Goran_M

I actually haven't tested flying it across the US from coast to coast, but so much depends on that. Have you taken all of these into consideration? How heavy is the aircraft? Any passengers? Outside temperature? Altitude? Mixture Setting? Throttle Setting? Winds?

Peter himself has told me that it is not at, or close to "study level". He hopes to keep updating though. I know what systems are modeled and what systems are not modeled, but we'll just leave it there as I don't want to appear to cast a negative light on another developers products. If people enjoy it, that's the important thing.

Airbus aircraft are waaaaay more complex than Boeing. I have AOM's, FCOM's and QRH's of the 747-200/400, A330 and A380. There's a lot more involved in an A380. At least to the level WE want to make it. From what I have seen, there is no airbus available that comes remotely close to a study level airbus. That might change when FSLabs get their Airbus out, but they've been working on that since 2010...and for a very good reason.

1. This is correct. There are over 250 custom lights in the Saab and the landing lights and taxi light are just a couple of them. Custom lights require HDR to be on to work. 2. Could you please post a screenshot or elaborate a bit more. 3. Not sure what might be causing this. If you are using a manual start, it's likely you might be missing a step that is easily overlooked. Make sure the Condition Levers are in the START detent. The levers will slightly "snap" into position.

Won't be done for a while. We're looking at near 100% systems simulation, and that takes time.

I understand, but why would you be getting such low fps with a 680 card at such low settings?? This is almost definitely something happening at your end. You have a more powerful computer than me, and I was running x-plane at mid to high settings and never went below 23fps when testing the Saab.

Cameron beat me to it.

You don't need the Saab or Gizmo to be installed to provide a screenshot of your render settings. That screenshot will tell us a lot about why you are getting single digit fps.

Of course, there is no way of knowing what they do. But should they "break" something, and then make a post in the forums saying "This part of the aircraft doesn't work and here are the steps I went through before the problem came up" without mentioning the modifications they made, and then we try to recreate the problem on several different machines, it's a safe bet it's because the user made a change somewhere in the add on or there is something seriously wrong at the user level. If we can't recreate the problem, then there is nothing else we can do. People need to understand that when they mess with something, they take all responsibility for it. If someone makes changes, they should not expect help from us because it is simply wasting our time. I don't have a problem with people breaking down any add on I make if they want to learn something, but there is a very clear line as to where they should stop. Not meaning to sound grandiose, but when a developer or development team spends 3 years on a product, 7 days a week, it's probably not a good idea to mess with anything in the final release.

Trust me, it is much easier to see out the windows when flying without the use of wipers than it is on the ground. The airflow over the windows will blow the rain off very quickly when flying at high speed.

Valentin You most certainly can not do whatever you want with it. It is not to be made available as freeware. It is not to be modified and then to expect support after modifications. It is not to be resold. It is not to be shared. There are many more. So no, when someone buys an add on, they certainly are not allowed to do whatever they want with it. They do not own the add on. They own a license to run the add-on on their own computer. That is all. If someone wants to truly own the Saab we made, to do whatever they want with it, it would cost a lot more than $54.95.

The speeds I added in there were only for reference. Some I ignored because I relied on the testers to verify the speeds. Also, just to clarify, the figures in that section have no effect on the flight model. To be honest, I've been flat out working on the Citation and can't remember some of the Saab figures. I'll try to get the numbers for you, but no promises.

Holy thread revival, Batman!

Thanks for the kind words, Simon! Very much appreciated.

Not at all.

Does he want it? Yes. Will he get it? No.

Show off

You can have up to 5 charts to choose from and they can be changed at any time during the flight using the charts pop-up panel. Just put a check mark in the chart you want displayed at any time.

So you were "dolanfish"?

Did you turn on the avionics? (Double switch in the upper right of the main panel)

Basically, you can study the acf file all you like, but the vast majority of this aircraft, in particular the engines, is run by Gizmo with acf figures providing a starting point. The entire engine system has been coded from scratch. We had to manipulate a lot of figures to provide this starting point, but, even if you're going in there just to see what we did, please do it knowing that the engines, as well as most of the other systems, are being driven by code. This is actually one of the reasons I wish we could encrypt our files. Not for "security", but because we know some people will start asking why we did some things we did.

Did you set the ADF radio mode to ADF? By default, it's set to ANT. If you leave it to ANT, the needles will not work.

I'll run through the doc's one more time and check the flap speeds.

Not yet.

Will check.