Litjan

It looks like you maybe installed something wrong: 0:00:00.201 G64: warn: prefs.load(): No prefs file found! Gizmo could not find a preferences file.

Yep, tried on the latest beta 1...or maybe it was actually beta 2 when I tried today. And yes, it completely set all icing to zero and prevented any further buildup. I used the DATA OUT values that you can find with "ice" in the search box and also the "weights" field (it shows how much ice weight the plane has).

The logo lights are not required navigational lighting - they are purely for marketing purposes. Whenever I forgot to turn them on I justified that afterwards by "trying to hide who is waking people up at night with jet noise" .

You are confusing the 737-300 again with newer 737s (or A320s) :-) The bulbs for the logo illumination are in the wingtips of the main wings.

I just tried and adding a hold-over time totally and completely stops (and removes existing) all ice accumulation on my aircraft.

Yes, the replay functionality in XP12 is still a bit "under construction" - and it has problems storing many datarefs that are needed to show the full functionality of add-ons. We are waiting for it to stabilize a bit more and then will see if there is something we need to fix to make our plane work better with it. There are some functions (like the FMS) that will never work fully with replay, but the lights should.

I will try the function myself - it is possible that Laminar changed something in a recent update...

You are confusing that with other 737s. We never had the altitude ladder, neither in the real 737s I flew. The logo light INOP appears when you choose the option "Winglet", as it covers up the logo light bulbs.

Yes, but it should normally be off, unless someone actively turns it on or if the plane looses main generator power while on the ground.

An interesting question. The ZFW displayed shows the "REAL" weight of the aircraft, a luxury that real pilot do not have. I do not know if X-Plane provides a dataref to show the "pilots think this is right" ZFW... one way to prevent this is to use the default X-Plane "anti icing" function to keep the plane free of snow and ice until you take off (this should be done both in the real world but also in the simulator).

You can use the default X-Plane option to "spray" ant-ice fluid onto your aircraft to protect it from icing while on the ground.

The view selection window was removed as it is redundant. You can set up and save views very conveniently with the X-Plane view menu.

Oh!

I personally would not mix SAM and X-Plane 12 anymore than I would mix matter and anti-matter, but everyone can do what they like within the confines of their own dwelling, I guess

To me it looks like the turn radius is calculated wrong - either you are not flying it at the speed that the FMS "thinks" you should fly it, or there is some data missing for the FMS to calculate it correctly (weight, altitude,...) If you use the FMS correctly, the turn radius will be calculated correctly and the plane will fly it accurately. Have you watched the tutorial videos for this aircraft?

Thanks for your help, @Pils

Yes, these should be good enough - the difference between a -500 at 45 tons and a -300 at 45 tons should be negligible. The -400 comes with stronger engines, so the landing distance on contaminated runways (where reverse thrust is taken into account) would be different. I am unable to share my original data for legal reasons, unfortunately.

Hi! You can use the included charts I added in the EFB function with the avitab...or if you don´t want to use the avitab, just look at the .pdf files. The trim you notice is the so-called speed-trim system, it is active with flaps not up and high power settings and is indeed an automated speed stability system. Did you look at my recent videos? I show how to use the avitab in the first one here (fast forward to 17 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehOXR__e9rU&t=33s Cheers, Jan

Yes, that is on the wanted feature list. It IS kinda flimsy in real life, too, but we will provide a command for that.

https://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/contact_us.php

Tom and I discussed making load and trim a bit more realistic by adding "random" factors like this, but ultimately I convinced him to make the weight be accurate at all time. Two reasons for this: 1.) Normally the variance in weight will sort of "average out". Some people and their handluggage are more heavy, others are more light than the average weight. The actual weight could be off by maybe up to 1000kgs, something the pilot will not notice. 2.) Some people want to TEST the airplane against published data, and not being able to set up weight and balance precisely is a necessity when doing so (because you WILL notice the weight being off by 1000kgs if you do precise measuring). Adding an option to randomize weights will only confuse people, options always carry the risk of confusing people, no matter how crystal clear the option may appear to you and me (as we saw with the option to switch between KGs and LBs)... If you want to "realistically randomize" your weight, get someone living in your house to move the sliders by a small amount when you are not looking and then have them close the window and there you go

Ok, thanks for taking the time to test this, Stephan. Curious... One last idea: Is there a button or lever on your hardware maybe assigned to nav radio tuning?

Thanks for the nice words, Stephan. One has to say in general that Laminar does work fairly well and close with developers. They have a Slack channel for devs and will answer questions and requests there frequently and timely. In some cases the problems that add-ons (and even default X-Plane) encounter are so hard to figure out and affect so few people that it simply is not economically viable to pour a lot of effort into solving the problem. Often it turns out that it is actually the "fault" of the hardware manufacturer of some component, the user misconfigured their operating system or some other freak coincidence and Laminar and everyone in this business to make money have to decide if they want to assign a specialist for possibly weeks of man-hours to try and recreate, get to the bottom of and finally fix a problem that more often than not turns out to be not Laminar´s fault. Laminar´s support is already overwhelmed by requests from users that have a hard time finding the power switch on their computers (for some reason flight simulation is an area that suits geriatric users especially), and everyone has the attitude of "hey, I spent 59 dollars on this, now help me put this here compute together, install Windows, X-Plane, all of my add-ons, and teach me how to fly an A330, too!" In this special case Laminar (rightfully) shrugs their shoulders and says "well, we do not support OpenAL, so this looks like an OpenAL problem so we are out of it". If EVERY user of our 737 had this problem we would probably have a case where we could go and say "hey listen, we have thousands of users that can´t fly this add-on and will hate X-Plane for it, we need some help in figuring out why OpenAL crashes your code". But with only 2 or 3 out of thousands of users, it is more than likely that this is caused by some weird combination of hardware and software that is very infrequent. As cruel as that may sound - unfortunately you and the other guys suffering from this sound problem are too few to really set a big effort in motion to fix this, especially since the obvious way out of this is to convert to FMOD... I personally believe that if you had a computer with different sound hardware, things would work just fine - maybe you can try to install the IXEG on a laptop (you have 3 licenses to install on different machines) and see? Viele Grüße, Jan

Next video is up - turnaround ground operation at Portland.

And I do appreciate your patience in dealing with this problem and your help in finding the cause - even though we were ultimately unable to fix it for you. I did like to start the engine with my window open once in a while in summer, but pretty much had to close the window as the engine sped up to idle because it would get too loud in the cockpit to communicate efficiently ;-) Cheers, Jan