CJSouthern

Translation: "Lot's of 'PR speak' but we're not yet even at a point where progress is worthy of an update". That's depressing, but somehow not surprising. What an appalling way to treat customers. I'm out. Unsubscribing & (probably) selling up. /DoneWithThis Nonsense

Reading "between the lines" I suspect what everyone would like is simply a projection of when - at the current rate of progress - we're likely to see some results. Open-ended timeframes that go on for this long with no end in sight don't cut it IMHO - they're just demoralising; to me they feel like a lazy, arrogant response. I don't need an exact date - I'm not going to "hold" anyone to it. Communication is key; things happen - I get that (I run a small company too). As their customer, what I would appreciate is something along the lines of "Sorry about this chaps - we didn't think it would take this long, but we've come up against "this, this, and this" challenges, and to overcome them we're doing "this, this, and this, which we anticipate will take us about "xx" months to solve at this time". If the goalposts have to be subsequently moved that's fine - just keep us updated. The current "strategy" is akin to treating me like a child. I'm not a child. One thing that I can say with certainty is that if I treated my customers with this little respect then I wouldn't have any left.

In all seriousness, after waiting almost 2 years, I'd be happier if I just knew what year it will be seen again. 2024 is almost over; what are the chances that I'll see it in 2025? (I'm an old man now and I don't have too many more years left).

From my perspective, when the TBM was the flagship product things were much different; once the Challenger 650 took over pride-of-place, the TBM appears to be "out of sight, out of mind, and out of favour". I can't speak for others, but I personally have no interest in heavy metal - no interest in poor-quality simulations - no interest in low-performance GA aircraft - and absolutely zero interest in games like MSFS; so for me, it's not a case of "the TBM 900 being my favourite aircraft" as it is "the TBM 900 was the ONLY aircraft I enjoyed flying"; but under XP11 that experience now feels extremely dated. I also have XP12 but never use it because it doesn't have the TBM. So at present I just don't fly sims anymore; it's got to that point for me - which is why I'm getting thoroughly disheartened at never hearing more than "yes we're going to adapt it. No we can't/won't give you a time frame"; we've had that for almost 2 years now - and nothing to suggest that we won't still be hearing the same after 3, 4, and 5 years. I know that having to re-write the turbine library isn't a trivial task, but it needs to be given a higher priority and more resources; I for one would be more than happy to pay full price again for a XP12 compatible model. We've been patient - we've put our thoughts and feelings as diplomatically as possible - but at the end of the day we're powerless and at their mercy. At this point, for me, it's gone beyond disappointing into just damn depressing. Sigh. I'm feeling very let down; it's like having a missing pet and not knowing if you'll ever see them alive again.

Let's all not forget to wish X-Plane 12 a happy 2nd birthday next month. I'm looking forward to using it (if there's ever a compatible TBM aircraft released for it). Please Santa - I've been a good boy for the past 2 years.

I have, unfortunately. XP11 is too long in the tooth for me now and - despite looking - I just can't find ANY other plane that appeals to me; I'd rather stick pins in my eyeballs than fly heavy jets - and available GA aircraft are either ridiculously slow or ridiculously badly designed. So at this point I've just given up simming and am using the time to get some hiking in which - truth be told - is probably better for my 63 year old health anyway ... I appreciate that the TBM authors also have other priorities, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in the time it's taking; I'm wanting results, not explanations. I'd happily buy it again if it sped the process up.

The "big" question is possibly "were the failures in flight?" or "were the failures that resulted in everything being marked as 100% damaged just the result of the ensuing crash?". Case in point, just the other day I had something that appeared to be similar; I was descending from FL 310 - I was a bit puzzled by the dropping airspeed - and then all of a sudden all hell broke loose; I was unable to control the aircraft and ended up crashing despite pausing the sim several times on the way down to "think things through". It dawned on me a couple of days later that it was due to icing; I didn't have the various icing protections on (apart from Pitot heat) and I don't normally have long periods descending IMC. So it was just a case of some bad habits catching me out. Perhaps something similar? All I can suggest is to have the sim set to not throw any failures, and keep an eye on the maintenance (I scan mine after every flight and replace anything that's not "as new"). I have had periods where I've had unexpected things happen (like an engine quit for no apparant reason), but of recent it's been pretty good.

I'd pay serious money for a study-level Piaggio Avanti EVO; With your experience in existing multi prop turbines this could be right up your ally? One of the few passenger turboprop aircraft faster than a TBM.

Same. I've tried several of the others and they just don't come even close to the pleasure it provides. In a moment of weakness I even reinstalled MSFS2020 hoping to find something better (and ended up uninstalling it, again, less than a day later; that simulator ie "game" just isn't for me). The only thing I would enjoy more would be a TBM 960 (having auto-throttle would be perfection). For me, having tried the generic VisionJet, C172, and F14, XP12 now sits unused whilst I continue on with XP11 and the TBM900 ... and continue waiting & hoping (in equal proportions).

Thanks for the update. Fingers crossed that you'll be able to get everything done that you need to sometime this year.

I purchased X-Plane 12 yeasterday. I'd love to say that it "blew me away", but the reality was that I was pretty disappointed; without my beloved TBM900 (the only airfraft I fly in the sim), X-Plane 12 is like a brain-dead patient in a hospital ... it's "there", but at the same time "all that I knew, loved, and remembered has gone". I took the 172 on a flight ... boring. I took the Citation on a flight ... even more boring. All I want is a TBM 900. As such I'll again be continuing on with XP-11 and the TBM 900 until we get the update. @Cameron& @Goran_M I appreciate that you good folks respond far more kindly to "carrots" than "sticks", and I know it involves more than just a "bit" of work (especially with the engine as you've previously mentioned), and I know that you're also busy with other things (like the Challenger) but even with all of that it's still my beflief that the wait for something like this should be measured in "a few months"; as it stands, it's looking more and more like the wait will be measured in "at least several years". I can't speak for others, but I would be more than happy to pay full price again (or even more) if it means I was able to get it up and running under X-Plane 12 in a more timely manner. If a gofundme page was setup to finance the new version being made a priority I'd happily donante a not inconsequential amount. I'm getting desperate here - and I suspect tht I'm not the only one.

Many thanks. FWIW I have XP failures turned off. Is there anything I can do to help you get to the bottom of it? Monitor DataRefs etc?

@Cameron @Goran_M Hi folks, Something to add to the whiteboard for when you start the TBM900 / XP12 update. For a while I've been plagued with seemingly random in-flight engine failures despite the engine being new or correctly maintained and being operated well within limits. I've traced this with 100% certainty to when using Ctrl + T to speed up simulator time (so I can have the speed of a jet whilst retaining the sim experience of a superb model and the ability to operate from short fields). I've been monitoring the Turbine wear DataRef ... it increments slowly as expected (even when at increased sim time) (I estimate several months of flying before a failure occurs) and then at some point - WAM - it's at 1.0 - engine is on fire - and I'm going down. Sometimes after only a few hours on a new engine - sometimes after a few days. This has happened a dozen+ times now and every single time it's when I've been at an elevated sim speed. In contrast, now that I've restricted myself to time 1.0, I haven't had a single failure. Would be absolutely superb if this little bug could be addressed when you do the update - it would make a HUGE difference for me. Many thanks, Cheers, Colin

"TBM930 and Xplane 12 - How long we have to wait? :-)" For a TBM 930? I'd say we'll be waiting a very long time. A TBM 940 with autothrottle would be even better!

Hi @david_wi, Not that I'm aware of. I can't speak for the developers (I'm just a user), but with the apparent focus being on an accurate simulation experience (ie not a "game"), I wouldn't expect a quick start procedure anyway; that's probably something more likely to be available for the TBM930 in MSFS2020 (which I class as a "pretty but hopelessly unrealistic flying game" far more than an accurate aviation simulation) (no flames please; I own both and as a licenced pilot that's just my opinion). Personally, I find most of the fun is in powering up the aircraft - configuring the avionics - starting the engine correctly - and just in general treating it with the reverence that it demands.

I understand that, but a cursory read-through what has been posted reveals few replies and even fewer genuinely helpful ones (TBH, many appear to be on a scale labeled "short & unhelpful" at one end through to "snarky and condescending" at the other. I could be wrong, but I have to wonder if it's not so much the CL-650 "being the priority" as it is a negative experience for many in the TBM900 forum turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If it's the former then there's probably not a lot I can do. If it's the latter then (I hope) there's still an opportunity to expend a little effort and show a little kindness to those who struggle with the aircraft (like I did initially) and rebuild the community. I feel the frustration of those having issues; they do a bit of Googling - end up here - post perfectly reasonable questions - and receive nothing of use in reply. If this lack of support is discovered by others pre-purchase then that will probably lost some sales too. From where I'm sitting it's just a lose/lose whichever way I look at it. And that's a pity IMHO.

Hi @quereataro, I'm only 62, but I feel like I'm catching you up! I apologise for the lack of quality/timely responses to your post; there was a time when things were different around here (very different), but TBM 900 support appears - for all intents and purposes - to have all but dried up completely, which is a pity because in my opinion it's still the best all-round aircraft for folks wanting a realistic experience when operating out of smaller fields. To answer your question, engine motoring refers to turning the engine over using the starter, but keeping the ignitors off and fuel flow shut off. If you engage the starter with the ignitors and fuel off it runs (off memory) for 30 or 60 seconds and then cuts off - or you can shut the starter off manually by pressing the starter switch to the lower position ("abort"). The procedure is necessary in 2 scenarios: 1. If your're wantng to start the engine again shortly after stopping it when the ITT (Inter Turbine Termperature) is still above 150 degrees C (ie the engine is too hot to start normally), or 2. The combustors are flooded with fuel (eg the throttle has been opened with the Aux Boost Pump turned on, but the starter and/or ignitors not turned on) which would result in an excessively hot start if ignition were to occur. In both cases simply turn ignitors off - keep the throttle in the cut-off position - and engage the starter for about 30 seconds. Wait 1 minute for the starter to cool a little - then attempt a normal start. It's a complex aircraft to master - and it's modelled very accuratly - so "if in doubt" download the actual flight crew manual for the aircraft (which detaiils the motoring procedure - and every other procedure). There are also some excellent YouTube videos from a chap called JasonTBM (who is the owner of the aircraft this model was designed against); one in particular shows the correct starting, taxi, takeoff, and climbout of the sim. If you can't find it let me know and I'll look for it for you. Cheers, Colin

Log attached. The only extra plugin that I have is the one for DataRefs; I tried disabling that but the problem persists. No other "weird settings" or custom scenery; it's a stock-standard X-Plane install - no additional scenery - and only 1 other aircraft in addition to the TBM. TBM900_Log.txt

Someone? Anyone? Things seem to have got very quiet around here since the Challenger 650 was released; No more support for the TBM 900?

Per the title; I can drag the mask onto the face outlline, but as soon as I release the mouse button it just snaps back to it's overhead holder. It used to work (but possibly this was a previous version). Any ideas anyone?

For what it's worth, I've long since had an issue where the throttle pops across to flight idle all by itself when moving from low idle to high idle -- and that's under Windows 10.

I had a couple go in quick succession; the first was after I selected reverse pitch whilst still in the flare - the 2nd a short time later was my first flight with the Honeycomb Bravo Throttle quadrant. Not sure if the 2nd was related or just coincidence. Might just pay to ensure that accelerated wear model is turned off and see how it goes -- might just be a coincidence?

I had the engine shut down mid flight once (was at 100.2% NG off memory). Never really got to the bottom of it, but it did draw my attention to a number of areas that I didn't know about: 1. Make sure that the accelerated wear model isn't ticked in the maintenance manager. 2. Personally, I check the maintenance manager after every flight -- might pay to zero out everything at the first sign of wear (it's not like it'll cost us real dollars). 3. Ensure that X-Plane isn't set to throw in random failures. Personally, I never really change the sim speed; instead, I just leave the AP on and set a timer on my watch set to for the next event (usually TOD). For me the model has been very reliable, but I have had a few "funnies"; the engine shutting off that day was one. Chocks reappearing quite often is another. Throttle transitioning from high idle to normal operation with only low idle to high idle has been commanded (this improved (but wasn't eliminated) after I had to completely reload my PC from scratch after an issue) - and new "doosy" whereby I'll try to change the FLC speed with the mouse and it keeps changing the altitude selected instead. Few others that might (but I don't think so) be finger trouble that are AP related. I've just learned to live with them; most are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things ... just too time consuming to try and track them down (keeping in mind too that I don't have any addons installed). Just the nature of the beast IMHO; hellishly complex pieces of software that are only 99.9999% perfect.

I'm using the Honeycomb Configurator to create 3 press events for when I press the PTT switch on the yoke, using the following commands: sim/annunciator/clear_master_caution sim/annunciator/clear_master_warning sim/flight_controls/brakes_max Unfortunately, none work. I've done the following fault finding: 1. Tested other commands attached to events for that switch with a stock XP11 aircraft. They work as expected. 2. Tested "native TBM-900 commands" (eg tbm900/actuators/fuel/aux_bp_up) and they work fine. 3. Ensured that nothing is bound to that switch in X-Plane settings. So on the face of it it's looking like the only time it doesn't work is when I'm trying to issue non-native commands to the TBM-900. The only possible thing that I can think of is that the documentation in the ...\TBM-900\documentation folder is outdated and that the TBM-900 model is using it's own undocumented commands for the 3 actions I desire. Any thoughts anyone?

Sorted. I had an extra "," in the profile which was rendering that section of code inop. For what it's worth, the Honeycomb Throttle Quadrant is a fantastic piece of kit for the TBM 900; I've never enjoyed flying it as much as I have the last couple of days since I got the new hardware. Highly recommended. I also now have a great profile for it if anyone needs one (attached) (although it still needs a lot of XP control associations). TBM900.json