but don't see any rain. EDIT: Check that, just needed to turn rain drop size way up.

My initial impression of SMP4 is fairly positive--cloud rendering looks better than v3, frame rates seem to be no worse (or not much worse), along with a few other virtues. However, to my eye the precipitation does not appear very realistic. For one thing, it's hard to distinguish rain from snow because at least some raindrops seem to fall at an unrealistically slow rate, and (in my estimation) are unrealistically large (playing around with configuration options, per the manual, does not seem to have a significant effect). I've tested this under various weather conditions using www.badbadweather.com to find airports with moderate-to-severe thunderstorms, rain, snow, etc. Additionally, while on the ground I hear no sound effects for rain. I need to test more thoroughly, but my initial impression of the rain and snow effects are not too positive (just offering this as friendly feedback). On the snow side, I noticed immediately that my snow drift surface textures now move/change at hyper-speed with SMP4 installed; as though the wind is blowing at 200+ kts! It would also be nice, perhaps in the future, to have the ability to adjust the rate of snow and rainfall (i.e., from light to heavy). Thanks.

Agreed. But I hope at least my feedback, which was intended to be constructive, will result in more candid disclosure of such limitations in future products.

I agree that the sound engine in the 340A is very good. And in retrospect, I may have made my purchase despite (with knowledge of) the sound limitation in replay mode. That said, I believe my argument is sound. What's not valid is to simply insist, unilaterally, that "we gave you something better." I of course cannot prove this. But I would not be surprised to learn that the custom sound engine for the 340A was first developed, and then later someone realized: "Oh sh*t, this doesn't work in replay mode. Oh well, as they say, it's easier to beg forgiveness later..." (or make up some lame excuse; Donald Trump is a master at this!). In short, and with all due respect, let me repeat/clarify my earlier point: If there is an inherent known limitation with an aircraft design, this should either be eventually corrected or clearly indicated on the website spec sheet so that potential customers can make a fully (or anyhow better) informed purchasing decision. I seriously doubt that any sensible XP user/customer would disagree with this principle.

I understand. But this plane is now over three years old, and existing customers like me have been waiting for quite some time now for a fix for this issue (and which I am willing to bet large sums of money is not technically infeasible). So, what have you guys been doing for the past three years? This is kind of snarky way of putting it, but my point is this: I've grown tired of spending big $$$ on payware aircraft only to discover, after purchase, that they are not fully compatible with XP (despite advertisements to the contrary). The way I see it, replay mode (with playback of aircraft sounds) is an integral feature of XP. And so if an aircraft does not support this functionality, then in my view it is not 100% compatible with XP. Notice that this is not equivalent to saying, for example, that just because XP also supports carrier tail hook landings, every payware aircraft should come equipped with a functioning tail hook. Rather, replay mode (with sound) is a feature that was designed/intended to be supported by all aircraft, payware or otherwise (just ask Austin). Ok, I've said my peace. But in my estimation (and I assume that I am not alone here), LES/X-Aviation owes existing customers a version of the 340A for XP 10 that supports custom sound playback in replay mode before its retirement.

I don't quite understand why this is an issue with XP 10. I have other payware aircraft with custom sounds that are audible during replay mode. Can you please explain, in a bit greater detail, why this is problematic for the Saab 340A? Thanks.