Matei

Hi @Goran_M, Thank you for the quick reply . Giving the time of the year, I find it rather fast. Also thank you for sharing with me (us) a bit on the insights of your development . I have to admit, I am also a fan of a job done once and done right. All the best in the new year! Kind regards, Matei

Hi guys, I wish you all happy holidays (although I am a bit late I was wondering if we could get some info regarding the development status of the TBM 900. I am asking it from two perspectives: on one hand I really hoped that a compatible version of the TBM would be released around Christmas. That was of course just a personal wish. On the other hand, I am really curious how the work on the "libturbine" is going. It would be nice/interesting to get a short message from @Goran_M similar to what he wrote back in October. Kind regards, Matei

The microprofiler capture with the standard Gizmo. Will post a shot with the beta version when I load it again. Not sure if it actually helps.

The beta has serious FPS issues on my PC as well. The normal Gizmo works consistently better. On the TBM with the normal Gizmo I took a look at the microprofiller to see where the stutters are coming from. It turns out that the G1000 run time per frame is on par with the scenery generator time per frame. Other than that, congrats for the update/patch! It really seems that there are no uncovered aspects.

Hi, Thank you for the quick response. Very informative video. To answer your question, no, I have no reason to depart at 66% TRQ. I guess I was not paying attention. On the other hand, I had no idea that a nose down command is required on departure in order to maintain the 10 degrees attitude in the real aircraft. That seemed counter intuitive to me.

Sure thing, maybe I get to figure out if I am doing something wrong. All pics contain the relevant (I hope) data output from xPlane. Firs on ground, with payload Takeoff roll at 80 knots with QFE. Pitch up capture. Sometimes it gets worse. This time it did not want to . I have no input applied on the yoke. Level flight, autopilot, STD Baro, FL100 150 knots. Same story but at 180 knots.

Hi, Thank you for sharing the images. I see you posted two trim configurations, out of which, the first one is with the trim up, higher than the takeoff trim. I never reach that trim, in any flight configuration. In reality, I have to set it way closer to the DN mark than what you show in your real life photos. Actually is past what your xPlane screenshot shows, maybe one full tab thickness. Also at take-off there is a strong change of behavior to nose up at more than 20 degrees when going over the 120 knots mark. Would be interesting to mention where is the trim is, according to your experience, in level flight (and at which flight configuration).

Hi, I am currently flying your plane since about two weeks. We've already had our ups (or downs) regarding the ILS approaches. Installing the 2014 xPlane 11.41 AIRAC fixed everything. On the other hand, this very easy workaround is quite hidden between pages of posts. A sticky, next to the AIRAC already posted would make it more obvious. Among the things that I noticed, while flying the plane (and reading the forum) is that: there is absolutely no P-Factor on takeoff, I read all the pro and con arguments that were presented on the forum, but I still think that a certain amount of P-Factor would be a nice addition to the plane. In the end, it has 1800 hp (850 hp output). For a comparison, the default Cessna can be quite angry on takeoff and has only 180 hp. The second thing that I noticed is that: the elevator trim is completely off (at least graphically). The T/O mark is not in the right place, and with autopilot engaged, the elevator trim stays the whole flight between the TO mark and the down position. I checked the data output from xPlane and it turns out that the trim position stays only in the negative range. I find it hard to believe that the real airplane has that much up trim space available. There is also a considerably pitch up tendency above ~120 KIAS. The last thing, is more a refinement, regarding the cruise speeds. In the TBM 900 brochure they present a couple of flying configurations, among which the maximum speed at FL280 (330 KTAS) and FL310 (326KTAS). While running CAVOK preset, 29.92 QNH, no winds I got the following max speeds: Using experimental flight model: Vind kias Vind keas Dasboard V ktas ISA Wind Temp Alt QNH 204.73 200 200 315.27 0 0 -40 28000 29.92 193.81 189.1 189 314.8 0 0 -46 31000 29.92 Using "standard" flight model: Vind kias Vind keas Dasboard V ktas ISA Wind Temp Alt QNH 212 207 207 326 0 0 -40 28000 29.92 202 197 198 327 0 0 -46 31000 29.92 Regards, Matei

Hi, First of all I would like to tell you that I really enjoy your product. And I mean it. Unfortunately, the following part of the post will be a bit rougher... I read through the comments posted by other members, regarding the ILS problem. In reality this is a deal breaker, and maybe they use rougher language than they should, but especially the ones that bought the product recently, are extremely unhappy with this issue. First let me put this in perspective: The model costs about 65$, which is about the same price as the whole X-Plane game on Steam. That makes it relatively expensive. Some people argue that it is the most expensive GA aircraft. Can you see the reason why your (new) customers are angry that a very basic system is completely not working? Now, why am I actually bothered about this ILS problem: It is nowhere mentioned on the x-aviation website that the model is at the moment bugged. It is sold as per description, which is very comprehensive. In my opinion, as developers you had a couple of options to deal with such a problem: Remove temporarily the plane from sale. That would prevent angry new customers until the patch is out. Mention somewhere visible that the model has a problem and that a fix is in development, so that if an user decides to buy your product, at least he is informed about the situation. Had you done one of the things above, I would have been informed, and delayed my purchase. But I guess 65$ more for you is more important that satisfied customers. All that your customers want from you, is to know a approximate date for the real fix. Workarounds that affect the other airplanes form the game are not a solution. It would be nice, if you could make a post with the information regarding the expected patch date. Also, one of your remarks, is that we are "wasting time writing posts [...]", in reality we, the ones writing posts, are your customers and we are letting you know that your (expensive) product has a problem. Lastly, that paragraph 8 that you quoted is not holding true against European Electronic Commerce Law. All online purchased products are having a 14 days return policy or another form of quantification (Steam has 8h of product use, Google Play has something similar). Let me remind you that if you accept a purchase initiated from within EU, and having EU billing details, you have to respect the EU law irrespective of where the online shop is situated. Maybe you want to talk to somebody from x-aviation, because that clause might escalate sometime. Regards, Matei