Litjan

The high oil temperature is a known issue - we don´t model the oil temp ourselves (using standard X-Plane) and something must have changed. It is purely cosmetic, though - it should not cause an engine fire. To avoid getting "failures" you can switch those off in the failure menu. If you have failures enabled, they are totally random, X-Plane does not model failures do to engine exceedance. The only failures you would get due to exceeding a limitiation would be flaps torn off at high speeds (there is an extra option for that) and tires blown for overstressing them laterally. Cheers, Jan

I think that we have a fix in 1.21 to make the "other way" also work. So go ahead and try that and please let me know if it doesn´t work! Cheers, Jan

Hmm, I don´t think we changed anything regarding the brakes. If you have an axis assigned to brakes, I would expect that to override any brake value you assign via dataref. The whole braking system is pretty much "standard X-Plane". Note that there are some "system states" where we "fail" the brake to emulate no hydraulic pressure being available. Cheers, Jan

Yeah, that vibes with what I heard about the -200. When I started flying the -300/400/500s in early 96 we still had some -200s (or "Bs", as they were called at our company). I didn´t get the conversion required to fly them, as we were phasing them out at that time. But the Captains really love them, and didn´t hold much regard for all that "modern electronic gadgetry" that the "Classic" entailed then . Regarding the trim wheel - it should not sound in manual flight UNLESS the speed trim function is active (high power settings, flaps not up). Please let me know if the trim runs at other times. We model the "mach trim" effect, but without actually moving the wheel. You can switch to outside view and do your walkaround (hit C) - or at least pretend to. We don´t model the gauges on the hydraulic reservoirs, brake wear pins or other things you might pick up on a real walkaround... Cheers, Jan

Glad to hear that you like it! Especially coming from someone who flew the real aircraft. There are many many different configurations of the 737-300. Everything from instrument panel configuration, different avionics, airline specific setups - heck, at Lufthansa we even had the switches on the overhead work "reversed". Naturally we developed the aircraft according to the aircraft we had access to. We have some user preference (steam gauges, eyebrow windows), but mostly the aircraft is "just the way it is" . I remember when we got aircraft in our fleet with different audio-selector-panels or the new MCP with buttons for the AP, instead of the engagement paddles. First you think "well, this is total crap" - but eventually you get used to it. I think I was spoiled with how much commonality we had in our fleet, I am sure there are operators where every aircraft has it´s own little "character" and setup. I fly the A320 family now, and the range of configurations from our old A319s to the new NEO 320s is staggering... Cheers, Jan

Thanks for reporting back. The "many monitors" feature that X-Plane 11 brought has indeed some pitfalls - and they seem hard to troubleshoot, since the results vary from monitor to monitor... The thing I hate most is that there is no way to exactly specify the size of the window I want to run (i.e. exactly 1920x1080). Sure, you can set that up in some preference menu, but you must use a calculator to specify the start and end pixels... really? Cheers, Jan

Hi Vitaly, as Cameron said, try the new "garbage collector" setting in gizmo, it works great for me. I run a similiar processor and have a very smooth experience, also in VR. The stutter when "changing flightplan" is due to your antivirus software interfering, please create an exception for the X-Plane folder and it will be perfectly smooth. Cheers, Jan

Hi CptIceman, I have added the 1000 foot chime to the list of requests. Shouldn´t be that hard to implement, but it will definitely create some puzzled looks when people view the preferences . There is currently only a chime when you approach your altitude at an excessive rate. And of course the regular altitude deviation warning. Cheers, Jan

Hi Popcorn, happy to hear that things work out better now! For initial descent you can use VNAV, but keep a close eye on it and it´s calculations. For the final approach you must use MCP SPD and either LOC/GS (for ILS) or V/S for NON-PREC or RNAV approaches (using LNAV or HDG SEL). VNAV is not certified for approaches in the 737-300...and while it would work on the real one, it does not (yet) in ours. Cheers, Jan

Hi Chad, as a first measure, increase your "Autopilot CWS deadband" in the preferences menu, please. I think that your joystick isn´t centered properly or "spiking" and this will kick the autopilot out of CMD. Cheers, Jan

Just for kicks, try to run X-Plane in windowed mode and see if the problem persists, please. Cheers, Jan

Hm, very weird. It should hide as soon as your mouse-pointer is not at the left side of the screen anymore. Are you using multiple monitors? Are you running in windowed mode (and have the mouse pointer out of the x-plane window)? Cheers, Jan

Hello riccardo, yes, the stall warning TEST does not work - we broke it when we fixed the actual stall warning (stick shaker) to work again. This will be fixed in the next update. The cargo doors work, the service and entry doors do not work yet. Thanks for the nice words! Cheers, Jan

The orange speed cursor should be set to V2 exactly - this is what you would fly at an engine failure. The plastic bug marker should be set at V2+15 (this is the safe speed to make turns with bank >15 deg). You should actually fly about V2+20 during initial climbout. Jan

Hi Bjorn, nothing was changed on the engine modeling since "forever" - in fact not even with the advent of XP11, as we calculate thrust in our own module. N1 required to taxi depends on weight, slope and temperature - values in excess of 40% seem excessive, though! Judging from the V2 set up you must have had a pretty high grossweight, though. As a matter of fact, to have a V2 of 162 the plane would need to weigh about 70tons... The engine´s acceleration depends on the engine "age" - which is randomly set between sessions. We did this because real engines rarely accelerate equally well and also show slightly different parameters (EGT, N2, ...) for the same N1. Cheers, Jan

Hi Ted, the "mousewheel" rotation is an often requested feature and we definitely consider adding it in the future. Cheers, Jan

Hi Ted, this seems to be the case for some 4k users, not for others. We have not been able to find out what causes this. The workaround seems to be to run in windowed mode, as you found out. There is a program out there that allows you to run in "borderless window" - so it looks like fullscreen. To my knowledge there is no advantage in X-Plane running in full screen vs windowed mode (not like in the old times where running full screen would give you better fps in most games). In addition, it is much easier to work on other things (beside your X-Plane session) when in windowed mode. Cheers, Jan

Hmm, just tried in 11.20vr5 and everything works well (Oculus Rift)... Cheers, Jan

Thanks for the heads-up! If you want to do me a favour, please file a bug report with Laminar! I will try as well. Cheers, Jan

I agree with Shanwicks assesment. We are looking to complete the FMC because we feel that it is part of the aircraft and if it is on the aircraft, it should be in our simulation and working correctly. It is true that VNAV is not widely used in descent on the Classics - pilots use it as a "second opinion" and we like to watch the altitude deviation scale to give us an idea what the FMC "thinks" of our energy situation. It can provide a valuable "heads-up" in some situations. I used it frequently as a "socially compatible" reminder to my FO´s that he is way below profile. "Oh, the FMC thinks you are 10.000 feet low. Well, we both know it can´t calculate very well..." - Silence - FO dials in V/S -200 . It is very rare that you get to fly an approach fully on LNAV and VNAV in real life - so you need to ad your local knowledge and guestimates to the descent calculation, something you can´t do well in the FMS. Yes, you can add an "expected" shortcut, but if you don´t pay attention and NOT get the shortcut, the plane will turn anyway - leading to a clearance violation. The only airports I used to regularly fly VNAV into are ESGG and LHBP. They reliably use RNAV STAR and transitions. Everywhere else its FL CHG and V/S. Jan

Hi Kristo1, 1.) You are experiencing the speed reversion mode of the autothrottle. The flashing 8 is showing that the autothrottle is stepping in to save your aircraft (either limiting your speed to prevent overspeed or adding thrust to save you from stalling). You should never see this in normal operation. Read up on the "flap-speed schedule" and adhere to it. Technically there is nothing preventing you from using the autothrottle to control your thrust all the way to touchdown, even in manual flight. Just be aware that it will automatically retard your thrust levers when you pass 27ft radar altitude. 2.) If the FMS calculates "wrong" landing speed it is usually due to the user putting in wrong data. Make sure that your GROSS weight is correct. A common error is to put in the Zero Fuel Weight in the Gross weight field - then the FMC´s computed weight will be "too light" by the amount of fuel it senses in the tanks. You can always doublecheck your FMC speed computation by looking at the placard over the window. Add at least 5kts to this "Vref" to get the "Vtgt" (target speed). 3.) This is actually and X-Plane bug. They are aware of it, but it seems to be (like many other lighting-related bugs) not easy to fix. Cheers, Jan

The IXEG 737 is not in Beta - hence there will be no beta updates. When the 737 was rolled out, we did offer "hotfixes" that could be downloaded quickly, kinda like the updater for the FFA320 works now. We are planning on rolling out more improvements and bug fixes in the future, but they will usually be packaged in a regular installer. Cheers, Jan

Hi marianol, no, that is not correct - the whole N1 limit page is working "so-so", a byproduct of our internal swapping of the FMC development. You can also see that AUTO (which is active) is displaying a value of 84.6% - it should show the current value vor CRZ (91.2%). The orange carots are also not driven properly in all modes (as you correctly observed). This section is slated for an overhaul along with other aspects of the FMC. The current workaround is to disregard the carots and the AUTO numerical max N1 value - the autothrust should heed the correct value. If this bothers someone with a very purist vein, it is always possible to pull out the manual N1 limit knobs and set the carots manually (this does not affect autothrottle operation, it is purely an indication reminder). Jan

Yes - please follow the advice posted here: Jan

the glideslope will capture at 2/5th dot deviation - no matter if you are above or below. You CAN actually capture the glideslope coming from above, it´s just pretty hard because the airplane needs to descend fairly steep to capture it. The other prerequisites are "LOC captured" and heading within 110 degrees (or so) of inbound course (so you don´t capture an erroneous glideslope by accident on a backcourse loc approach). Jan