Longranger

Well for Macs the background was more on a touch display you move the text up. But in fact 6this is the total opposite to the much older windows implementations , since they had scroll wheels for a very long time. The arrows follow exactly the same logical principal: You move the text, that you currently disply up , so that it can now show the lower parts of the text. Nothing unnatual in this concept. In fact, you could say that it is the more logical view since you want to move the text and not yourself.

I would guess that this was not the idea. There are simply two ways to implement this. In fact on Macs by default you have to push the scroll wheel up to get to the lower parts of a document. At least you can turn the direction in the preferences, otherwise i would go crazy if i have to switch between the Mac, Windows, Linux and Solaris...

This is correct for existing customers! Now think about an environment where you have mostly FSX/P3D users and I try to think around how to write a News Update around Leading Edge before we get every week or every few weeks: Carenado has released ... and added .... . That's the thing I am currently "working" on. .. By the way, thanks to Goran and Ben that I really have something substantial to write. And I have try to write it in a way that not to many people voice "their" opinion about Leading Edge. For the NewBies Leading Edge will be a small company and they have in their opinion nothing new to offer. They have Saabs, they have Citations. On the other hand it is pretty obvious how much work Carenado puts into this plattform and there are airliners from FlightFactor. Everything else will be small fry with the exceptions of PMDG and Aerosoft. Perhaps my Advantage is that I only switched with X-Plane 10. It is really difficult to say if I would have made the jump without Carenado and slight promises for a jet, the CRJ from Aerosoft...Like many newer fans know the Boeing 777 or 757 from Aerosoft... And the work that was put into projects like simheaven, the work done by AlpilotX. This is X-Plane for them. After they have crossed the bridge. Sure, I could wait to write something about Leading Edge but if they occur, when there is something substantial from Carenado or the release of the FlightFactor A350 I am quite certain that this will be considered much more important.

Sure I read your post. But it isn't really easy to tell people : "Trust their next update!", when you know exactly that it is a question of WHEN not IF someone replies: "Sure, I remember the DC-3 update and how long they took to fix the compass!" Sure, I know such problems (A quick update of the update installer that killed the update installer, for example), but I can tell you for most companies such a problem with an update is a show stopper for the whole crew till the update is fixed! People have a very long memory for this kind of things. So, sorry but I don't feel extremely confident if I hear: You will be thrilled when you get the next update. There will be a lot of people that will only wait and see.

Errm, that was exactly the question that several people came up with, when the first version of the Saab was released! No small wonder since for some of them the Saab was pretty much unuseable! But I can guarantee that you won't test it with the setup that people will use, when the next version is released. You aren't the only party that improves their product and you will not have tested them with some features that were just released a few days or weeks before your product. Furthermore you will only test A FEW features together with other programs. Otherwise your testers would go insane. There will always be situations that you didn't expect in the test runs. In fact I am a software developer myself, and in fact we just now had a release. So don't try to tell me what you can test and what you can't test. There are always a lot of bugs that you didn't found in your tests. And there are bugs that you wonder why they didn't gave you this report just two weeks earlier... You always have the problem that a bug is only fixed for customers, when they have the next version!

Don't believe on NO impact. That's the problem. There are a lot of other kids on the same playground. And they all want to do their own thing and everything works fine in their test cases! But bring them together...

No. This was a slightly different point. For the PilotEdge case you already had my feature request. This came up since at the same time I was writing I received a new twitch invitation for PilotEdge. But I am very confident that I could find a lot of situations where real reflections simply are the killer that suddenly brings your GPU into swapping mode.

Well, I wouldn't call it absurd it is simply a rather cheap trick that doesn't take a lot of resources or development time. In fact there is nothing absurd behind it. Dan and his Team simply take a step by step approach and they simply learn some things, that you can only learn in the real world. A Carenado machine normally works quite well, even if the computer has to handle Sky Maxx Pro 2.0 with a ZL 17 photoscenery and a world2x-pplane OSM map in Munich with every available airport in this environment. And now do the same with the Saab and a HD texture... In fact the B200 was probably a very cheap aircraft for Carenado, since it only used HD textures and was prepared for the new GNS 430. Otherwise it was more or less a copy of the C90. The B1900D on the other hand... better sound , better graphics, more features and only the same or even less resource consumption. You don't really have to think, that people are incapable to fill their machines to the maximum. You find a lot of newbies that tend to believe that Real Terra Haze is an absolute necessity for X-Plane. Carenado simply doesn't ask for perfect solutions, since there are none. Sure real reflections in the Window would be nice to have, but how much time and money does it cost to develop this feature, what is the additional resource consumption, how many people rerally want this feature and how many people will damn this feature since it slows their planes down? For a perfect solution you would really need three options: 1. No reflections 2. Faked reflections 3. Real reflections. Different users find different aspects that they need. In fact, when I started with PilotEdge, I learned pretty fast to go through my planes with a very fine comb. And the plane that really didn't fit was the Saab. In fact I think that for Dan Klaue it is more a necessity nowadays that a new plane has to work well on PilotEdge, since more people will stream it... more people will see it and more people will buy it.

It is based on the FSX MATERIALS! I don't want to search the really ancient threads but when it was developped Heinz said that they got the Fotos and maps that were used for the FSX version but then they used their own tools. So EHAM is so far FSX based as the Carenado planes are FSX based. Then they got into a totally different workflow. Dublin wasn't necessarily based on material for the FSX version but if you mask me the materials got into a workflow that was developed for FSX! The workflow and the complete thought process was obviously targeted for FSX, although they were developing for a totally different plattform. IMHO Düsseldorf was better targeted toward X-Plane than Dublin.

Mario it isn't as easy as you think. EHAM has one bi9g addi6tional problem Amsterdam. If you use OSM2XP or world2xp Amsterdam sometimes tries to compete with Paris! The city really killed on approach even without the scenery. While it was based on FSX material the people that worked on it more or less knew what they were doing. Anchorage had a different issue. I just now made a flight at Ted Stevens and it wasn't fun with 12 fps, but this had nothing to doi with the Airport but the mountains and the weather (foggy everything was dripping with rain, partly clouded with god rays, lens flare and so on) left a signific impression, but if you look at the objects they are rather plain compared with Dublin. Dublin has the problem that the city and harbour are near the airport. It increases the object load significantly since wor5ld2xp tneds to place a large number of smaller buildings. In fact there is a siginificant difference between the freeware and Aerosoft. While the freeware especially added to the older part of the airport that is more distant to the city, Aerosoft rather ignored this part of the Airport and instead increased the number of objects near the city dramatically.. We aren't talking about the airports alone and depending on the weather SkyMaxxPro can pretty much kill a flight (ok the use of the vFlyteAir Arrow III was another problem). But due to these extremly different settings and the large number available equiment I find it rather hard to make a simple performance comparisson. Mykonos or Santorin fly significantly different. Dublin is obviously still pretty much an FSX airport as its core nothing else! And if you consider the price IMHO it is fighting a loosing battle! Dublin and Ted Stevens

Well, my opinion about fps is: Normally I don't watch at my fps.But the important thing: No this Airport isn't the best airport Aerosoft released. If you were happy about Anchorage you will probably be happy about Dublin. If you complain about EHAM you should better use http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=21857 .

You speak about flying. I speak about fps tortures which means extremly low lefvel flying across the airtport (every normal pilot would loose his license for such flights, or in fact taxiing between the other planes directly in front of a termional and tower. For such purposes it is enough.

Well, I don't have any problems with EHAM. Even in the terminal area I have 15 fps. For taxiing okay, near a runway 25. Dublin between 17 to 22 fps. But my machine has sufficient capacity to handle such texture races (18 GB RAM and 4 GB VRAM). It is more the Carenado CT206H that holds the frame rate down.

They just released Dublin. They offer an additional "Scenery" on their download server that places static planes from OpenSceneryX on the Airport. The Airport itself is decent. Good night lighting and so on but nothing moves and nearly 1 GB big due to extensive ground textures. It is clearly below TrueScenery or Beti X Stuff and even Mykonos has a better quality, but at least the airport is a bit bigger than these competitors. IMHO it can't compete with EHAM but with Zürich.

I agree because this kind of equipment misses the core problem: X-Plane runs out of bus capacity or memory/cache capacities, while GPU and CPU have more than enough computing capacity at hand.

Could the radio control's be improved too? I have to admit, at the moment the Saab isn't really useable for VATSIM or PilotEdge.

Ok, downloaded the DC-3 a second time and finally the installation worked under Windowes 8.1.

Well, for me this installer is a problem. Contrary to the Saab and SkyMAXX Pro the installer doesn't work and only reports an Error Fetching URL.

Ok, thanks. So I don't have to do anything. Simply wait for the next version and then start the installer overnight.

Ok, and what is the official way to switch? My Graphic card had an identity crises and no longer wants to be called ATI but NVidia, its Version Number (5870) lost 5100 while its memory is now four times higher.. Simply delete the directory and restart the installer when the new Version is available, or something different?

I think you miss the real reason why the KLN90B isn't outdatet in X-Plane 10. Contrary to the X-Plane 10 internal waypoints and therefor the mini GPS of the Saab its database gets updates from Navigraph and NavDataPro.

One question due to the installer. I plan to buy the Saab in the next few days, but my X-Plane 10 PC has a rather slow internet connectionwhile my Notebook in genaral can use much faster connections. So I normally download planes and sceneries with my Notebook (that doesn't use X-Plane 10) and transfer it at home with the LAN. Is this feasible with the Saab or do I have to trust the limited connection speed of the X-Plane PC?

Well, I just bought the Mu-2 and the Cessna Corvalis on Friday and installed them on Sunday.. Previously I had installed the RC-1 and all seemed to work fine but then: Several hard crashes. Even X-Plane 10 didn't catch anything only Windows complained... The Logs showed an out of memory situation in SASL. When I moved the 64 Bit Gizmo to a different location (to diable it as usual), the crashes disappearted. Crashes with older SASLs wouldn't have worried me too much but I had at least one crash with the 777 (with the new SASL from Philip) and one with an Archer v2.1 and a Bonanza v2. I would presume even the Gizmo that disabled itself obviously had a significant memory imprint. But the situation is not clear enough to point any fingers. Perhaps X-Plane 10 reserves Lua memory for Gizmo, and didn't serve SASL from these reserves? Perhaps bugs in SASL or perhaps the 64 bit Gizmo still used some resources too much even in its diabaled form. It was at least obvious that the Gizmo plugin had a resource imprint bigger than 0.The SASL planes obviously felt if Gizmo was there or not. and the locations wherwe these things happened around Calgary (CYYC) and around CyZF, with alpilotx's HD Mesh, and Tony Curtis Canadian Rockies. I have to damit, I got the idea to disable Gizmo after another big rant by Dan Klaue about Gizmo ( http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=68387&page=5#entry745198 ) . who obviously had some weird Logs before. I had perhaps 10-12 crashes yesterday. So I think something isn't quite right yet, but what is the real cause? While there were other plugins active too (Sea Traffic, Red Flag, Discrete FPS, several autogates and so on, the connection between these crashes and Gizmo was IMHO obvious. But who is responsible? We are still in Beta. But Gizmo is always there even if no Gizmo plane is loaded so I have to admit that some arguments of Dan Klaue are valid. Something seems to be different when Gizmo is in the background.

We habe now an 10.22 RC 1 that obviously fixes the LUA problem under windows IF a plane with an SASL plugin at least uses SASL 2.0 which would mean another round of updates for all SASL planes. At least all updated Carenados (v2+) already use such SASL plugins,and Philipp offers a SASL preview for the B777. Generally they work fine, but there seem to be some indications of another Gizmo SASL conflict! Otherwise there will probably be a 10.25 version with some new textures and additions in autogen, while 10.30 will be the first step for automatical updates of the base sceneries and mesh.

Well, I could probably say time fliues, since the CRJ was released two years ago (although I bought it only in the feburary 2012 since I decided for a big switch with X-Plane 10, after I decided to freeze FSX August 2011). Yes the Dash 8 and the Mu-2 are older but they are in a different situation. The strength of the CRJ-200 is at the same time its weakness. While the Dash 8 and the Mu-2 had the advantage that they could also profit from new tools and features that were developped independendly. The biggest feature of the CRJ is at the same time probably its biggest weakness: the FMS. While the FMS of the CRJ was obviously a foundation for the FMS of the B777, which will be the foundation for the FMS of the 757, I am quite certain that the differences are growing from month to month. It gets harder and harder to merge features back and at one time it is simply easier to say: Okay this is only on general support, but I won't merge features back. The differences are simply too big. I think the CRJ already passed this point. It gets more interesting and makes more sense financially to simply design a totally new plane with all the new features that you now have, then to merge the "old" to the new standard. If we look at Dan Klaues statements it is quite obvious that even the older Carenados had past this point already and he had to rewrite several of the older planes. And in fact even after the update you feel the difference. IMHO the Mooney simply doesn't meet the same standard that the Cessna 172 or the Bonanza F33 have. But on the other hand it is logical. There simply is a limit what is feasible in a free update. You always have to consider: How many new planes will this update sell? For the CRJ-200 this number won't be very high, since the Dash-8 and the CRJ were updated X-Plane 10 and even 10.20 some time ago. The Mu-2 on the other hand will generate several new sales with its update. The old Mu-2 was simply not very attractive for people who started with X-Plane 10. The CRJ-200 on the other hand was really the MUST HAVE plane when X-Plane 10 was released. Now there is more competition and it is only a question of time when there are several new, and more attractive planes in its segment. And we arte talking about a C++ program which was started probably more than 3 years ago. You can bet that there are several functions in the CRJ that are simply clumsy and inefficient compared to the B777 or the B757. And if we look at the ATR. While ATR will probably get an update in the next few weeks I must admit that I don't see any real interest in this plane from McPhat or Aerosoft. I would even go so far to say that Aerosoft was more interested in X-Plane when X-Plane 10 was released than it is now. Although this will probably start to change. With projects like simheaven.com X-Plane 10 simply starts to deemonstrate its superiority even for FSX-Users. Now there are the tools and the projects that totally change the face of X-Plane.10. Simply take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYp9Irum-8E. While this mainly shows the new Anchorage airport, he also integrated the resources of a small change in the autogen buildings, which will become a small regional library for germany... Only with some modifications for the deafault buildings and some modifications from one of the old "standard" libraries... But even if X-Plane becomes more interesting for Aerosoft again they will be more interested to sell new planes that they develop and not this "old" plane that probably brought them more complaints than real sales. The ATR simply has nothing that would make it special. Furthermore it is not a typical GA plane and it is primarily VFR that will profit the most.