Hi Build B337 is now in private beta and we have added some more enhancements brought up by you guys.1. We check the air file (FS9) and the panel folder (FSX) for AI and skip those aircraft.2. We have also added a checkbox on the options screen that will enable users with large amounts of flyable aircraft to skip the aircraft checks on startup if desired.3. We have added a button to the aircraft screen that will allow users to completely rescan the FS aircraft folders to synchronise the XPax and FS aircraft (including any updated configs etc)4. We have added code that scans the CofG of the current aircraft during boarding and deplaning to ensure that the CofG stays within limits.Once B337 has been tested by our beta testers we will release for public beta so you can test yourselves. Please read the statement at the beginning of this thread with reference to installing a beta version on your system. Please ensure that you Backup your installation of XPax prior to installing the Beta Service Release.Many thanks to all of you who have participated so far your input has been invaluable to us here at HiFi.ThanksCarl Hackmanhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-dev-sigbanner.jpg

Any sort of save function in this next beta release or are you just taking one step at a time so to speak?

>1. We check the air file (FS9) and the panel folder (FSX) for>AI and skip those aircraft.Ineresting. What prevented you from checking the air-file in FSX as well? The Air-Ed utility works on both as the file "type" value hadn't changed b/w FS9 & FSX. A lot of AI aircraft have erroneous panel folders which might give you problems with that meathod.Regards,

Hi all,B337 is now available.. here's the most recent change log:XPaxRevision NotesSP1 (B337):Fixes :- Fixed problem with approval not going lower than 95 regardless of deductions.- Fixed error message on startup related to Aircraft Screen.- Fixed error message when switching to Aircraft Screen in some situations.- Fixed problem where XPax would take a long time to scan aircraft on each startup. Improved to now re-scan only when aircraft data has changed (on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis).- Fixed problem where XPax would not properly open its main window on startup in some circumstances.- Fixed problem where XPax would not allow installation on Windows XP 64.- Fixed problem where video would not start/stop playing if Play Video option was off and then turned off in some circumstances.- Fixed memory leak that could cause XPax process memory usage to grow during the course of a long flight.- Fixed problem with weight control not properly reflecting total passenger + cargo weight in both FSX and FS9.- Fixed error during startup when regional decimal separator was

Since you locked my thread about the bugs in the latest beta builds of ASX and XPax, and I don't really want to open a new thread, I believe this is the best place to clarify my point.First of all, you say that if I don't want to participate in the beta program I don't have to. Well... Duh! I'm perfectly aware that this is beta software and using it is completely volountary. I also mailed my findings to the email address just as you asked to.The reason I was disappointed and posted here was because you have broken things that previously worked just fine! Do you have a closed beta team at all? Have they even tested the software? I can live with new features not working as advertised, but when things that worked in the first release are suddenly broken when trying to add new features or fix other bugs, one have to ask wether your team is actually worth my money. Especially since you on top of it all ask us to bugtest your software for you, and then if we state we're not happy about the direction the software is going (quality-wise), all we get is a comment about not beta-test and a locked thread.Sorry if I'm coming of a bit harsh, but for me both XPax SP1 Beta 337 and ASX SP3 Beta seemed to work less satisfactory than the current golden versions...Edit: I felt that I probably should add that it's not all bad for me, though... Some older bugs that seems to be fixed for me is that the estimated weight in XPax is actually very cose to the actual weight in FSX, and that when using a custom cabin, the first class/coach passenger amount is handled correctly on deplaning (previously I would end up with -16/16 or something like that).

Hi,I think this pretty much sums up why public betas are a bad idea.I made the decision to go with the public beta against my better judgement.We will soon cancel this program.To respond to your points, yes we have a closed beta team. Certain changes that went into the public beta build at the last minute did not make it to private beta. We put it out in public beta without private testing in order to get it out (much) quicker.Yes, we broke some things. It happens all the time. We try to implement new features as requested, or fix complicated problems, and sometimes that means other things get affected that aren't so obvious to us.That is why we run a beta process. It's just unfortunate that despite everything I'm telling you and others, you are going to feel that anything, BETA or not, that we release to public better be solid. Any bugs introduced are unexceptable, and you are going to publicly express your displeasure. This is problematic for several reasons that I won't get into.So with that said this will most likely be the last time we run a public beta. We'll wrap this up as soon as possible and get back to our private only beta processes.Thanks for your feedback!Please don't consider my 'feelings' directed towards you only. I understand where you are coming from and understand that many feel similar to you.EDIT - PS: Thank you for the bug reports, that was much appreciated. We have no problem with those! The 'part' that I'm addressing here is:"Just finished a short flight, testing the latest betas for ASX and XPax... And I must say, I'm not impressed. It seems that for every update, you fix one thing but break three others... "Best,

Well for my 2 cents worth,,, I always expect to have problems when beta testing anything. Thats the purpose of the whole program, to sse what problems have to be ironed out whether old or new. If no problems arise well then thats a bonus. Technically it's quality control. Be glad to have the opportunity to be a part of it and if ya can't handle it then gracefully leave the team.Keep up the good work guys!!

Hi Dave,Thanks for the words..I think the main thing is existing expectations out there. Of course its frustrating to deal with bugs, especially when you're seeing new bugs introduced into later builds. As developers we are equally (if not more) frustrated. In this community public betas a pretty rare, as this discussion provides insight to. Anyhow, a new build comes out and affects a user negatively, and since it hasn't received full QA before getting to their hands, they are unhappy and judge the software as being buggy.That's just the way it is.Labeling a build as a "BETA" release doesn't solve the problem. In this case the user knew full well it was a beta but was just frustrated that new bugs were introduced, and felt that this should not have been released to public yet. An argument can be made that he is right, it should have received more attention. If it did, it would require a full internal beta process, which would eliminate the need for a public beta. The goal of the public beta of course is to bring the new builds, which contain fixes for annoying problems, and improvements based on common requests, to our users quicker, despite the possibility of problematic bugs and a package that hasn't yet seen a full QA cycle.Really there is no way to win here as far as I see it. The public beta process probably is not a good idea as we move forward.Future possibilities, which could make things better, might include a two-tiered internal testing process, consisting of a smaller team to handle initial testing of significant development changes, then a larger team to handle compatibility and usage testing in a wider environment. The upside here is that the software gets full testing before it ever gets to the public's hands. The downside is much longer testing cycles with slower updates to the public.We're evaluating all that at the moment. Feedback is always appreciated!Best,

Hello, me again. :)Made another flight with XPax B338, and noticed that scoring now wouldn't go below 95 during normal cruise (i.e. when no penalties were applied).

Ok, I already have installed the new version B338 and works perfectly. The new options are perfect for my problem, because now the program will no longer check for aircrafts updates, and load times are very short.The program still consumes a lot of CPU time (with the video window off), and although I have a good processor (Intel Core 2 Duo E6850), I have to run the program on another computer and connect via LAN.I will continue testing and if I find something, I will report.Greetings.

For Tech supportBuild 340 of XPas, did not support 3.80 FSUIPC. Every time I started XPas, it stated that I must have 3.75 or higher of FSUIPC. I have the new version 3.80Just FYIRon

Are you guys planning on a flight save/resume option in the final release for instance if the computer has to be rebooted for some reason you can pick up where you left off?DaveESSB

Hi Dave,Sorry, but not with this SP.Thanks,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Hello everybody,Does someone have the soft working on a FS9 configuration ?I would like to know what are the settings for have it work properly (FSUIPC settings, FS9 version, anything relevant).

That is a super major missing feature in this or any addon for Flight Simulator in my opinion.Dave