frankbyte

Thanks Tyler. Of course the winds will affect the groundspeed. So we should take the groundspeed into account to calculate the fuel consumption. So it could be done either based on the actual ground speed or more accurately according to the winds entered into the FMC, even the average groundspeed based on the averag winds should give a pretty accurate estimation if reproducing it exactly like the real plane would not be possible. But i have to admit it was just a first though out of nowhere. Great to hear that you are looking at it in future. With the new version 1.3 i rediscovered that great plane again. Thanks for your great contribution and your great way of interacting with us

I am also a bit curious about some issues. After having done such an amazing work of simulating most of the complex systems, how can it be that difficult to calculate the fuel predictions? I am just asking because it should simply be one line of a formula depending on the currecnt consumption, the distance and the dicrease in weight...i guess there should exist a simple formula and the result could the simply be shown in the FMC. Again: it's not a critic it's only a question...i can perfectly understand that other issues are much more difficult to do but in my opinion the fuel predictions could have been implemented quite simply. But i may be wrong

But how on earth guys could that happen? It's like if you would mix up both pedals in a car...i just dont understand how it could happen without you noticing it. It's the first time ever i see the mouse-scroll the opposite direction. Otherwise thanks for the update! Edit: sorry, just saw the post above from tkyler explaining it

Hi there Just purchased that plane and i must say WUAW! It's absolutely amazing! Very well done. The level of details is incredible. Question: I was practicing to use the Garmin 1000 and according to the original manual that is linked form the TBM900-manual, i found some pages that doesnt seem to be simulated like the Auxilary Page Group (AUX) with system setup and system status. Is that correct or did i just don't find them yet?

I mean basics from a viewpoint of a sim-pilot. If it is that difficult to implement, why not informing us that you just cannot do it or whatever the exact reason is. Because after years it's not just about patience, it seems that there is something wrong somewehere, but for us customers it's not clear where the problem exactly is. So i would really appreciate a clear statment / communication about further development. Or perhaps i missed it, since i don't visit that forum very often? I really said nothing during years but now it begins to be just too long and i'm questionning if we will see a completed aircraft one day. I'm sure you can understand that.

No holds, no fuel predictions (or wrong ones), no speed intervention etc. Very basic things, that even freeware planes have. And still nothing after..how many years? 3 or 4??

I am so extremely disappointed about that project. It started very promising. Now i know why P3D-users always make fun of us...

I agree on that point: from an aesthetic point of view, the IXEG-cockpit looks fantastic and the immersion with the "vibrating" cockpit during turbulences is also for me one of the best we have in X-Plane.

Thanks Litjan for these informations. Thats great! I am looking forward to the next update, making the B733 better and better

Well, here i have to disagree. And probably the majority of other users. The IXEG is excellent but the FF320 as well! Saying there isn't even any comparaison is quite strange and not very realistic.

Oh my fucking God, look at those reflections! Great job guys! I

I own both: the Jar 320 and the Aerosoft A320-series. And i prefer the one from Jar...

Thanks for your answer. You're right it looks like that: i tried to deactivate the SMP-plugin and the issue was still there with the default clouds.

Hi I really like your new version of SkyMAxx 4. I am using it with X-Plane 11 pb 9. But i noticed a problem that is quite annoying: during "bad weather" like overcast at 300ft or any cloudy weather, the visibility seems to be reduced according to the weather conditions during the daytime. But during the night, the visibility looks like CAVOK conditions. That means i can perfectly see alle the airport and its Runways/taxiways and all city-lights during the whole approach like if there was no cloud at all. As soon as i change the time to daytime again, the Runway-lights disappear again (as it should be). Is that perhaps a bug in the pre-beta version of X-Plane 11? Or do you have any explanations for that? If necessary i can show you some screenshots. Thanks very much for your help and best regards, Franz

I have flown the Aerosoft Airbus in P3D and prefer the one from Jardesign. Looks better and flies better, like more naturally. But i agree that the MCDU should have some more deepness.

Yes.

It's indeed very strange...i dont understand it as well. I'm having long stutters even with 1GB of VRAM and 8GB of RAM left.

I have to admit that i have some issues with the stutters as well...i'm having a 6GB VRAM card and very often during climb or descend (beetween FL 100-FL250) i'm having some serious FPS-drops, from FPS 40 to 10-15...for 10-20 seconds. And it happens every 1-2 minutes (!), that means the flying experience is seriously affected. It's pretty disturbing...but otherwise it's an absolutely great product!

Thanks very much guys! I really appreciate your fantastic work (once again ) !

Yes you're right but sadly I forgot the LOG and restarted the sim. The third flight is far better until now (around 1 hour without any crash). If it happens again i will send you the LOG-File

Thanks very much: It really looks outstanding. Sadly i already had two CTD's within 1 hour and i guess it comes from that plugin, since i had around one crash per 150 hours of flight in average with the previous version.

OK, i understand a little bit better after having read your post edited 7 hours ago Tom. So with the derated take off we have a max predefined power and can't go over it even if we lost one engine and had to goe over 100% with the second one? That just wont work? But why is the sense of doing that? Still confusing....

Hm...it's quite complicate to understand for me. And first i was thinking that those 20K were 20 Kelvin (temperature) but it is the thrust of the engines in 1'000 x pounds? Because since the reduced thrust also has to do with fooling the real temperature, that's really quite confusing for me. I'm sorry to say i am still confused beetween the difference of those two modes

Hi Thanks for the explanations. In fact i knew everything about the first part. I know why this is needed. My question was more about the difference of bothe methods. So if i understand it correctly, both do the same but for the one we can enter every temperature and the thrust will be reduced according to it (assumed). And in the sceond one those values are already pre-defined and fix (derated)?

Well...can someone explain me the difference beetween a derate and reduced take-off then? I don't get it, sorry.