dpny

I understand. It looked strange, as some of the waypoints had restrictions.

Thanks, Philipp.

Flying into KATL today, using the FLCON.SOT STAR, I needed to hit DIRTY at FL120/250 kias. That restriction wasn't in the nav data, and I couldn't find any way in the manuals to enter it. Can this be done?

Saw this while setting up a flight plan. This is with the latest data from Navigraph.

Sorry. Tried it: CTD. Put the log files in the appropriate thread.

The display frames are textures you find in the JRollonPlanes/CRJ-200 folder (under X-Plane main). If you rename the DisplayFrame.tiff to example DisplayFrame.tiff.backup they won't get loaded anymore. If you want them back, just rename them back. Philipp EDIT: I just remembered we switched to TGA textures for the Mac. So if you are on Mac just do the same as I said above, but with .tga instead of .tiff. In future, we will only use the TGA textures to be consistent. Renaming the .tga file causes CTD when trying to load the plane. CRJ_crash.txt.zip Log.txt.zip

Is it possible?

Experience. But you should read the charts for the SIDs and STARs you're flying. Looking at the chart for that SID I see that you should stay at 5,000 feet until you get to AMLUH, when you can begin to climb to either your cruise level, or the level the ATC tells you to when flying online. So, not only are you too fast, it looks like you're to high. For a general rule of thumb, climbing at a steady 250 kias will get you to about Mach .76 by about FL35000. Extrapolate from that.

XMapped out of memory errors mean that X-Plane has run out of RAM. It is not directly a a GPU problem, but an issue with OpenGL, which keeps a copy of every texture in the application's memory space. If you run with high texture settings, a complex plane and lots of custom scenery, you can exceed 3GB of RAM, which is what X-Plane can access under Windows as a 32-bit program. Turn down your texture settings.

You're still flying much too fast. As I said, you should never see 330 kias in a plane this size. So long as you intend to fly faster than you would IRL, the AP will let you down.

I'm going to second this: you're at 330 kias at FL110: that's way too fast for a small commuter jet which cruises at ~ Mach .76, and you may be exceeding Vne. You should never see 330 kias in a plane this size. The 737 and A320, which are significantly larger, climb at 270 kias after FL100. The A330, much larger and more powerful, climbs at between 280 and 290 kias after Fl100. Without looking at the POH, try climbing at ~270-280 kias after FL100. That should get you to about Mach .75/.76 by cruise altitude.

Getting between 70 and 110 fps at KEDW. 3.33 GHz six-core Mac Pro, OS X 10.6.7, X-Plane 9.69. Frame rate seems entirely dependent on scenery. Relocating to KLGA, where I have complex converted MSFS scenery for KLGA, KJFK and the Manhattan skyline can bring the fps down to 19. The plane is definitely using all cores, as the attached will show.

With the CRJ installed, hard crash to desktop upon loading any plane unless I remove the CustomSBDataRefs002Mac.xpl from my plugins folder. For some reason the CRJ will not let X-Plane load with that plugin installed. The installer also didn't copy the plugins from the aircraft folder to the plugin folder. Had to do that manually. The installer also copied to British Airways livery to aircraft directory and not into liveries. Haven't had a chance to really fly it yet.

FWIW, I update the Navigraph data every cycle for the UFMC. It costs about US$3 a cycle, so it's no big deal.

We all know Cameron is too busy flying the CRJ to do any work on the installer. . . ;D

Yes. 3.33 GHz six-core Mac Pro 5,1 1 GB Radeon 5870

I think it will be released when all the bugs are ironed out.

WANT PLANE!

They have some effect depending on your system and rendering settings. However, complicated systems simulation can have a big effect as well. They STMA PC-12, which uses the SASL plugin, takes a big bite out of fps, as does the x737, which uses its own code. If you read back in the thread you will see that Philip has specifically written the code for the CRJ to spawn multiple threads on multiple cores, which, as far as I know, if a first for a plane for X-Plane. Other than what has been posted by Javier (pretty much a direct correlation between core count and frame rate) we won't have any idea how the CRJ will perform until it ships.

Don't think you can compare the two: completely different internal systems.

PSS Native (and FS Navigator) are the formats the UFMC uses.

Gave it a quick flight: performs to specs, far as I can tell. Obviously, they can't simulate all the systems as many of them are still classified. Besides, how can you say no to a U-2?

What I said was that we'll have to wait and see how well HT works with the CRJ. HT performance is highly dependent on what the CPU is doing, how often the pipeline has to be cleared, how well the branch prediction is working, etc. The only way to find out will be to wait and see.

Go read back earlier in the thread and you will see that, for the CRJ, performance scales linearly with core count. As I said, Phillip programmed the systems specifically to use multiple cores/threads. I have a feeling that HT will be used effectively as well.

Depends: for a plane like the CRJ, expressly designed to use multiple cores, the more cores the better. The same will likely be true for X-Plane 10, which is being designed to make use of as many cores are you have.