Muskoka

Will do Cameron, thank you. Glen

CYOW is just another waypoint along the route. It also happens to be the destination. The MFD say there is still 58NM to go to CYOW, just like it says there is 22NM to go to ASHTN and 25NM to go to VISOL, which is correct, 58NM left to go to CYOW is not correct. It's not that difficult, the range ring is 40NM, CYOW is inside the 40NM range ring, yet the MFD says there is still 58NM to go to CYOW. After CYOW you see the Missed Approach Waypoints, they are beyond CYOW, the destination, and shouldn't be included in a calculated distance to destination. What if I included a waypoint that was 1000NM past the destination. Would it be correct for the MFD to say I had 1075NM to go, even though that waypoint is past the destination. How else do you calculate your TOD, if you don't know the proper distance to the destination. I don't know if it's currently including the Missed Approach Waypoints, but if it is , it's shouldn't. Hope that's clear now. Agreed, maybe time to switch. This only happens in XPX, never see it in XP 9.7. In the previous version, I had a saved flight plan for the CRJ in XP 9.7, I copied that saved flight plan over to XPX, loaded it in the CRJ and it worked. Now it doesn't. Your respone doesn't address the question (?). The flights plans are either interchangable between XP9.7 and XPX, or there not, they used to be. In other words I could input a good flight plan in XPX, save it, and then copy it to the proper location in XP 9.7, load it in the FMS, and it worked fine, now they don't. Agreed, another ATI - XPX problem. No, but the temp does affect the Perf rating. If I don't put a temperature in, you get nothing, agreed. So, in XP 9.7, and to say again, this didn't happen in XPX, the Perf rating of 85.7 with a CLB of 250, was producing speeds pushing 300knots. This didn't happen in XPX, and it didn't happen in the previous version in XP9.7, but it does now. As it is now, it does not hold 250 knots, it used to. And when I tried to lower the Perf rating to 70, the speed did decrease, but so did the Vertical Speed to a very low number. In the previous version, in XP 9.7 it would climb out nice at around 2000ft / min, at 250knots (up to 10,000ft at which time I would increase the Perf rating and it would respond as expected), now it doesn't. The Vertical Speed is fine, the TAS and GS are not. That's why I included the actual weather so you would see it had little to no influence. It's has to be in the new code, because it worked fine before. And, to say one more time, it only so far has happened in XP 9.7. Philipp, I've been flying long enough to give you accurate information, and I do know how it used to handle. I've changed nothing on my end, other than the updated version of the aircraft software. I haven't changed how I fly today from yesterday, still do things the same. The only thing that has changed is the software. I'm only trying to help and make you aware of some issues that still are present. Unfortunatly, these issues are different between XP 9.7 and XPX. Glen

Hi guys, Well, first off, thanks for this very nice aircraft, you've done a great job. The download went without a problem, ran the installer for both XP9.7 and XPX, it did its thing, un-install / re-install, all went well. Now, I haven't tried it in XP9, so nothing to report there yet. When I started XPX, it loaded the last aircraft used, C172, I then selected the CRJ and it almost immediately crashed to desktop. Thought to myself, oh boy, here we go. Started up again, loaded the CRJ, and all was fine, who knows. Everything so far appears to work fine. Did my usual one hour flight from CYXU-CYOW, had to input the flight plan with departing runway, having the keyboard for input is real nice, thank you. After inputting the temperature on the Perf Page, noticed the different Perf limits, nice. The flight went without any major problems, I did notice a couple of things though. The distance to destination on the MFD didn't show the correct distance (see screenshot). Don't know if this is a CRJ or XPX thing. You'll see in the screen shot that the MFD states 58NM to CYOW, CYOW is inside of the 40NM range ring. It's not 33NM from Visol to CYOW, it's 10'ish NM. Also, the Chronometer / Date display doesn't show anything, it's blank. I cycled the function selector, nothing. Other than those very minor snags, it worked fantastic. Thank you. Glen P.S. Will try in XP 9.7, see if the little snags are there as well. Edit: Just started up XPX again to see what would happen. The Chronometer / Date is showing just fine. It seems anytime I switch screen resoloutions, or go from full screen to not full screen things act up. Probably a ATI driver issue, using the latest. Maybe time to try Nvidia. Another thing, when the sim first loads the CRJ, as soon as I move the hat switch on my Saitek yoke, the plane shuts down (the engines). The buttons are only set to view, nothing else. As soon and I reload the aircraft from the menu, it works fine. It's just after initial load, kinda wierd, but I know the workaround. Edit2: Just tried XP9, crashed as soon as I loaded the CRJ, restarted, all was fine. Chronometer is working ok, doesn't crash when I use the hat switch on initial load from another aircraft at startup. I copied the same flight plan I used in XPX over to "C:\Users\Glen\Desktop\X-Plane 9\Aircraft\X-Aviation\CRJ-200\plugins\CRJAvionics\routes" from that same location in XPX, and the waypoints do not show, dept / dest, that's it. Don't know if it's intended to be this way or not. Didn't have a problem copying flight plans before. Edit3: Had to toggle out of full screen to do something, toggled back to fullscreen and the Chronometer was blank. Edit4: The FMS logic doesn't seem to work as well in XP 9.7 as it does in XPX. In the screenshots you can see I'm in "FMS CLB 250" mode, yet with the predetermined Perf rating of 85.7 based on temperature I was pushing 300knots, way too fast for below 10,000ft. I started to decrease the Perf, and you can see at Perf 70.0 I'm still going TAS 273, GS 280, and the VS way going back and forth between -200 to say +600, and no higher. The winds were 151 at 12, should not have affected speed at all, perhaps just slightly. This was the same weather / winds as my first flight in XPX, and the airplane behaved totally different. Perhaps something to look at?

Thank you for the heads up Cameron. Glen

Ok, thanks Cameron. I purchased it through X-Aviation. Glen

How do we go about getting the update? There's a post at the org about e-mails being sent out telling thier customers how to get the update. How about those of us that didn't buy through the org store? Glen

Guys, I did a fresh install of XPX today (bugger for punishment) and the only thing I loaded / added was the CRJ. Here's the logs, sent to Laminar as a bug report as well. This shouldn't be happening, my system is more than capable of running todays software. Got 45 mins into a flight from CYXU-CYOW, was on descent, and the sim just crashed. There are a lot of HTTP errors, have no idea what their about. Settings are med-high, no AI, no HDR. Glen Log.txt crash_log.txt

I'm using the 12.1 Preview drivers from AMD. Seem to work fine everywhere else, doesn't mean they will with XPlane though. Are you running an Eyefinity set-up, I'm at 3840x1024? Could you post your Rendering settings when you have time? One thing I find funny, I don't have the issue in XPX where you think the demand would be a lot greater. With basically the same Rendering settings in both, I get a solid 45-60 fps in XP 9.7 and generally the low 20's in XPX, but it doesn't crash. Last time I tried in XPX, it didn't crash, and I had all my addon scenery loaded, and a pile of plugins. I will try a flight again in XPX, to see if it crashes. Glen Edit: Just tried a flight in XPX and there was a problem. Xplane didn't crash, but the engines shut down and I got an over g warning, going 360 knots gs into a 20 knot headwind at about 16,000ft on climb out in good weather. XPX is still too buggy, or something is too buggy to test properly.

Hi Philipp, I'm using Win7 64bit with 8gb of ram and a 2gb video card, I'm not running out of memory. Vram usage last time I looked was around 800meg in the Rendering options. I did read about the Airport Navigator plugin, but there were reports that ver 1.1.3 wasn't an issue, so that's what I'm using. I run the exact same set-up in XPX, (custon scenery and plugins) which is a lot more demanding than 9.7 and I don't have the problem there. I'll do some more testing, and hope they get XPX a little more polished so I can say goodbye to 9.7. Glen Edit: Here is the log.txt from todays crash, no Airport Navigator. Log.txt Edit2: Just tried another flight, only plugin was Gizmo, took all the Custon Scenery out, dropped Texture Res one notch, no crash. Wow, have to get vram usage under 450 meg for the sim not to crash, and I have a 2gb card, how much does the CRJ use?? I mean it looks great, but what are people doing with 1gb video cards. They would have to turn their rendering settings wayyyy down, oh well. Thanks Philipp, don't know how to mark it as "Solved", but were done.

Posted this in the General help section, think it needs to be here. Original post: Hey guys, until they sort out XPX I have gone back to XP 9.7. I'm having issues with it crashing every single flight (sometimes within 5 mins, other times .5 hrs). I really don't want to bother them with a 9.7 problem. Can someone look at my crash_log and log text and see if anything jumps out at them, something they may have dealt with before. I looked up a few things I saw in the logs, but I couldn't find any definitive fix / answer. Thanks for having a look. crash_log.txt Log.txt Glen Edit: One thing for sure, it's only when using the CRJ-200. Everytime it crashes, that's the aircraft I'm using. I removed all plugins, flew the Cirrus from CYXU - CYOW, no problems, re-installed the CRJ-200, same flight and it crashed. The crash log always refrences QtCore4.dll, here's the latest crash log. Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x68cd2d1f 0) 0x68cd2d1f (QtCore4.dll + 142623) 1) 0x68697e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x6869a114 (win.xpl + 106772) 3) 0x68cd1c51 (QtCore4.dll + 138321) Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x69392d1f 0) 0x69392d1f (QtCore4.dll + 142623) 1) 0x078e7e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x078ea114 (win.xpl + 106772) Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x20a72d1f 0) 0x20a72d1f (QtCore4.dll + 142623) 1) 0x20227e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x2022a114 (win.xpl + 106772) 3) 0x20a71c51 (QtCore4.dll + 138321) Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x69854cae 0) 0x69854cae (win.xpl + 85166) 1) 0x69857e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x6985a114 (win.xpl + 106772) Maybe someone could move this to their support area? I moved it. Thanks....Glen

Hey guys, until they sort out XPX I have gone back to XP 9.7. I'm having issues with it crashing every single flight (sometimes within 5 mins, other times .5 hrs). I really don't want to bother them with a 9.7 problem. Can someone look at my crash_log and log text and see if anything jumps out at them, something they may have dealt with before. I looked up a few things I saw in the logs, but I couldn't find any definitive fix / answer. Thanks for having a look. crash_log.txt Log.txt Glen Edit: One thing for sure, it's only when using the CRJ-200. Everytime it crashes, that's the aircraft I'm using. I removed all plugins, flew the Cirrus from CYXU - CYOW, no problems, re-installed the CRJ-200, same flight and it crashed. The crash log always refrences QtCore4.dll, here's the latest crash log. Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x68cd2d1f 0) 0x68cd2d1f (QtCore4.dll + 142623) 1) 0x68697e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x6869a114 (win.xpl + 106772) 3) 0x68cd1c51 (QtCore4.dll + 138321) Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x69392d1f 0) 0x69392d1f (QtCore4.dll + 142623) 1) 0x078e7e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x078ea114 (win.xpl + 106772) Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x20a72d1f 0) 0x20a72d1f (QtCore4.dll + 142623) 1) 0x20227e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x2022a114 (win.xpl + 106772) 3) 0x20a71c51 (QtCore4.dll + 138321) Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x69854cae 0) 0x69854cae (win.xpl + 85166) 1) 0x69857e6c (win.xpl + 97900) 2) 0x6985a114 (win.xpl + 106772) Maybe someone could move this to their support area? I moved it. Thanks....Glen

Thanks for the links. I actually just ordered another bu0836x board, will look into these for future projects. Price is certainly alright. Glen

No difference to me. They always looked fantastic, until you get to higher altitudes, they you get the double layered effect. Did a flight this morning (RC2) and the problem is still there. I did get an email stating that they are still looking at "fixing" the problem with the clouds, but other things were of priority right now. Fair enough, I won't let them forget. I did have a drastic hit in my fps when I was climbing out though. On the ground in rain and heavy cover I was getting between 60-70 fps in the CRJ-200, with settings fairly high, as I should be able to do with an i7 2600 clocked at 4.8ghz and a ATI 6970 with 2 gb ram and 8gm ram for the system. As soon as I popped through the clouds the fps dropped to 7'ish. Changed the cloud slider from 36 to 10 and the fps were in the low 20's. But at 10, the clouds had lost all their "body" looked to thin, and the whole effect was lost .Clouds are still an issue, as they have stated. Glen edit: The email also suggested to not use real weather as it's pretty hard on most systems. I don't so much think it's the real weather, but the clouds that it may bring that's the problem. I did a flight last night in the Carenado Bonanza with real wether, but basically clear skies and I was getting upwards of 100fps, and that was at 3840 x 1024, with settings high, no HDR, no AI.

Sorry guys for not getting back sooner, I did try with a different flight plan and it flew perfectly, both starting from cold and dark, and with engines running at start up. It was all my error. She's a beauty to fly. Glen

Thank you....that's sums it up nicely, although I fly mostly IFR at high altitudes. Glen

I don't think Xplane10 took it personal. I do though, I paid for the program. Not quite, this is how they have always looked from below, never had a problem there. As far as partly fixed, nothing was partly fixed. There was nothing wrong with it before, now there is. That's not fixing a problem, that's creating one. This really isn't tough to understand, I don't understand why you're making it so. It's not right and needs to be fixed. The bug reports have been filed. If you don't have something constructive to add to this conversation, why do you keep responding. Many users have a problem with the clouds, if you like them the way they are that's fine, we don't and are going to continue to discuss it until it's fixed. Here's a below cloud deck shot, it's always looked great, and performed great, if one knows how to set-up their system. From 30,000ft they look terrible. Glen

First off, you don't need to be rude. No one has been rude to you. There was, it was 3 sliders and they were taken away. That's fine, with the 3 slider cloud system they had the option of turning down certain settings until they achieved something that worked for them. That option no longer exists, it actually does, it's one slider that doesn't work as well as the old system. So the masses get to suffer, because a few can't set their system up properly. You have to be kidding, I hope. Since the change to a single slider, the atmospheric visuals have taken a beating when at altitude. Hopefully he can sort it out, or perhaps put things back the way they were, nobody had a problem with the clouds then. Lots of users do now. I don't understand why this is so hard for some to comprehend. It wasn't broke, why mess with it. Glen Edit: Be honest here, can you tell me you don't see something wrong in this screen shot. Well it didn't look like that before he changed the cloud slider system. Why should we accept it? I won't, and will continue to comment on it until it's fixed. I paid for the program, I expect a little more. Not stuff taken away.

I sent a bug report yesterday, no link to the topic though, just screen shots. Glen

And XPX DIDN'T have a problem (bug) until he messed with the cloud settings. It sure does now, fits right in with FS9, FSX in the bug department. Put it back the way it was in Beta 7 and move forward, and hopefully onto something else. Leave the clouds alone. Don't try to fix something that isn't broken, and the clouds settings were not broken. It worked great in Beta 7, it's doesn't work very well now. Glen

The update did nothing for the clouds when flying at higher altitudes, they still can look pretty bad. As far as improving over time I agree, but there was nothing wrong with the clouds at any altitude in Beta 7 and earlier, so we have to date taken a step backwards. Are the updates not supposed to improve things?? See my earlier screen shot for reference. What's with the double images. Others are seeing the same things. Glen Edit: As long as your below / even / or slightly above the clouds they look fantastic. Fly at 30,000 or above and they look rather poor.

Hi guys, love the aircraft, having an issue with the FMS. In the screen shot you can see I'm approaching YCF having already passed YSO. It seems to intercept and follow the track no problem, but the FMS waypoint is not updating as it still reads YSO which I passed a few miles back. Win7 64bit CRJ200 1.3 XPX 10.03 RC1 Now, I must say, this is not from a cold start. I'm loading the Cessna 172 first, then the CRJ, then re-aligning the IRS which seems to work fine. Is it not possible to use the aircraft from a running state at start, or am I doing something else wrong? Was just trying to save some time, jump in the plane and go. Glen edit: All is fine from cold and dark. Will have to try again from engines started.

Simon.... edit: happy birthday, here's a shot from RC1, clouds at 40. Below the cloud deck they look fine, get above and the same crap is there. Why couldn't he just leave them the way they were in Beta 7, they were beautiful, and fully adjustable for everyone's needs. Glen

Simon, don't go to Beta 10 yet. Something is definetly wrong with the clouds, guys are complaining on many sites. They are horrible compared to what was there in earlier betas. If I could go back to Beta 7 right now I would. Glen