Pils

Fix is now available in current beta version.

You can try this untested script as a workaround https://github.com/pilsnerish/FlyWithLua-Scripts/blob/main/CL650_window_heat.lua

https://developer.x-plane.com/x-plane-bug-database/?issue=XPD-14670

https://discord.gg/PQXsUxmr

You’re not running in Rosetta either.

https://discord.gg/YKSdNTnb6b

https://discord.gg/YKSdNTnb6b

Right now it looks like a recent version of the simulator introduced the issue and Laminar Research are figuring out what happened. Hopefully we’ll see a bug fix soon.

I know it sounds silly, but X-Plane can also be silly... Look down, are the brake pedals depressed? Have you removed the chocks?

To match the existing First Officer.

Not that I know of. The script works fine, and even has audio to match.

That's the navigation source, that's unrelated to the processing configuration of the FMSes. Check the rear right of the pedestal.

Within the PERF function.

Check the reversionary panel, you probably have FMS3 active.

Thanks for the reply. Just trying to reconcile this with what Jan said. So, for example, the individual pax load stations will have different values from flight to flight, but the overall total will always be very close if not exactly equal to the number of pax multiplied by the average and the weight factor, with a balanced C of G? Thanks.

Yes, it's not built for an on-screen keyboard use, as that's a tiny tiny minority of users (you're the first I've ever seen). However, once you're in the gear bay then standing up is not a problem, there is room for that. Yes.

That's not how it works. You probably didn't do the right thing. Sorry for not providing more detailed instructions.

It's been stated that the XP 11 version would be made available upon request, however you should contact X-Aviation Support via e-mail before making a purchase to get confirmation.

Please provide details of attempted input along with screenshots of the CDU at the time. Thanks.

Oh, I had one question I forgot to ask; it seems like the "base" average weight is ~100 kg (multiplied by the "weight factor" when above 1.0), and there's no randomness when adding passengers to the actual payload, is that correct? Would you consider making the actual payload that's added in the background (to the load stations) be more variable as would be in real life? There's presumably several bell curves upon which airliners based their averages (summer, winter, adult, child, etc.). Excuse me if this is already the case, it wasn't clear from the post. Thanks!

Firstly, less CAPS LOCK, please. It's hard to read. Secondly, the way the airframe and state management system works this would not be practical. Thirdly, we don't want to dictate what exactly "Ready For X" means to every pilot. Fourthly, we want all pilots to take the time to become familiar with the aircraft enough to get oneself to these states. In the airframe manager window create a new airframe, voila back to the beginning.

I don't think these datarefs are for what you think they are. The transponder state will be reflected in the default X-Plane dataref(s) as this is needed by programs such as xPilot.

My advice is also this: if you or another person has signed into another account from the PC in question (which is what the error message indicates), even if it was for innocent reasons, then be 100% transparent with Support about how and why. Do not try to hoodwink them.