Are you sure you've read all above statements, Tierborn? Yours looks like you've missed this page somehow.

 In this case, to indicate that the poster was incorrect in his assessment because there was an update that corrected the problem .. is appropriate.  But, to then go on and tell folks that they cant give an opinion in a forum doesn't feel quite right to me...    

Oh... we can all give our opinion. It's how we give our opinion that counts.The claim that one can say 'what they wish' is far too open a position. We can not say 'what we wish'. We can say what's honest and true and not misleading or misrepresentative. We can say how we feel as long as it's not insulting or deragatory. 'what they wish' allows one to step far outside those boundaries and that's clearly not acceptable.

Oh... we can all give our opinion. It's how we give our opinion that counts.The claim that one can say 'what they wish' is far too open a position. We can not say 'what we wish'. We can say what's honest and true and not misleading or misrepresentative. We can say how we feel as long as it's not insulting or deragatory. 'what they wish' allows one to step far outside those boundaries and that's clearly not acceptable.

.Ok I know the guy did not download the latest update.But.Looks like that What is "honest and true " to a person is not to another.So theposter thought something was "ugly" (honest and true to him) but then it became "not honest,misleading and misrepresentative" to the developers. Ok you say we can say how we feel ..as long as...but then we would have to find a term for ugly that is not insulting.I have the feeling you're not going to find the word.

.Ok I know the guy did not download the latest update.But.Looks like that What is "honest and true " to a person is not to another.So theposter thought something was "ugly" (honest and true to him) but then it became "not honest,misleading and misrepresentative" to the developers. Ok you say we can say how we feel ..as long as...but then we would have to find a term for ugly that is not insulting.I have the feeling you're not going to find the word.

I have the feeling you failed to read throughly. In this very thread I already stated I didn't see a problem with his post. Perhaps in your rush to post you missed that? :(

Uh...I've downloaded wrapper again and reinstalled Citation X. I guess i had newest version installed anyway. Latest hotfix per Eaglesoft forums is from late 2009 and i've bought Citation X in April 2010.I've spent some time with the APU panel and i think i've found circumstances under which it will look like on my yesterday's screenshot (assuming it isn't something wrong with my PC or FSX setup, that is).If i load Citation X with cold & dark selected in preflight utility, the APU section will blink until the panel finishes switching off all systems/engines. It will then show that weird-looking^[1] bitmap (panel section?). Everything is back to normal (much better looking) as soon as i turn the batteries on. Check out this video i've just made so you know what i mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWsszNRhlaUSome other owners of Citation X to confirm my findings, please?I want to know whether it is specific to my setup or not.

Looks like you are very good in this language and "ugly" isn't a word that can't be replaced by another, more appropriate, expression, don't you think?

Thank you for your kind words on my language familiarity. The fact is i'm still learning. Believe it or not, for a word describing something being contrary to "nice, pretty" my dictionary's first three propositions are "ill-looking", "hideous" and "ugly". I'll do my best to remember abusive undertone of the word "ugly" and use it accordingly to situation.[1] - i hope "weird-looking" isn't considered abusive term :(

Uh...I've downloaded wrapper again and reinstalled Citation X. I guess i had newest version installed anyway. Latest hotfix per Eaglesoft forums is from late 2009 and i've bought Citation X in April 2010.I've spent some time with the APU panel and i think i've found circumstances under which it will look like on my yesterday's screenshot (assuming it isn't something wrong with my PC or FSX setup, that is).If i load Citation X with cold & dark selected in preflight utility, the APU section will blink until the panel finishes switching off all systems/engines. It will then show that weird-looking^[1] bitmap (panel section?). Everything is back to normal (much better looking) as soon as i turn the batteries on. Check out this video i've just made so you know what i mean: Some other owners of Citation X to confirm my findings, please?I want to know whether it is specific to my setup or not.Thank you for your kind words on my language familiarity. The fact is i'm still learning. Believe it or not, for a word describing something being contrary to "nice, pretty" my dictionary's first three propositions are "ill-looking", "hideous" and "ugly". I'll do my best to remember abusive undertone of the word "ugly" and use it accordingly to situation.[1] - i hope "weird-looking" isn't considered abusive term :(

Thanks for the video. It does indeed show an anomoly under the conditions you've outlined...While I've been unable to duplicate this locally your findings confirm that it exists under certain conditions. We have been working behind the scenes on an update for the CX 2.0 to address a number of minor improvements and we'll add this to the short list as well.While this is not a showstopper we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.I've already noted that your apology has been accepted and the issue of terminology used is now water under the bridge as far as we are concerned.Please enjoy the update and the aircraft.

On the eaglesoft product page it says the following :

FADEC              requires registered FSUIPC

Will it work without a registered version (in a simplified way perhaps ) ? Thanks,Thomas

No, FADEC won't work without FSUIPC.

No, FADEC won't work without FSUIPC.

Hmmmm, some part of the fadec seems to work without it.When I set full throttle at cruise level, it very rarely overspeeds so I figured it had some sort of detent - maybe it's just my imagination!

On the eaglesoft product page it says the following :

FADEC              requires registered FSUIPC

Will it work without a registered version (in a simplified way perhaps ) ? Thanks,Thomas

Eaglesoft does not support unregistered FSUIPC. That's why we've stated that registered version is required.And no we do not own stock in Pete Dowsons Utility.

On the eaglesoft product page it says the following :

FADEC              requires registered FSUIPC

Will it work without a registered version (in a simplified way perhaps ) ?

You've received several answers already, each of which is 100% factual, yet nonetheless are less than complete. I suppose that it depends on what you're referencing by "it..." 1. The FADEC system absolutely requires a registered FSUIPC to function.2. The CX v2.0 however is still operational just as any default a/c, but the unique features that FADEC supplies simply won't work.Having flown the CX v2.0 both ways, I can unequivocally state that having FADEC available vastly improves the experience, and greatly reduces the pilot's workload... :(

Cessna CJ1+ Extreme 2.0 with full FMS and Navigraph DB, Cirrus SR22 G3 Turbo "Perspective" with Cirrus G1000, and a "Mystery Plane" which is something that has been requested by simmers for years.

Please please please Gulfstream

I think the issue with people on these forums feeling "free" to express their opinions is the fact that devs in the past have said one thing, and released another. In that light, the customers felt ripped off and spoke up. Albeit, not the best way, but they sure spoke up. The trend I have seen with the main devs in the community is that all them know and realize that without great customer service and a product that does what they promised, the customers are happy. Its a simple matter and I applaud the devs for their efforts. Eaglesoft, PMDG, wilco and others all lead by example in this realm. As for the aircraft, I own both the mustang and the CX 2.0 and can say that they are for different markets. I use the CX for transcontinental and transatlantic flights. I also use it if I just want to show up in style. :( :( I use the mustang if I want to do shorter hops or maybe medium hops. The airport of choice also plays a factor in which aircraft I choose. As stated before, the mustang can go places other jets can't and its extremely feasible in this regard.

Please please please Gulfstream

Impossible... with their stupid "marketing" laws.... *sigh*I'm willing to bet a long range bizjet... maybe Global Express... maybe XRS if we're lucky :(

Please please please Gulfstream

Gulfstream ain't gonna happen from us unless they call and grant permission...