tkyler

A few missing points. That error is part of a VNAV calculation, which would only run if you had set a crusie altitude, which you didn't mention in your steps so I couldn't reproduce. For VNAV calc to run, you need your PERF info on the PERF INIT page, and then a cruise altitude and of course a route...(without a disco in the first line). When you execute with those "minimum requirements", then the VNAV calcs will run. Most of the other stuff doesn't matter. I'll try to reproduce give the general Departure airport and one waypoint...with the perf init/cruise alt, that should be enough for me to test. -tk

Thx for reporting and your patience. We've added it to the list. We won't cease working on the IXEG and will certainly endeavor to increase accuracy in all areas, including this one. Now that we have the 737 out....we have to stabilize a few super obvoius oversights...but after, we'll enter a quite long phase of tweaking all those perf issues while we tackle our other roadmap items as well. -TomK

Thx for rerporting. I put it on my list this morning to check.

the patch has been made and is being tested with select folks. Several testers have confirmed its fixed their issue thus far. It may still be a day or so as there are other precautions to be made.... and we don't want a 2nd occurrence to happen. Much better to take a day or two to make sure its good and get this one totally behind us. As to the unfortunate timing..see recommended post at top of this page if you haven't already. it explains the weekend thing. -TK

This isn't a workaround, its the very reason for that preference's existence. I discuss that in this link in the "new gui interface" section. As to your crash, I can't speak to that. VR is a bit of a black box to us devs, and I can't make heads or tales of that message. Might be one worth reporting to Laminar

The last entries in your log file give indications as to what is going on...and in all your log files that I've seen, its always during some "weather update" Do you have X-Plane's "Download Real Weather" option enabled? If so, try it with that set to "manual" -TK

As @Pils mentioned above, email/forum post from X-Aviation is the 'official' way. Soon though, we'll be putting up web based info, similar to the MU2...and the version listed at the top will be the most current version released. We won't change that version # until the actual release. Usually we synchronize updating the online info with the release itself, its part of our deploy checklist. So if you wake up one day, wondering if you've missed a release, you can check your version in X-Plane (use the 'Customize' button inside X-Plane to see the version)...and compare that against the version listed at the top of the (soon to be posted) docs. It will look like so when posted: So the current version listed inside X-Plane is now "1.5"....and that screenshot above shows what it will be when we make the next release and this info is put online. So just another way of checking versions. -Tom

@BulvaThis format should look familiar to you Number 2 on my list.

I did not do the original openGL...and I have never, not once, touched the code for the EFIS displays. Certainly I will investigate. We are seeing openGL funnies we haven't seen in the past. I believe Laminar have "tightened up" some of their requirements for us devs using openGL and this could have some influence. Now a little "insider info" for those here. For a while now, I've been setting myself up to work on XP full time and its' been a long road to get to this point, getting everything up date and redone for XP12.....BUT there's still a little bit further to go with regards to code infrastructure. I liken where we are now to a remodeling project in a crowded downtown.....so for example, you may work in some building that's getting remodeled and there is scaffolding all over the place, but the building continues to "operate". We want to make that operation as normal as possible of course, but while folks use the IXEG...we're changing lots of stuff under the hood to be more lean and "future proof". This whole "Level-2" activation issue folks are seeing is part of an interim technology..much like scaffoling...and won't be around forever. We are trying to make this rework as transparent to the end users as possible while we demolish / cut / retool / remodel code under the hood. A big part of this work will be the graphics code. With the 717 waiting in the wings....with six EFIS displays...EFIS graphics are a big deal now. SO...I'll just say that we're knocking heads with folks from Real Sim Gear and also Saso/Totoriko, to make sure we have modern tech/methods and we can move all these products well into the future. As far as this HSI thing....I'll be looking at it for sure. -TomK

Not yet. Some of the team are currently traveling home today. For those wondering why they're out of town on a release weekend, please see the follow....and accept our apologies while we work to correct this asap.

@rafalec I'm responding since you've singled out IXEG in this case. As Cameron pointed out through my previous posting, there were extenuating circumstances here that were not the norm......and we ourselves join you in the frustration. We will work diligently to restore your disposition towards us and hopefuly get you back simming in the IXEG as rapidly as possible. -TomK

So....good example of why this port to XP12 is a pain. ..and this is just one of a lot. Went over this for a long while yesterday and just had trouble trying to code around it. Took it directly to Laminar and sure enough, the acceleration ramp between lightoff and idle is simply inaccurate. The acceleration curve shape between lightoff and idle is hard coded and not tweakable via PM. Below is the N2 ramp for the default 738 (which has the same problem). This is Laminar's own data of N2 vs. time (but my overlay comments). You can see the very rapid rise of N2 after lightoff...getting to within 80% of idle in a few seconds. So you may ask, "well why don't you custom code it"...and we do to some extent, but there is a limit. Some parameters, if we decide to override, means its all or nothing. So if we "override the engines" for example..then we have to write the entire engine model for all regimes and that is almost a product in and of itself. Besides, Laminar's model is mature and pretty good...no need to reinvent the wheel.....to me this is simply a "plane-maker design issue" oversight. A 'coefficient' should have been provided (and is what I'm lobbying for) to shape this curve...like a lot of curves in PM can be shaped. The good news is its official, we're filing a ticket to Austin. Also good news (but not perfect) is I've coded a workaround for the next patch to get us through.....because I'm sure it'll be some time before the next update to XP comes out with this fix. The limitation on my patch will be "don't mess with a running engine while the other one is starting". If you do, then the starting engine will exhibit this "rapid rise" behavior somewhat. ...but many folks may not notice it. and these kinds of sweeping modeling changes are all over the place, and have really wreaked havoc with the accuracy of our performance. BUT....we're working on that too now. TK

Given evernthing else no...but I've added it to my list of things to look at. We'll be migrating to a documentation format similar to my MU2. In that, I keep a section of bugs, todos, wanted things and such. Some items stay on that list a long time, but at least you'll know whats in our heads. It will look like so (see MU2 example link below)...and when deployed, you'll see your request reflected on that list. http://www.togasim.com/mu2docs/supplements/bug_tracker_201.html

I can not WAIT to get there! Me and the wife used to live in a seaside town with lots of "snowbirds", folks who'd come down for the winter and drive horribly slow. I said then, " I can't wait till I can do that and enjoy it" TK

You're welcome. we wanted to have this up and running prior....but in the heat of battle, it slipped through. Hopefully when this 'infrastructure remodel" thing is done, information will be more cohesive and intuitive to find. Eventually we'll have a more comprehensive docs section for the IXEG similar to the MU2 (example below) http://www.togasim.com/mu2docs/ -TomK

Yes it will, though we will probably continue to provide the one avail now in parallel. So you'd have two ACF files...where the only difference will be the exterior objects. I expect we'll paint up the same liveries we do now, in high rez form, but of course new ones will have to be created for other liveries. This is probably annoying for "livery consumers" and great news for "livery painters" -Tom

Thx for posting. Sorry that happend to you! I've logged this. These errors get the highest priority so I'll be looking at it quick. We're going to be working towards a quick first patch. TomK

Indeed! Thx for sharing. Tom

This really does pain all of us and we are anxious to get you and everyone else going. I hope you can take heart that we plan to keep working on the classic for a long while. -TK

if cut/paste is the way you and Osamah you see it...then I think you guys may need some glasses...or better ones (see screenshot....if you can ) Seriously..just some good natured ribbing. What's really going on here is, "ok, yes you clearly did a LOT of work on that cabin Tom, but I don't care about the cabin at all..so it might as well be the same thing..what about the stuff I want?...holds, a virtual FBO...animated passengers". .....and that perspective @Splash is OK with me. I get it, I really do. We know what will get said before it gets said. ..this isn't our first rodeo. Osamah isn't telling us anything we don't know...he's basically telling us he wished there was something new, but we were quite clear this "port" wouldn't have much new that you could see. Oh there's a ton of new stuff for sure...but its under the hood where you can't see it and indeed you guys may not see the benfits of that for a time yet. But there are a lot of customers who can and do still enjoy it while we improve it. ..and that's why we do this. But therein lies our path, to leverage this work we know is important and start working towards those things we know you want. Things we knew you'd want long before Osamah or flightdeck2sim said it. Jan said it well...we hope you join in when you finally do see what you like. Tom

This isnt' the kind of thing I'd normally throw out there....I don't like excuses, but there is some behind the scenes info on whats going on time wise. ...and I know how hard the team is working despite the circumstances. We had planned the release earlier, when everyone was avail to support, but my elderly mother had a AAA (Aortic aneurism) a short while ago and I had to bolt out of town for the emergency, and this delayed the release. I don't want sympathies or well wishes here or in PMs, please keep those to yourself.....that's not what this post is for. This delay pushed the release back a bit.....to this weekend where some of our team are out of town (one out of country) for events with their families they scheduled months ago...and unable to work efficiently as they'd like. They're trying the best they can..and we're trying to get back together as fast as possible so we can get on with the business of improving the IXEG. We'll be hitting this hard tomorrow as well. We are fully committed to getting everyone up and running. This post is simply to let folks know that "life happened" to us these past few weeks and we're not just ignoring folks or don't care, or have lowered our standards. With all that said, I'll be hammering away all week on the things I can control. The other team members will continue as well and we'll be running on all cylinders again very shortly. TomK

FYI @Pils....this release really is 'foundational' with an eye on moving forward. Indeed we've had to strip out a few things to make way for more remodeling. Part of our roadmap is to not only focus on the aircraft proper, but also develop more informational resources, i.e. a web-based documentation system to augment the written stuff, similar to the MU2....so there will be an 'IXEG website' where we can put out this kind of information, documentation and other value added content for users to access. NOW...will folks read the stuff we provide then? who knows but we're going to be putting it out there anyhow. TomK

A link for those who many not have seen it. http://togasim.com/ixeg_15_whatsnew/

Your post is noted @daemotron Welcome to the world of Austin and (X-Plane evolution) For the longest time, the electrical system on XP was pretty vanilla, minimal busses, no switching. SO us develoeprs wrote ALL this code to customize our electrical code. Then Austin starts ALIA...an electric vehicle. NOW the electrical system in XPlane gets ALL this attention and next thing you know he's changing everything...our code starts having issues, new datarefs, new switching, etc. So we now have to re-evaluate the entire X-Plane system because we never know how far Austin's simulation goes.....and this just takes time. There was two real challenges with the Mu2 electrical setup. 1) The two radio busses...because Austin only had 1 Avionics bus and all radio functions were tied to that one switch....and 2) The emergency bus, which kills very specific functions. I had lots of code to handle all this before XP had more than 2 electrical busses....and so to just start using more of XP and less of my code, I have to audit a whole lot of code and do a whole lot of testing and experimenting with XP and even then...I may find something with Austin's model that doesn't work. For example, for the longest time (and still may not be implemented), you could not have a simple 3 bus setup (left - Main - right) and isolate the left/right busses. In that little example, (imagine the dashes being bus ties)...but XP only has ONE bus tie...and when activated, it connects ALL the busses in X-Plane. This is a HUGE headache working around and I know Jim with Laminar (replaced me back in 2012) just recently begged the systems team to fix this...as he's working on the Airbus stuff for Laminar and can't even isolate busses. Simulating busses and switching is easy...the problem is all the downstream things X-Plane drives off of default XP bus values. Things we can't code...like the radio functions, or GPS, or generators...which feed even more functions downstream. So we have this "line" where we have to stop, which is basically "bus is powered". but with headaches like the bus ties...well...*sigh. Its not uncommon to be approaching the work .... "well...lets try it this way"....nope...."how about this way".....nope...."A...U..S...T...I...N"! SO....this is what we deal with and its just a very long process to assess. Throw in "other developers who NEVER respond to your contact"....yea I'm talking to you Jean-Luc from RealityXP.....then it makes it tougher in cases like this. ANYWAY...enough blabbering. as usual.....I'll come across this at some point and poke around and try an improvement. My whole philosophy now with XP development is "steady as she goes". XPlane is quite the niche market and hobby.....can't support big teams full time, so I'll just try my best to be that tortoise and keep going thx for your poking around though @daemotron I do log these posts and when I address them I go back over them thoroughly. Thx again! Tom

Closing this topic. Starting to spend too much time reading the same reports. We have a good idea what the issue is. thank you all for your reports. -Tom