It's not even a secret. We all know who is doing the Carenado X-Plane stuff. Dan also still needs to get paid - and that obviously works, otherwise they would have stopped.

It was to us FSX guys... and the point wasn't meant to be a secret, rather I'm not sure if I was supposed to post about it, and the fact that someone wrote "well carenado doesn't seem to have any trouble" - of course they don't because they ARE NOT spending the time to do the conversions, somebody else is.

No I did not do anything for the Cirrus line of addons from Eaglesoft.

What, the G3 fde was really good.... How much Cirrus time do you have strider?

I read that Xplane 9 aircraft would be compatible with xp 10

I totally sympathize with you on this one Geofa....there are a few "caveats" to that statement that require a bit of extra clarification. One thing that we do deal with as developers are "new and improved systems and methods". As new and better ways to do things becomes available to use, the "old ways" are sometimes left behind and announcements are made to the developers as to the new ways. Almost all aircraft developers have received early copies of xplane 10 to get their aircraft to comply...but because the tech is new, it sometimes takes them a bit of time to retool their product. Though laminar strives for full compatibility...evaluation of "ROI" on reverse compatibility sometimes leaves a feature or two on the chopping block...and lights (given xplane's new lighting engine) is one of those things. In such a case, we really don't view this as "breaking a plane" via an udpate though to the end user it does, hence my sympathy, but this would rather be a case of laminar "changing" the system and the author not yet updating their aircraft to the new system. Now if anyone wants to argue "don't change the system".....well....who wants to be flying in Sublogic flight sim 1.0? Change is necessary to improve the sim experience. For myself....the only thing Im' really integrating into my aircraft from V9 to V10 is the new lighting system. Other than the lighting....I would agree that V9 should work in V10.

I have a concern about this. I bought the Carenado f33 about 10 days ago when I read that Xplane 9 aircraft would be compatible with xp 10. However, right now there are bizarre prop animations and the beacon lights are about 2ft. Above the wing. Not terrible-but was is the typical timeline for updates? In the past I bought some Xplane 8 aircraft that stated the same-then were never really updated for 9 as promised and very often updates for 9 would cause other troubles.One of my concerns is the reality xp gps-I have seen no news about updates for it and it doesn't work at all in 10. I really can't live without this add in!Now I know the answers to these problems are with the 3rd party manufacturers themselves-however for the consumer this causes angst....

Hi Geof,http://www.x-plane.c...fix-a-few-bugs/It would seem Laminar want to fix a few things first and have asked developers to wait a little before updating their wares.

I have a concern about this. ...... I read that Xplane 9 aircraft would be compatible with xp 10.

I totally sympathize with you on this one Geofa....there are a few "caveats" to that statement that require a bit of extra clarification. ........ Almost all aircraft developers have received early copies of xplane 10 to get their aircraft to comply...

Which is it ? Are they compatible or not ? If adjustments are required, whether by freeware or payware developers or the end users, THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE. So quit using the "fully compatible" phrase so loosely! If you do use it, it is upto the person, people or entity making that claim who is responsible for ENSURING COMPATIBILITY. NOBODY ELSE !PS. This is an age old problem with Laminar.

So quit using the "fully compatible" phrase so loosely!PS. This is an age old problem with Laminar.

Where did you read this phrase? As far as I know, nothing is broken beyond repair, all problems encountered are trivial and repairable. Also, what age old problem are you referring to?

m_av is basically saying that every future version of xplane should support every previous version unequivocally. That is XP10 should run XP 1.0 planes. FSX should run Sublogic 1.0 planes. His computer should support windows 1.0, etc.....If he would agree that he is NOT saying that this should the case, then:1.) He needs to shut his trap or2.) He is ignorant with regards to software development.Now if m_av is simply trying to hold laminar accountable for their words...which is not unreasonable, then i'll do the same:

PS. This is an age old problem with Laminar.

Do you develop for xplane? Have you developed across multiple versions of xplane since V8?

m_av is basically saying that every future version of xplane should support every previous version unequivocally. That is XP10 should run XP 1.0 planes. FSX should run Sublogic 1.0 planes. His computer should support windows 1.0, etc.....If he would agree that he is NOT saying that this should the case, then:1.) He needs to shut his trap or2.) He is ignorant with regards to software development.Now if m_av is simply trying to hold laminar accountable for their words...which is not unreasonable, then i'll do the same:Do you develop for xplane? Have you developed across multiple versions of xplane since V8?

Tom, it is obvious some people are getting on their high horses, when in fact, they don't even own a horse. Don't let some of the posts get to you my friend. I know I appreciate all you have done and are doing at the moment.best regards,

I'm going to elaborate a bit more....my previous post had an emotional component so as to not accurately convey what I wanted to. m_av is focusing in on someone (not mine) claim of "total compatibilty" however, each of us would look at that different. The thing is....we're talking about terminology here. For example....if V9 planes can run in V10 without crashing the sim, that could be construed as compatible. Altering the aircraft slightly to take advantage of new features could be construed as "adjustments".So saying that aircraft should be able to cross multiple versions with absolutely no alterations by the author and still have them work from verison 1 to 10.....just isn't reasonable and strikes me as someone looking for a fight over something pretty insignificant.V9 planes run in V10, they dont' crash the sim...they are compatible. V9 planes might need some adjustments to have the save results in V10..the work is minimal. Changes will happen with each new version, this isn't an xplane phenomenon. Since V8, "breakage" has not been an issue. Before that yes....it's an "old argument" that doesn't hold water. Something has struck a nerve in m_av that doesn't strike one in me. xplane isn't for everybody, I'm sure he'll find his niche. But debating the semantic meaning of the words "fully compatible" is not something I'm going to engage in.

m_av is basically saying that every future version of xplane should support every previous version unequivocally. That is XP10 should run XP 1.0 planes. FSX should run Sublogic 1.0 planes. His computer should support windows 1.0, etc.....If he would agree that he is NOT saying that this should the case, then:1.) He needs to shut his trap or2.) He is ignorant with regards to software development.Now if m_av is simply trying to hold laminar accountable for their words...which is not unreasonable, then i'll do the same:Do you develop for xplane? Have you developed across multiple versions of xplane since V8?

Don't put words into my moutth. Don't twist what I DID say or "quoted". I DID NOT mention FSX, Sublogic, Windows or anything other than what is directly relevant to X-plane or Laminar.AND FOR HEAVENS SAKE, HAVE SOME CIVILITY and develop a slightly thicker skin. This is a public forum, like it or not, not your personal blog!As to developing, suffice it to say I am a long term user of X-plane and MS FS products among other FS products, over the years, if not decades. I don't see how "compatibility" claims have anything to do with my familiarity with the software over the history of the product or creatiion/development has anything to do with the claims made.At the risk of repitition, my point is that when cliams are made about compatibility, it is upto the person, group of people or the entity making those cliams, whether non-profit or commercial, to ENSURE COMPATIBLITY - NOBODY ELSE !OTHERWISE, LEAVE THAT CLAIM OUT !

Don't put words into my moutth. Don't twist what I DID say or "quoted". I DID NOT mention FSX, Sublogic, Windows or anything other than what is directly relevant to X-plane or Laminar.AND FOR HEAVENS SAKE, HAVE SOME CIVILITY and develop a slightly thicker skin. This is a public forum, like it or not, not your personal blog!As to developing, suffice it to say I am a long term user of X-plane and MS FS products among other FS prodducts, over the years, if not decades. I don't see how "compatibility" claims have anything to do with my familiarity with the software over the history of the product or creatiion/development has anything to do with the claims made.At the risk of repitition, my point is that when cliams are made about compatibility, it is upto the person, group of people or the entity, whether non-profit or commercial, to ENSURE COMPATIBLITY. - NOBODY ELSE !Otherwise, LEAVE THAT CLAIM OUT !

Wow................settle down. It's only programed electrons moving across a screen.. Or something to that effect..

I'm going to elaborate a bit more....my previous post had an emotional component so as to not accurately convey what I wanted to.   m_av is focusing in on someone (not mine) claim of "total compatibilty"  however, each of us would look at that different.  The thing is....we're talking about terminology here.   For example....if V9 planes can run in V10 without crashing the sim, that could be construed as compatible.   Altering the aircraft slightly to take advantage of new features could be construed as "adjustments".So saying that aircraft should be able to cross multiple versions with absolutely no alterations by the author and still have them work from verison 1 to 10.....just isn't reasonable and strikes me as someone looking for a fight over something pretty insignificant.V9 planes run in V10, they dont' crash the sim...they are compatible.    V9 planes might need some adjustments to have the save results in V10..the work is minimal.   Changes will happen with each new version, this isn't an xplane phenomenon.   Since V8, "breakage" has not been an issue.  Before that yes....it's an "old argument" that doesn't hold water.  Something has struck a nerve in m_av that doesn't strike one in me.  xplane isn't for everybody, I'm sure he'll find his niche.  But debating the semantic meaning of the words "fully compatible" is not something I'm going to engage in.

I am gonna have to half disagree. I just looked at a site that I purchased from recently and the specs for the product state "xplane 9.6 or higher";.To the consumer that implies that the product should work on anything higher than 9.6.Perhaps the site should state will work on 9.6 or higher with continual patches which will be issued on a regular basis.I think it is important that if xplane is attracting a new crowd they know exactly what it is they are getting into.Personally, I am not too worried about my purchase of last week-but do you not see the potential for a customer who buys something a week ago with the implication it should work fine and finds out it doesn't being disapointed? The only reason I bought it last week was because of this statement-and I bought it for usage in xplane 10. I have bought in the past where there was this same promise and the manufacturer did not update for even the current version.I never expect my past add ons to be compatible with a future sim-unless the manufacturer states they are. But in the case the manufacturer does.

Don't put words into my moutth

sure, as long as you return the favor. If you can find where I said, "fully compatible", I'll apologize.

but do you not see the potential for a customer who buys something a week ago with the implication it should work fine and finds out it doesn't being disapointed

I did mention in my description that I like psychology?Sure I do, which is why I'm very careful about my wording and don't make such claims myself because I can see such responses coming a mile away; however, this is where personality and freedom comes in. You've heard the phrase, "fool me once, shame on you.....fool me twice, shame on me"? That's me. A person can claim whatever they want, but in the end, my disappointments are mine to control with my expectations.......unfortunately a "standard book of expectations" doesn't exist to give us all the same expectations ...meaning we lean on own empirical data (our life experience) to manage our expectations...and that, coupled with our personality, will determine how much stake we put into any one expectation.So while one customer might be disappointed given your example scenario...another customer might take such a statement with a grain of salt given their experience with consumer product marketing claims and never establish such an expectation and therefore not experience the disappointment. So then, with a diversity of expectations out there, what is a consumer product manufacturer to do? You do the best that you can but you can't please everybody and someone will be unhappy. So yes, I see the potential for the disappointment and if it impacts a business' bottom line relative to their business goals, then you adjust, otherwise, you leave them behind because we all know you can't please everybody. Have I ever been the customer who is left behind? All the time....but I expect it and I'm not disappointed...I simply take my business elsewhere...I don't have time in this life to live in disappointment all the time.Certainly m_av has a right to feel disappointed given his expectations. Indeed I put my own expectations on him and that wasn't fair...I apologize to him for that...I broke one of my cardinal rules. My point is that in a few weeks from now, these aircraft will come in line and get up to speed and I will be no less disappointed than I am now...which is not at all...and that is the way I want to live.

Certainly m_av has a right to feel disappointed given his expectations. Indeed I put my own expectations on him and that wasn't fair...I apologize for that.

Thank you for accepting my "right to feel disappointed".You said the magic words. Your apology accepted.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would be disappointed at this early stage. Patience is a virtue. I'm prepared to wait for the updates, considering the planes I own work and are compatible (able to function in harmony) with XPX.

Thank you for accepting my "right to feel disappointed".You said the magic words. Your apology accepted.

You got your apology. congratulations. However between you and Tom, I know who is still holding onto their integrity, and who has come across as just wanting to defend his ego and win a childish battle of semantics.________________So.......... given the timing, and excitement of the new release, I'm sure many will agree that this is a poor thread in general, with some interesting points but low on both factual and entertainment value......and to see an Eaglesoft Commercial Member join in, with what is clearly a commercially biased viewpoint; well what a surprise! Being a big time XP9 user but having not yet tried the XP10 demo, I look forward to hearing more about how this looks and works for people, when the release disks start reaching people.