oldflyguy

Hi Goran! If you mean did I disconnect the joystick and pedals, then yes I did. Still the same...

So, I took the time to download a copy of XP (my 3rd) and installed the TBM. The same issue exists on this fresh copy with the TBM as the only 3rd party product installed. Seems to be an issue with the product, not XP, plug-in's or add-on's. I've attached the logs - didn't fly anywhere, just fired it up... TBM900_Log.txt Log.txt

Hi Goran! I removed all plug-in's and from both installs, deleted the current TBM's from both and re-installed. I also deleted all 3rd party scenery from my beta install (I don't believe the scenery files would interfere but did this anyway). I also re-calibrated the Gladiator joystick (again and again). The issue still exists. Everything works except that to achieve "0" trim the elevator trim indicator on the MFD needs to be above the green neutral mark by about the width of the indicator arrow. By the way, when booted up without the joystick connected the same condition exists. Here's the latest log - I didn't see anything. It would be interesting to know the conditions of those other users with the same issue... Log.txt TBM900_Log.txt

Hi Goran! I've tried the TBM in both of my XP installs - stable and beta. Plug-in's removed and not. Checked the Data outputs on control surfaces and trim settings. With trim settings in the T/O (green) area the elevator trim tabs display significant "up" position (forcing the elevator up). The data display shows significant elevator "up" trim in this position. When adjusted so the data shows "0" trim the "visual" elevator trim tabs agree and are in the "neutral" position but the MFD displays significant "down" elevator trim. I have the TBM in both installs as mentioned. I've attached the logs from my "stable install". At least I know it's not me...LOL! Log.txt TBM900_Log.txt

Hello! I've been flying the TBM since it's release - absolutely my favorite! I have noticed in the latest version that on take off with trims centered I must add significant forward pressure on the yoke along with "down" trim to get the aircraft to climb at the 10 degree mark. Never noticed this in past versions. I know in the RW I need to roll in a bit of down trim on climb out in my old C182Q (almost the same...LOL) but this seems very excessive. I used both the standard and the experimental flight model but didn't experience any real difference. This is with take off power set at near 100% as recommended in the POH. This effect can be moderated to an extent simply by reducing the take off power but that's probably not a real world solution. Has anyone else noticed this?

Pretty much that way in the RW as well. Hard to predict when ATC will clear you to a new altitude and what that altitude will be. You may get a heading change thrown in for good measure...LOL!

Thanks Coop! Looking forward to the new "stuff" as well...

@razghost, I don't understand your phrase "on it's own". Are you using auto pilot as you climb out? If so are you in "HDG" or "Roll" mode? The TBM is such fun to fly I will hand fly it on climb out and I must use right rudder to counter the "left turn" from that huge prop. Don't forget to engage the Yaw Damper as soon as raise your flaps. For what it's worth my old C182Q would want to "go left" on the climb out as well - even with slightly less horse power than the TBM...

Hi Coop! Did a bit of detective work recently. I think I can confirm that this "bobbing" effect is connected to using AP (doesn't matter if it's the G1000 or the 530/430 stack. What happens with all the models is when at altitude and configured so the IAS is at about 170kts or above if the AP is selected this "bobbing" effect occurs. If the AP is left on and MP is reduced at about 160kts or less the "bobbing" will cease or be reduced to the point where I can't detect it easily. If the models are hand flown this effect does not occur at any speed. You may be aware of all this already, I just wanted to confirm what you may already know.

Hi @ilankrt! There are two reasons. One has nothing to do with whether it's a Radeon or Nvidia - it's the 4GB RAM. The TBM is a demanding model RAM wise and combined with 3rd party scenery it's possible that could be an issue. I don't know anything about your XP install and add-on's I'm just mentioning it a a possible issue. The second reason is that Radeon drivers just don't do OpenGL that well - a known issue with XP. And yes, you should see an improvement with Vulcan. I have Intel / Nvidia right now and when the feedback begins to come in on Vulcan I may switch to AMD / Radeon for my new build sometime this year. One other thought (I"m not a Mac person) - iMac screens use pretty high resolutions, correct? I don't know the particulars but that's a really big factor for you as well. Can you lower the resolution on a Mac?

Enjoying the M20 Collection! Thanks for your support!

That's the AOA indicator. Wow, I'm thinking that should have zero impact on FPS. However you are using a 4GB Radeon and that probably is a big contributing factor...

Note to all. The M20 collection has issues with the "xgs landing speed" plug in. The may not be the cause of your problem but check that you have removed it from the XP resources folder. This has been around since the beginning - just wanted to remind the community. Also @mapletree, you may want to remove all your 3rd party plug-in's to a safe place (desktop) and try again.

Thanks, Coop. My bad here as it happened I had two (20R and 20N) wave files in the same folder. That's what caused the issue with the Ovation III. What is actually an important issue is the "bobbing" along the longitudinal axis the Ovation III exhibits at cruise. We spoke about this a bit on Discord. Do you think this is a flight model thing or a G1000 problem? Latest flight with the Ovation III was a 8000'. 23"/2400RPM, ROP. IAS 167. I will try with the Ovation II and the Acclaim as I have not flown them since the latest update and will let you know.

Good morning. I just installed the most recent update to the Mooney collection (I've had it from day one - original offering). The last few updates (I think) have resulted in engine sounds - only with the Ovation III - when starting from cold and dark or just engine off. This was a known "issue" for a while and I'm wondering if I missed something or this is still something that is being worked on. No biggie as I'm kind of used to it. Just curious.

@Jumtri, I agree with @RobW05. I know that Mac users have had some issues but I can't speak to that. I'm on Windows 10 and have had the TBM from day one. Thinking way back I believe there were some very minor issues with the early versions (nothing that prevented an enjoyable "flight" experience) that were addressed quickly. This aircraft is a rock solid add-on. If you want to try and "hang" a ton of 3rd party "stuff" on your install don't blame the TBM. And please, describe the "so many issues". I'm sure we can help you with some of them...

Thanks, wil do when the time comes. Very close to pulling the trigger on the i9 build...

Thanks, @Goran_M! Don't know where I got the "5" from - probably misunderstood a previous thread on the subject. Anyway, as I understand the process once I reach the 3 activations I will need to deactivate 1 computer to add another activation. My question then is - If all of the activations are on this rig is it ok to deactivate the oldest one in order to add the new one. I understand if all the activations are on different rigs but in this case it's just the one. Please excuse my "thickness" on this as I'm in my 70's (that's my story and I'm sticking to it)...

A quick question for you folks. I just updated Windows 10 to the latest "Feature Update" (1909). When I started XP I got the "email and password" message from X-Aviation and entered the info. At that point a new window opened asking me to name this computer (I know that's supposed to happen but since this is the only computer I use I'd never seen it before). I went ahead an named the computer - no problem. However, having read elsewhere in this forum that X-Aviation allows up to 5 computers to be used, is this my first or second use? It's the same computer and I've done "Feature Updates" in the past without the renaming message. This isn't really an issue for me as I'm probably going to do less than 4 more builds over the years (LOL). Just curious as I don't think this should have occured after an update. By the way, I also had to reactivate the AFL King Air. Different procedure but same "thing"...

Excuse me @dima436393, I've never flown outside the US where I understand that particular measure of distance (Meters) is used. Pardon the misinformation... By the way, did you disable SMP/RWC in this particular instance and see what XP Real World Weather was "saying". I found in some cases where I wasn't sure I was getting the real deal from SMP/RWC and switched over to XP WX, that mode gave me the same result. Although it didn't look as good...

@dima436393, the way I read the Metar provided is: Wind is variable at 2Kts, Ceiling is 1100, Mist with Vertical Visibility at 200 Meters with temp and dew point at freezing. When visibility is less than 1 mile the Metar typically will give that as a fraction of one mile - 1/4M - not in feet unless it's RVR which is not indicated the Metar posted. Vertical visibility is how far up into the indefinate ceiling you can see - not necessarily from the ground

@sundog brings up a very good point. If you don't think you are getting the correct (or any) weather you can force a reload using the "debug" selection then refreshing the weather. Whenever I've confused ASXP/SMP/RWC to the point where I'm not getting what I supposed to (or I'm just not sure) that's my get out of jail free card...LOL!

There is no weather generation going on with SMP/RWC. Just cloud art and placement. If the ceilings are way off try the "debug" selection and refresh the weather. You can also check the metar log in XP during the flight to see if it's updating as you have selected.

@dima436393 I do like the cloud art that SMP provides along with RWC in XP. However, you are not imagining things. Often the cloud base altitudes don't correspond to the Metar readout. But while just using "Real WX" as your setting the cloud base altitudes are right on. The difference can be just a little all the way up to thousand(s) of feet. I think this is due to a layering issue - if the layers are too close together SMP / RWC seem to have an issue in resolving those layers. Having said that I've come to accept this as still a better alternative than XP's cloud art(?). Sorry, it's easy to be snarky and many posters take that route. As a former RW pilot I enjoy what XP and SMP bring to my virtual flying "fix".

Thank you @Goran_M! Your explanation filled in the gaps in my understanding. Now if I can only remember it...