Thanks.The Acceleration "bugs" have two workarounds. It is a problem and we recognize it is an inconvenience to wait until the 757 is complete. We have suggested that if users cannot live with the "bugs" and the workarounds, then the uninstallation of Xpack might be necessary.In fact, a user has come up with a novel fix for the problem, just reported in the support forum. When reporting flaws, please make sure to do so factually.

I'm not sure what you think isn't factual. Everything I reported is true. I even mentioned that there are reported workarounds/fixes, just for me they did not work or are inadequate. I am hopefull for this new work around, but I've been here before with other such "golden" fixes and been let down. Here is my frustration though. If anyone describes these issues as much more than a minor nuisance we are corrected that these are minor bugs or easily worked around. I fully understand that it is the choice of LDS to wait to fix these. That is fine. However, the unwillingness to accept that these issues for some, particularly online pilots or high level realism sticklers, can be deal breakers is quite frustrating. It's one thing to be told that your problem has a low priority and we have to wait. It's another to be told that these are very minor problems and easily worked around if we just read the forums. I have read and tried these. So far these are either inadequate or failed solutions for what is for me (and many others) a near deal breaker.I understand that it is my choice to keep Acceleration, and therefore these bugs. As such, I don't expect LDS to fix these ever even. That's up to them. However, they should be acknowledge for what they are. If any new/native FSX model had these issues, it would be flamed. The AirbusX got flamed for much less (although admittedly they were plentiful bugs). The workarounds are marginal at best for online pilots who sit stalled on a taxiway programming our FMC's after start. And so far, fixes have not been consistent. I hope this new one will be different when I get around to trying it.

Be ok if I could remember my logon name... yet alone password LOL Oh well dig through my old emails might be in order. Lucky for me Daryl knows how dippy I am from another forum.

After the 757 they said... Patience is the word.

LDS, bless them, stretches the definition and capacity for patience. The 757 is... uhm... overdue - call the FAA :-)

I'm not sure what you think isn't factual. Everything I reported is true. I even mentioned that there are reported workarounds/fixes, just for me they did not work or are inadequate. I am hopefull for this new work around, but I've been here before with other such "golden" fixes and been let down.

ESzczesniak,If you are still using Acceleration and the 767, please try out the method Daryl posted about in the Level-D forums. I flew 3 legs today and the method that I found worked every time.Best wishes,Russell Johnston

I'm not sure what you think isn't factual. Everything I reported is true. I even mentioned that there are reported workarounds/fixes, just for me they did not work or are inadequate. I am hopefull for this new work around, but I've been here before with other such "golden" fixes and been let down. Here is my frustration though. If anyone describes these issues as much more than a minor nuisance we are corrected that these are minor bugs or easily worked around. I fully understand that it is the choice of LDS to wait to fix these. That is fine. However, the unwillingness to accept that these issues for some, particularly online pilots or high level realism sticklers, can be deal breakers is quite frustrating. It's one thing to be told that your problem has a low priority and we have to wait. It's another to be told that these are very minor problems and easily worked around if we just read the forums. I have read and tried these. So far these are either inadequate or failed solutions for what is for me (and many others) a near deal breaker.I understand that it is my choice to keep Acceleration, and therefore these bugs. As such, I don't expect LDS to fix these ever even. That's up to them. However, they should be acknowledge for what they are. If any new/native FSX model had these issues, it would be flamed. The AirbusX got flamed for much less (although admittedly they were plentiful bugs). The workarounds are marginal at best for online pilots who sit stalled on a taxiway programming our FMC's after start. And so far, fixes have not been consistent. I hope this new one will be different when I get around to trying it.

Could not have said it better! Agree 100%. This is the reason I did not buy it. This should have been fixed long ago. Uninstalling the A-pack is not a fix in my book. LDS dropped the ball not matter what company line DS spouts.

Are they the exact same VC textures released by Andre? can someone confirm/list the 'exact' changes provided by this update? I never ever use any outside views, so having winglets or not makes no diff to me. But, if there is somehting 'new' then I will definitely give it a try.

*******, you are aware that the improvement on this version does take fuel burn and overall (aircraft) performance into account? I'm just stressing this because that's what LD's nature is, technical correct details.I have to applaud to this since I usually write things about the other detailed (not that far, you are right) 767 there which gives you winglet optics since its FSX-only start but no altered technical data then.Since personal preference drives a pilot's choice and since I see the atmosphere in that other 767 as a better one, I mainly use her but I still want to state my appreciation towards this free LD update together with such nice details like the altered data.I really hope that an upcoming 757 in current optics and looks won't take that much longer as it's been around forums since years and even beats the PMDG 737 in the waiting and announcement time by far.I agree with the guys seeing the removal of the Acceleration pack as not even close to a solution and a very poor workaround if errors occur by the way. If these things are known and reported bugs, the next focus should be to rule them out, especially when looking at the time of actually being known. But that's my personal opinion and doesn't change my applaud attitude towards the winglets update of course.

In fact, a user has come up with a novel fix for the problem, just reported in the support forum.

For those interested, it's in a not-yet-stickied post called "New Acceleration Workaround" - took me a while to find it. It's in the FSX support forum. Looks v. promising, though I've not had time to try it.