Morten

Not that I can remember.. Might be a conflict with some other 3rd party plugin if you have any installed. Try disabling those if so

Also, In your screenshot, I see you are in CWS mode (yellow txt on the ADI). The aircraft thinks you want to fly manually. This happens if you accidentally bump into your controls, or your hardware is spiking signals. Try increasing the "null zone" in the settings if so

You set LNAV/VNAV before departure? If so, on the Classic you cannot do this...you need to get airborne first.. (400' Jan?)

Not sure I understand you correct, but you cannot have both LNAV and HDG selected at the same time

You have XP v 11.10 or later?

IMPORTANT As I tried to explain above, as of IXEG v 1.21 the flight model is now updated to XP v 11.1. THIS MEANS THAT YOU NEED XP 11.1 OR NEWER FOR THE IXEG v 1.21 AIRCRAFT TO PERFORM AS IN INTENDED! So, if you use - say - XP 11.05 with IXEG v1.21, you will probably experience trim issues, aircraft nose wanting to lift off to early on takeoff etc. And possibly other strange issues. So if you for some reason wan't/need to stick with XP v 11.05 or older, stick with IXEG v 1.20. M

Wild shot in the dark, but how do you change your view to get to the FMC? Preset keys?, pan? Maybe try another way...

Well, I guess we have proven it IS possible (we can document it off course), although parts of ours is also "external" like the engine model and some other parts that are "modified". We spent about 6 years on our flight model, so it has not been a trivial task - but worth it. They choosing a different route is off course up to them, but just because they did not succeed does not mean that others can't! Not sure what they did, but I suspect it is highly table based since from what I understand it is ported from some other sim, and table based flight models have their share of weaknesses. In a way you could say we (IXEG) takes the best from both worlds. Also, on an A320 - that uses FBW (artificial stability and augmentation) - that you hardly ever fly in direct law, the dynamics are not as important from pilot or engineering perspective anyway as it is on a classic Boeing without FBW where you fly hands-on in "direct law" a lot of the time. But I wish them good luck, a great A320 finally would benefit XP a lot and attract more users from the other sim's M

The short answer... nonsense. If he is taking X-Plane/Planemaker "out of the box, as is" - which it might seem he is - there are limitations, simplifications and bugs, this is true. But it is in no way "bad". However, serious design teams "bend" the flight model in some areas to fit their aircraft using plugins, so in theory you can do almost anything by reverse engineering and programming like we do on the 737. So it is in no way impossible, but you off course need to know what you are doing. About "fake pitching" moment and CG, I'm not sure I understand what he is talking about, but X-Plane uses Radii of Gyration for momentum calculations. He might have missed that. It is just not practical or realistic for any normal XP aircraft designer to know how much each aircraft part weighs, it's distribution/density etc. Only the manufacturer of the aircraft will know that, and all aircraft are different. Should he have documentation for what he believes is off, the great thing about XP is that we can always discuss this with Austin (we do it often) and have it corrected fairly soon if we can prove it. X-Plane' flight model has been in development for some 20+ years, during this time hundreds of engineers have been working on improving it, and we will continue to do so

1. You intercepted the localizer or glideslope first? 2. You intercepted the glideslope from above or below?

Ok, this has been going in circles long enough so I am closing it. Obviously both of us had some blame in why we ended up here. Should you reconsider and take Jan's advice and give this a fresh constructive start, feel free to do so in a new topic

MTOW: We have put in the highest MTOW we could find good sources on. This so you can simulate any airline you want! The reason MTOW varies with airline has to do with landing fees and not really any physical limit reasons. Higher MTOW, higher landing fees. So airlines want to set their (paper) MTOW as low as possible. A charter airline that flies long sectors, full aircraft, with passengers stacked with luggage will need a higher MTOW on paper than a network company that flies shorter sectors with business pax with hand luggage. So talking about a specific MTOW is not really relevant except for the hard end of the envelope which very few if any airlines actually use in real life (AFAIK). And no we do not know what MTOW each airline uses, it might even be different for different aircraft individuals in each airline... CFM56: We model the -B1 engine as you can see on the FMC CoG envelope: You got that from me. Documentation: Could always be better off course

We have - and are still - here to help you with any problem you might have. However for this to work it also requires some usefull information from YOU, like you are trying to make a pfpx file (that someone probably already made), what kind of throttle you have (there are plugins and 3rd party software that might help you with your axis problem as I suggested). Further instead of repeatedly insulting us and trying to send insane big files via email, try atleast FIRST to give us a hint (chain of events) of what this "erratic" behavior is about, we just *might* know what it is and a screenshot is often plenty. If we need the video, we will sort that out then.

Not sure I like the tone in some of your posts Lude. You can see this in sim in XP's weight menu OEW 73.380 lb (Airline dependent) MTOW 139.374 lb (airline dependent) MLW 115.800 lb As for pax/cargo, x-plane only deals with "payload" (sum of pax & cargo)

.. or try to explain what is going on and take a screenshot or two if needed

The weights will vary from airline to airline dependent on interior configuration, operator type etc. CoG envelope will also very a bit with weight, but max envelope is about 4-30% MAC. Tom Stian' numbers are a good suggestion

That has been discussed many times, and the what is "better" depends on who you ask. There are pros and cons for both, and you obviously are coming from FSX so you are used to scroll. We hope to one day maybe have both options. You can post your video here, just attach it to your post

Maybe it gets confused if you pull just one knob and use A/T? From what I understand pulling the knob disconnects the FMC and you should use manual thrust and not A/T. So basically just a visual guideline for manual thrust, and you should probably pull both to avoid asymetric thrust. But better wait for Jan the expert..:)

If I recall correct, the pilots are right.... Jan can probably tell us. Older topic on similar subject

Maybe, we would have to ask the coders what is possible. One thing we do not want is for it to affect the flight model in any way... One thing to remember is that the real flap lever is not an "axis".. even if it maybe *looks* that way... would be very dangerous.... .

This is an XP thing. There are some scripts out there you could try, XPUIPC is one I think.

That is not enough, with a flap axis, your flap position could be 0,0000000001 (not zero) and everything still appear ok. But technically your flap is still extended.

Happy New Year to you too gmargodt! Very happy to hear that the aircraft brightens your day a bit! Over the years I've found that this hobby is a great way to escape from what reality throws at you sometimes, and I've seen it has helped other designer friends get through difficult personal times in the past. Hang in there, and and best wishes that 2018 will be a better year for you with more blue sky! M