philipp

Redfisher, GREAT to hear that it works now. Hover, I sent you a PM. Philipp

So from which try is the Log file you posted? It shows up an error seemingly unrelated to the CRJ, but anyway this is strange: "x737 disabled: Found an incorrect installation location. The x737 will work fine if it is installed within an x737 aircraft directory. Failed: C:\Users\F\Desktop\X-Plane 9\Resources\plugins\win.xpl. (The plugin refused to start by returning 0 from XPluginStart.)" Might be a cause. Also the Log file shows that the vascore plugin is missing. The CRJ can not work without it. Please: 1. Correct the error 2. Start up X-Plane with another plane than the CRJ, preferably a default plane like the Cirrus Jet 3. Stop X-Plane 4. Put the vascore back in place 5. Start X-Plane and post the logfile Then we will know if the vascore loads correctly. -If it does, we can go on from there and look what prevents the CRJ from loading -If it doesn't we will look for another solution. Philipp

Cameron will take a look at this.

The log file clearly shows the opposite - Gizmo is trying to load a license for the CRJ. Which is of course unnecessary, since the CRJ doesn't use Gizmo. Can you try temporarily removing Gizmo from the plugins folder? We tested the CRJ against Gizmo and it is supposed to work fine, but you never know. Philipp

Navigraph doesn't provide an auto-updater. You have to download a zip manually and extract that to your X-Plane folder.

Please, wait with replacing the navdata until after the tutorial flight!!! The tutorial flight requires a "virgin" installation of the CRJ, as we rely on the procedures approaching Valencia. If you replace them with newer data, you might not be able to fly the approach described in the tutorial, since the database has changed. It means of course, the approach has changed in the real world sometime ago... So, please: Fly the tutorial flight, BEFORE applying the new navdata. Frankly, I'd recommend flying the tutorial at least twice before doing anything else! The CRJ is an aircraft that requires quite a bit of learning. Javier himself once complained about a "bug" to me, when in fact he was doing something wrong Philipp

Before you start messing with the drivers, proceed as Cameron said, trying reinstallation and post the logfile. Philipp

No surprise really. The plugin requires at least 10.5. Philipp

Charly, go to the folder were the CRJTester-linux-installer.run file is and also the 17MB core file. Now do gdb CRJTester-linux-installer.run core bt full and post the output here. Philipp EDIT: About ATI on Linux... Well, it has been a nightmare for years and it still continues. I've given up on ATI to ever come up with a working Linux driver long ago and invariably go nvidia in terms of GPU. Unless there is a mass of Linux users setting the AMD headquarters on fire we are probably stuck with what we got.

The main problem was the all-white displays on one Mac with ATI X1600 graphics adapter. That we test our whole suit in terms of installer, deplyoment and dependencies is a welcome side-effect of this Philipp

charly, could you please create a stacktrace for us, so Cameron can check what is going wrong with the installer? To do so, execute the following commands in the terminal: ulimit -c unlimited gdb CRJTester-linux-installer.run start bt full (If you don't have gdb installed you can pull it easily via apt-get or aptitude) post the resulting stacktrace here so Cameron can sort this out. Cheers, Philipp

No, they should just count up. They don't have any meaning as a compatibility score or something...

Julio, as Javier said this is probably a GPU/GPU driver issue. You can try the Intel website (or the website of your notebook manufacturer) if there is a newer driver for your chipset available. If this doesn't help, I regret to say there is nothing you can do besides using a computer with nVidia GPU. Frankly, as I said to samen, I'm surprised X-Plane runs _at all_ on this machine. Searching this forum or X-Plane.org you will find dozens of entries of people with Intel chipset graphic where X-Plane doesn't work at all. Philipp EDIT: As Javier pointed out, are you by any chance running X-Plane with the "-no-fbos" option?

Yes, otherwise we wouldn't have created this testing process at all. Old Macs with ATI GPUs seem to be problematic. @samen: I'm absolutely stunned. I'd have bet my bottom dollar the Intel graphics would also choke up on this. Glad to see they are not that crappy in the end. @Perry: Unfortunately, creating a demo is not that easy. Because it is not so easy to hide the "10 minutes" mechanism deep enough in the code, so that The Dark Side ™ can't factor it out easily. Which would be unfair to all our paying customers. So yes, creating a demo would take quite a lot of time now. Great to see these good results coming up here! Cheers, Philipp EDIT: Julio, that looks strange... Texture mapping error. Could you please tell me your OS and X-Plane version, plus your graphics vendor and model, and the driver version?

Very good that you post your specs - and even more that it works for you If you have an old ATI on Mac it _might_ not work. I'm very eager to see more results! Philipp PS: The processor specs are not important - here we are testing openGL stuff. So the model/make of your GPU is important.

Nova, these indications are according to the Rockwell Collins FMS 4200 pilot manual. If you have sources indicating otherwise, please tell us. I'm not claiming we are infallible, we are only as good as the manuals we got from our pilots. Philipp

Deployment is a major pain in the ***. We could just give you a truckload of files and a long list in which folders you should put them, but I assume you would kill us for this... But you may rest assured that we all three work through sleepless nights getting this all nicely wrapped up. Philipp

Exactly. Auto-Tune selects nearby VOR/DME stations for IRS correction. It does not tune VORs in the flightplan or even change COM freqs to different center controllers. Now, that would be an interesting feature in real world... Philipp

By all buttons, I mean all buttons. The FMS keypad is also buttons, so there are datarefs for it.

At this time, no. Out of the box it will not work. However, as mentioned in this thread, every CRJ function is exposed via a dataref. So a developer knowing the Saitek SDK will be able to create a driver for the CRJ if there is sufficient interest. Philipp

Every single button or switch is tied to a custom dataref. Also every internal state like the voltage of the GPU is available as dataref for home cockpit builders. However, we have not yet created a comprehensive list of all those, but I can condense this from the sourcecode. Not the highest priority at the moment. Release is prio #1. Philipp

LOL, absolutely spot on...

The CRJ is a separate package and will be provided by Navigraph as "JRollonPlanes - CRJ native format" starting from cycle 1105. The plane will be shipped with a free copy of 1103. So not exactly THAT outdated. Philipp

I develop most of the time on a Core2Duo E8600. You can rest assured that with "sensible" X-Plane settings you will not be hitting the dreaded wall of fog. Sensible means that you are not supposed to max out forest and car density. But you wouldn't do this on your PC anyway, wouldn't you? As a direct comparison, the CRJ in X-Plane feels more fluent than the PMDG747 in FSX on the same PC. Philipp

When discussing performance, you might have noticed the sharp rise in the numbers that Javier published: 25 frames on Core2Duo compared to 90 frames on an i7. The reason for this is the CRJ is insanely optimized to utilize multicore systems. Most people these days buy processors with 4, 6, 8 or even (including hyperthreading) 16 cores. But take a look at your CPU load during the average X-Plane session: X-Plane is unable to utilize more than one core for the flighmodel, and can offload some work (loading) to a second core. Put in another two cores and they are going to stay idle: Now imagine that: You payed for 4 cores, and you end up using only a mere 40% of what you bought. With the CRJ I took the rather bold approach to move almost EVERYTHING out of the X-Plane flightloop and heavily utilize threads. Let's face it: Future is not going to bring us 10 GHz CPUs, but 32 x 2.6GHz CPUs. So here's how it looks like with the CRJ Every display of the CRJ can run on its own core. That means the CRJ scales up to 8 cores (6 cores for displays, 1 for X-P flightloop, 1 for X-P loader)! So this is the ultimate reason why Javier reported more than 3.5x more frames on the i7 (4 physical cores + HT = 8 logical cores) compared to the C2D (2 cores). 4 x cores = 3.5x frames. This is almost a linear scale. Most software out there can only dream of scaling with CPUs like this. Philipp