lanmancz

I do not use multiple viewports at all. Just a single ultra-wide (5760x1080) viewport setup, without surround, with the left monitor selected as "primary" in windows and all works fine.

You need to setup some higher FOV. I use non-proportional FOV of 118 horizontal and 34 vertical which works nicely for me but it depends on your exact preferences and screen geometry. Try playing around with it.

Yeah in a setup like that you need to use multiple viewports and angle them separately to look correct. Unfortunately that costs A LOT of FPS as it needs to render everything 3 times basically. In Pascal GPUs nVidia introduced SMP (simultaneous multi-projection) functionality that allows to use multiple projections with negligible performance costs but I haven't ever seen it actually working in any game yet. It's probably not even possible in Xplane right now in OpenGL, perhaps one day in Vulcan.

Cool, glad it worked! btw that distortion is there because the entire display should be flat to look correct. If you have your displays angled it will look weird. I have mine setup flat on my table and it looks fine.

@Dark Angel : Ah, you're running 3 separate viewports in non-surround mode. I'm running my non-surround mode like this, basically as a fake surround - one window with 5760x1080 custom res that spreads itself across the entire 3 monitor wide desktop - try this : The reason why I do this is because I also want to replicate my center screen on my big TV which is not possible in surround mode (it does not support replication). Also, unless you have a home cockpit with left and right screens for windows I'd advise to use my method (1 big viewport) because it's much faster than 3 separate viweports. That setup (3 separate viewports) often causes multimonitor issues too with many different addons, the forums are full of it.

Good point, I haven't tested setting different monitor as "primary" when running non-surround setup. Normally I have the center one set as "primary" in windows but this might also explain why it sets the desktop bounds into negative numbers. Setting the left one as "primary" might solve the issue as well, I will test and report. edit: Indeed that works too even without surround. Setting the primary monitor to the left one instead of center sets up the desktop nicely all into positive numbers and all behaves correctly even without surround. Good tip, thanks, I didn't ever occur to me to test that 3) Surround OFF, primary display in windows nvidia config set to the left one (big image - open in new tab and zoom) :

Are you guys running surround or not ? I ask because I think it's important but it's not quite issue with the plane itself but there is some weirdness deeper in Xplane. Because I have these multimonitor issues (without surround) with multiple planes in Xplane, not just the TBM but also FF 767, Zibomod, etc. Look what I mean : 1) Surround OFF (big image - open in new tab and zoom) : Notice the little sample API window (it's just laminar's basic "hello world" type plugin for the new SDK). Notice the desktop bounds are going 1 monitor length (-1920x) into negative range. This is why I think all is messed up like the menu, clickspots are wrong, etc. I have the exact same problem with other planes I mentioned and I think it's this behavior that the left monitor is in negative range that messes things up because everyone expects that the left side of the screen is at coords 0x, not -1920x. 2) Surround ON (big image - open in new tab and zoom) : Notice that once the displays are joined into surround the coordinates are now sensible and all works fine. It seems to me that there is some weirdness going on Xplane level in how it handles these multimonitor setups. I've seen the same issue with multiple planes myself plus I've also seen other people reporting similar problems with multimonitor setups on different forums. Perpaps this is worth submitting bug report to LR. I didn't do that yet because I wasn't sure if it's just some weird thing on my end but as I see more of these lately I might do it. PS: If you want to test it yourself here is the little sample api plugin that displays the desktop bounds : X-Plane-11-Window-API-Sample.zip

Hello, I also had this issue and it was indeed caused by XSaitekPanels - the switchpanel is turning off avionics by default which messes up the displays. If you also use Saitek panels try using this quick map I just made : xsaitekpanels.zip Unzip it into the TB900 directory. For now it's quite basic quick and easy map but it works fine using the available commands only. Also the lights don't work because when I try to access the indicator datarefs the sim freezes, I guess the plane does not like that. I will make better version once I figure out how to do it properly with this model. But for now it should solve the issue with the switch panel.

Same here, I also did not receive anything (gmail). I have all the newsletters and notifications enabled in the store. It's not in spam either (I actually have my spam folder usually empty, nothing there). Is every V3 customer eligible for the discount ? Or only those who paid full price for v3 ? Because I also got discount for v3 back then when it came out so I'm not sure now since I didn't receive the e-mail. edit: Hm, in the release announcement it says that every existing v3 customer should get their discount code in e-mail. Something is not right then because I did not receive it. I actually spoke to another person that I know and he did receive it so they've been sent out but it seems that mine did not arrive

You mean the one which starts with x and ends with o ? I have to come to defend SMP here a little because that product, while it can look okay in some screenshots looks quite awful compared to SMP (even v3) after a closer inspection - low resolution, completely flat, endlessly repeating cloud sprites that look very bad in motion (see some vids on YT). Not to mention the steep price for what looks like a beta release with missing features (custom weather). To me the only issues I had with SMPv3 was somewhat low view distance from up high (I mostly fly airliners) and I am looking forward to see how v4 will perform. One thing that nobody can deny is that SMP clouds are nice and volumetric, not ugly 2d blobs like its 2006.

FlyWithLUA works for me. Didn't try NOAA.

That's odd. My PFPX installation contains profile for the 737-300 CFM56-3 20k model. edit: Or did I download it from somewhere, lol, I don't remember. But this is what I got : IXEG733.txt Boeing 737-300 CFM56-3 20k.txt

Actually I think I've seen a recent video interview with Austin where he said that they made VR work internally and that it looks great but the issue is that as VR is still being developed and the libraries change all the time and new versions usually brake compatibility with old code so their idea is to wait until it's stabilized and then write in the VR support. As far as I understand him the VR support is planned and might not be that far away, seems to me like a feature XP11 might have. edit: Ah yes, here's the interview (few months old), OR question starts at 3:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnYz9LpTTus

btw: Perhaps this is related to what you guys are reporting but I have noticed that SMP 3.3.2 keeps rendering clouds that I have passed way back in the distance behind me, outside of the set radius which considerably lowers the FPS when looking into that direction. Moving the view range slider slightly and pressing Apply which recalculates the clouds brings FPS back to normal.

Yeah I don't have TugMaster. IXEG has built-in pushback, the same FF767 which is the other big one I fly and for small ones I used EZPushback free plugin.

Well I pretty much never had any issues with JAR plugins and IXEG (I use GndHandling and Xlife in all my flights). I think at the very beginning there were some issues reported but those were fixed in like 1.0.3 or something. Personally I don't have any issues with those.

GrdHandling works fine for me. I use it with the IXEG 737-300 all the time. I even created my own custom set for it : http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/32893-ghd-custom-set-for-ixeg-b737-300/&tab=comments The only issue people reported to me are that the set does not work on Mac, possibly because the filename would be different on Mac than on Windows 10 which I run. If you run on Mac try creating your own custom set to see what filename it creates (just plop a conus there or something) and then rename my custom set to that filename.

I am not in VNAV, that's what I mean (see screenshot). I've been cruising at FL360, set FL140 as my initial descent altitude and hit FLCHG (not sure if this is correct?perhaps I'm using the FLCHG wrong?). The plane then goes nose down at -6000+ fpm for a while, overshoots the selected speed (M.73 currently) by about 20 kts and then starts leveling out, slows down to the selected speed and stabilizes at about -2000 fpm.

Thanks for explanation! It just seemed odd to me that the plane will lose 10000ft very rapidly during the initial descent from high altitude. Perhaps this is something that is not well modeled in other models that I'm used to flying.

Hi, on a similar note I have noticed that the initial descent from cruise altitude with FLCH is quite steep. When I am at 35000 for example and set say 12000 as my initial descent altitude and go into FLCH over my estimated T/D (I use PFPX) I initially get quite a vomit comet - the plane drops at -4000+ fpm, sometimes the needle is even stuck way down at -6000+ fpm so it cannot even indicate any higher descent rate. It then starts leveling out and stabilizes around -2000 fpm when the descent speed gets overshot by a lot. Did you also observe this behavior ? Is this normal or something that will receive some fine-tuning as well, please ? The workaround is to use V/S mode first, get into stable descent and switch into FLCH later.

Oh yeah, that works too. Nice. Thanks.

Actually SMP 3.3.1 and RWC 1.0 works with 10.50 and FSGRW but not in automatic mode. I too in automatic mode see only clear sky but when I change it to "Never (Only read weather datarefs)" then it shows clouds. But that is not great because it then regenerates the weather abruptly instead of nice like the Automatic mode does.

^^ This. I had similar experience with 1.0.7. Compared to previous versions a lot more soft crashes, in at least 3/4 of my flights. In the end I put it aside for now as I grew tired and frustrated of that. The last working and pretty stable version for me was 1.0.3 (or 4?) I think - before the prog page and new vnav was implemented. With that version I finished a couple dozen flights without an issue. So I am also anxiously waiting for update so I can fly the 733 again. I love the plane, but not in this state.

What are you saying ? That I should make a backup of the final installed plane ? I though that saving the installer is the way to do it. PS: Would it be too much to ask to keep your sarcasms to yourself ? I do not like this tone at all.

I actually did backup my files responsibly. I still have the 1.2 installer but I didn't fly the Saab for some time and 1.3 version was released meanwhile which the 1.2 installer is unable to download, that's my problem. Also the installer downloads gigabytes but the 25MB installer is still limited to 3 downloads that expire.