Hello, everyone.Just a quick feedback to update from 9.22 to 9.4. b2. It will not work in my system. Vista 64, SP1, ATI combo. During installation / down load procedure it got some Errors about the Scenery, restarted the download / install, and completed successfully. Trying to run it would only run at some default airport, in some mountains, with fractured runway. Trying to go to my home, KSNA airport generates a "Program stopped working" exiting the XP9 Error.Stay away from this, unless you have something that does not work not work now, my set up worked fine before.This procedure is a kludge, they need to make easily reversible, and be able to download it separately. Will give more details later, if interested, got to go for now. TV

Hello, everyone.Just a quick feedback to update from 9.22 to 9.4. b2. It will not work in my system. Vista 64, SP1, ATI combo. During installation / down load procedure it got some Errors about the Scenery, restarted the download / install, and completed successfully. Trying to run it would only run at some default airport, in some mountains, with fractured runway. Trying to go to my home, KSNA airport generates a "Program stopped working" exiting the XP9 Error.Stay away from this, unless you have something that does not work not work now, my set up worked fine before.This procedure is a kludge, they need to make easily reversible, and be able to download it separately. Will give more details later, if interested, got to go for now. TV

Yes its a beta, expect problems... The easiest way to revert is make a copy of your XPlane 9.31 RC before installing the beta over the top, then just copy back if you need to.Also... beta 3 has just been released!

Yes its a beta, expect problems... The easiest way to revert is make a copy of your XPlane 9.31 RC before installing the beta over the top, then just copy back if you need to.Also... beta 3 has just been released!

I find a lot of improvements in this beta-first it doesn't crash every minute or two on my nvidia card-in fact no crashes yet-this is a new one for me since I bought xplane again earlier this year.The twitchies seem gone at altitude-control is good here (guess it wasn't my joystick as some sites claimed).I still can't takeoff or land a plane -lol - the most crucial phase- the brakes squeal (sounds like a bad car-never heard the such in a plane-this needs to go) , the plane yaws back and forth and every rudder correction causes an increasing oscillation which quickly becomes uncontrollable and ruins the experience. I actually haven't been able to make one takeoff yet-or landing-embarrasing..I flew in an Arrow today-and the in the air experience in xplane duplicates the experience once at altitude-much better than fsx-big time (though the dutch rolls are more appropriate to an arrow than my heavier Baron). Now work needs to be done on the takeoff and landing part-big time. Glad the enroute portion has been made better but not being able to takeoff or land a plane is a big one....and what happened to the rain? I said a few months ago it was the most realistic rain I had seen in a sim. It suddenly isn't anymore-in fact it is downright ugly......and of course the aircraft I put hours into making doesn't work at all right anymore-gauges, instrument readings etc. I have a Baron I bought for xplane in January-it has not yet been updated though the manufacturer said you would get upgrades, and doesn't work very well in this version.I still think this sim has the power to possibly surpass what fs has ever done-but making aircraft obsolete at every beta does not help the developers or the end users, end users finding freeware/payware they have paid for obsolete is not helpful imho.P.s. I did have two baby deer run on to the runway and then off today at takeoff from krmy along with a couple near collisions with hawks. Xplane does this extremely well.. people ridicule fsx for having this in a limited way-but it is a factor-and xplane does it better...

I still can't takeoff or land a plane -lol - the most crucial phase- the brakes squeal (sounds like a bad car-never heard the such in a plane-this needs to go) , the plane yaws back and forth and every rudder correction causes an increasing oscillation which quickly becomes uncontrollable and ruins the experience. I actually haven't been able to make one takeoff yet-or landing-embarrasing..I still think this sim has the power to possibly surpass what fs has ever done-but making aircraft obsolete at every beta does not help the developers or the end users, end users finding freeware/payware they have paid for obsolete is not helpful imho.

No problems here.... Do you need to tune the sensitivities in the joystick settings in XP... I make mine non linear, since cheap joystick/yoke doesnt have very good travel or resolution.Re obsolesence, it's a beta so anything goes. I would wait till 9.4 RC before confirming it's obsoleted a plane... Probably not too hard to fix anyway?

Hi MatthewS and everyone."Yes its a beta, expect problems... The easiest way to revert is make a copy of your XPlane 9.31 RC before installing the beta over the top, then just copy back if you need to."Yes, that's one way to look at it, a poor way, but your way. I should back up 80 GB of data because some amateur Programmer, that's obviously trying to make money wit this product does not want to do things properly. I am at the point where I have no more time, at least for now, to devote to this, whatever you want to call it, fill in the blanks____.Here is the latest error, and No there is nothing wrong with my Server or connection, everything else works perfectly.And releasing a Beta does / should not imply, or be accepted as being a waste of time to the customers.They need to let us decide what we want to install, I want to try the basic functions first, and I may not care about Briefer and other things.This is going into the FINO file AKA Thrash, at least for now.Thanks for your help, I hope you understand this is not intended to be directed at MatthewS. TV

No problems here.... Do you need to tune the sensitivities in the joystick settings in XP... I make mine non linear, since cheap joystick/yoke doesnt have very good travel or resolution.

Yes...there is a gap in reality here...was asked the same about cruise flight-but suddenly it is good now with this beta without adjustments in my joystick-suggest the same is needed in the other realms......

Yes, that's one way to look at it, a poor way, but your way. I should back up 80 GB of data because some amateur Programmer, that's obviously trying to make money wit this product does not want to do things properly. I am at the point where I have no more time, at least for now, to devote to this, whatever you want to call it, fill in the blanks____.

Don't backup the global scenery just the rest. Should only be about 3GB to 4GB then.Not sure why you think Austin and Laminar Research are "amateurs". They are a successful company with many thousands of customers. Don't know why cant download but maybe try a reinstall, but surely it's more likely an internet issue.Remember, 9.4 is in beta. Some people will have issues.

If you read the first page of the manual it says that you need to understand basic DOS/UNIX commands... copying a directory over isn't too much too ask now is it? Otherwise if you can't handle that don't bother using the app it's for engineers and hardcore gamers only...Geofa: If you can't take off and land in x-plane I don't know what to say other than you shouldn't be commenting about x-plane. :( And with regards to the FAA... like I said.. NONE of the Redbird flight models have been verified by the FAA to accurately represent the Cessna172... just the g1000 integration. You can do that for much less than 60,000.. I've seen similar rigs without motion for 1/5th the price.

["Geofa: If you can't take off and land in x-plane I don't know what to say other than you shouldn't be commenting about x-plane."I think if a commercial multi rated pilot can't takeoff or land a plane in xplane, he should be commenting on it....hopefully to add some constructive critic into making the sim better? :( I stand corrected though and should have said that I have great difficulty on takeoff (especially) or landing in Xplane as it does not react in an expected or realistic fashion. Although the pitch axis seems to have been much improved in this new beta the rudder axis is just too squirlly and causes an overabundance of increasing uncontrollable oscillations on takeoff with squealing brakes that sound like a kid's car game.I assume this is the "blade element" is at work, also makes landings like an test pilot in a inherently unstable unproven design. Cruise flight has it down and I find much superior to fsx, but the other aspects need to be improved. Stability and momentum needs to be modeled in this sim, and seems to be the problem with "blade element"."NONE of the Redbird flight models have been verified by the FAA to accurately represent the Cessna172"You really need to read the Faa circular on requirements in AC-61-136 (link I provided above). So far you have said 1) fsx/esp does not qualify 2) then Fsx/esp does not qualify because it doesn't use "blade element", 3)then Fsx/esp does not qualify because it doesn't generate enough fps. All these suppositions are simply not correct, and fsx/esp has met faa requirements and is being used. I have provided links above to show this.Now you are stating something about flight models being verified by the FAA? That is done in the certification-which Redbird already has....and this is what the FAA requires:Here is the specific language from FAA circular concerning flight models :Flight Dynamics Requirements:(1) Flight dynamics of the ATD should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. However, there is no requirement for an ATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft. (2) Aircraft performance parameters (such as maximum speed, cruise speed, stall speed,maximum climb rate, hovering/sideward/forward/rearward flight) should be comparable to the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented.(3) Aircraft vertical lift component must change as a function of bank, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented performs and handles.(4) Changes in flap setting, slat setting, gear position, collective control or cyclic control must be accompanied by changes in flight dynamics, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles.(5) The presence and intensity of wind and turbulence must be reflected in the handling and performance qualities of the simulated aircraft and should be comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles.Redbird already passed this requirement or they would not have an approved sim. It seems that for several years xplane fans have been using the certified argument to prove that somehow their sim is better than the ms series and other sims(even though there were several other sims-arguably worse than both ms/xplane that also went thru the certification process and passed). It is a certification of hardware/software that gains certification from the Faa. This argument simply doesn't work anymore-period.A more interesting, timely, and useful question might be why a company like Redbird chose esp for their engine with a limited time license from MS instead of perhaps going with Xplane which does not have these limitations?

Hi MatthewS and AVN8tr.MatthewS, the reason I call them amateurs is because they exhibit all the signs of superficiality. Getting paid is only one element that defines professionalism. Start with their site / Installer, nowhere do they explain the process of how to fully accomplish the task. Half baked.The installer is set up to get the all the data that you may, or may not, need or want, aircraft, Plane maker etc

["Geofa: If you can't take off and land in x-plane I don't know what to say other than you shouldn't be commenting about x-plane."I think if a commercial multi rated pilot can't takeoff or land a plane in xplane, he should be commenting on it....hopefully to add some constructive critic into making the sim better? :(

And yes, I'll second the fact that Geofa is a commercial multi rated pilot..................who owns a Beechcraft Baron twin, and fly's it regularly! :( L.Adamson

Hi MatthewS and AVN8tr.MatthewS, the reason I call them amateurs is because they exhibit all the signs of superficiality. Getting paid is only one element that defines professionalism. Start with their site / Installer, nowhere do they explain the process of how to fully accomplish the task. Half baked.The installer is set up to get the all the data that you may, or may not, need or want, aircraft, Plane maker etc

Hi, MatthewS and everyone."I've never had any problems using their installer. Maybe X-Plane is not for you."The reason I post my feedback is not to belittle XPlane, or any other sim, is to make aware other customers, and the designer, of the issue and hopefully give them information and an incentive to improve the product. I think all of us involved in this hobby, especially real pilots, are doing it to have a better tool to maintain proficiency, in some cases we may want to use it to teach / instruct others etc., but it's not to tear it down. That would be equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. I spent a lot of time with the sims, and real flying because I enjoy it, and maybe help others to get a more realistic experience, save some money during training, and become safer pilots.Looking at XPlane, which has been around for quite some time, and given all the accolades that the designer is giving himself, it comes up short. Try to taxi a small GA in a max Xwind configuration, done all the time in real life, and observe it's behavior. I will guarantee you no real plane complains and moans like that. That is basic simming. If the designer is not willing to fix those kinds of issues, he or she, shows disrespect to him her self, the simming community and real aviation.I do not want anyone to think that XPlane is an abomination, it has it's good points, but it can be improved, and that is my goal. I can easily name over a thousand things wrong with this sim, especially when it comes to the Flight model, but is has a lot more good than bad in it, and it's worth investing some time and effort, and that is what I am trying to do.The statements that some are making that one has to be proficient / expert, in the OS and or programming, to use it, it's laughable. This is a game, plug and play is the goal, at least from the basic operation / loading / updating stand point.As to the Installer, there is no need for these type of problems. During the Error generation everything else works, browsers, connections, etc. only the installer fails. I am not sure if they are trying to do something funny to the system? It would seem that .b3 "XPlane9.exe" is the main failure/ problem during download. It appears to time out and not be able to resume, during this time my browser it's working fine able to up and download, and the connection is also stable. The problem is in their code / procedure. TV

I do not want anyone to think that XPlane is an abomination, it has it's good points, but it can be improved, and that is my goal.

Bug report forum over at the "Org"http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showforum=34

Geofa: You just proved my point thanks :)... Exactly for a proper flight model the actual LAMINAR flow fields have to be calculated for every control surface on the aircraft and as stated with ALL combinations! FSX/ESP does not do this, since it's impossible to do so with the STABILITY DERIVATIVE model. You guys seem to think the flight model is "BLADE ELEMENT THEORY"... it isn't that's just for engine performance, the flight model is LAMINAR flows using finite element modeling (F.E.M.).. hence the name LAMINAR RESEARCH and hence why it's an actual engineering application not just a game like FS. It can accurately calculate these flows for EARTH and MARS and every aircraft you throw at it.. and hence why even N.A.S.A. uses it for developing aircraft.You're not suppose to understand this stuff guys... so stop pretending you do... because it's more than obvious you don't. This type of knowledge doesn't come from a piece of paper from the FAA. You could have 10,000 hours as an ATP and you still wouldn't have a clue!