Hey guys!

 

Are plugins working on this beta?

I don't see any of the plugins. I copied the Pushback plugin into the rosources/plugins on my Windows 7 machine and they don't show up under plugins.

Am I doing something wrong? None of the plugins work..

Am I doing something wrong? None of the plugins work..

 

That is exactly as expected. The 64 bit versions will only work with 64 bit plugins. Unless a plugin clearly states that it contains a 64 bit version you have to start x-plane 32 bit version in your X-Plane 10 folder.

Now instead of installing Gizmo into aircrafts like everybody else does, you decided to remain globally, even if it crashes lots of airplanes.- You even bothered Ben about

this...which fits your profile.

 

asho, with SASL, we have several GA aircraft with pretty pop-ups and not much depth. Even when there is "supposed" systems depth, its generally "level 1"...meaning not much simulation beyond the switches and lights. How do I know? Well....when someone makes a big Boeing aircraft simulation...call it "professional", and then they have a problem with X-Plane 10 and Ben Supnik contacts the IXEG team to ask how we do something at IXEG because that "unnamed" Boeing professional project was having issues using default XPlane systems which we don't on the 737CL..... because we write fully custom systems, it's clear that SASL just can't handle the heavy stuff. X-Plane needs a super-simulation and SASL can't do it. Even the 777 needs heavy duty C++ to drive it's FMS...something we are doing entirely in Gizmo, GL graphics and all and with superb performance. Gizmo simply has the tools SASL doesn't that make it worth the effort to make it work. Am I wrong? Go find danklaue's posts at the org that points out what SASL can't do and why it's keeping him from finishing some projects. As stated, yes there are some bumps along the way, but I've been doing this a long time as have my wonderfully talented and competent teammates and we have comprehensively evaluated our tech and Gizmo Lua is the only way to go for the future of serious simulations in our opinion. I'm perfectly fine with folks who want to eschew gizmo products until they are comfortable with it, if ever......I can't blame them for some of their apprehensions, but I am passionate about bringing not only great products to X-Plane, but also great and painless experiences. This latest update of x-plane shows that we are able to work internally with Laminar to solve real issues to improve the sim and the future of all add-ons....not just our own.... for the entire x-plane community while you whine. Step out of the way and let intelligent discussion prevail.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar/IXEG

asho, with SASL, we have several GA aircraft with pretty pop-ups and not much depth. Even when there is "supposed" systems depth, its generally "level 1"...meaning not much simulation beyond the switches and lights. How do I know? Well....when someone makes a big Boeing aircraft simulation...call it "professional", and then they have a problem with X-Plane 10 and Ben Supnik contacts the IXEG team to ask how we do something at IXEG because that "unnamed" Boeing professional project was having issues using default XPlane systems which we don't on the 737CL..... because we write fully custom systems, it's clear that SASL just can't handle the heavy stuff. X-Plane needs a super-simulation and SASL can't do it. Even the 777 needs heavy duty C++ to drive it's FMS...something we are doing entirely in Gizmo, GL graphics and all and with superb performance. Gizmo simply has the tools SASL doesn't that make it worth the effort to make it work. Am I wrong? Go find danklaue's posts at the org that points out what SASL can't do and why it's keeping him from finishing some projects. As stated, yes there are some bumps along the way, but I've been doing this a long time as have my wonderfully talented and competent teammates and we have comprehensively evaluated our tech and Gizmo Lua is the only way to go for the future of serious simulations in our opinion. I'm perfectly fine with folks who want to eschew gizmo products until they are comfortable with it, if ever......I can't blame them for some of their apprehensions, but I am passionate about bringing not only great products to X-Plane, but also great and painless experiences. This latest update of x-plane shows that we are able to work internally with Laminar to solve real issues to improve the sim and the future of all add-ons....not just our own.... for the entire x-plane community while you whine. Step out of the way and let intelligent discussion prevail.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar/IXEG

 

Why doesn't Danklaue's use Gizmo ? Curious....

Why doesn't Danklaue's use Gizmo ? Curious....

 

I obviously can't speak for Dan; however, being in the middle of the whole drama at one point and having many words with several "players" I can confidently speculate! I would guess the answer is rooted in the bad-blooded "break from the org" story of x-aviation and x-pilot. X-Plane.org, being the much larger organization with wider exposure is the choice of most developers who want to reach a broad market and the org promotes SASL, while Gizmo, being developed from within the x-pilot/x-aviation founders, is only offered to those who would sell their products with x-aviation. In these early days of a much smaller x-plane market, developers were very keen to aggressively protect any assets they had...and still are to an extent but less so IMO. This is less necessary as the market increases, but it is part of x-plane history just the same. There have been departures from this x-aviation exclusive gizmo licensing schema in the past with 'experimental' gizmo license options for any developer anywhere, but one that satisfied all parties never materialized. As such, developers basically have "taken sides" with SASL being the realm of x-plane.org developers and Gizmo being the realm of x-aviation developers. The blood was/is bad enough (see above rhetoric) that few on any one side would actually consider the other out of pride or hard feelings, unfortunate as it is. Even suggesting that an org developer use Gizmo will probably be met with harsh response I'd imagine. Just recently, the owner of x-plane.org posted a negative post towards the "good news of SASL/Gizmo compatibility" and then promptly locked the thread after his "last word slap" to prevent retort. Historically, any developer who would cross x-plane.org and consider Gizmo would be summarily banned from the org by the owner. I was outcast the day he found out I sold my MU2 elsewhere.....the 'for the community - org' part of the site no longer existed...and hence the reason x-pilot came to be. The org is a for profit website with no affiliation with Laminar...contrary to many a belief.

 

Gizmo has had some rough bumps along the way no doubt...and those bumps are indeed what gizmo opponents like to point to when they want to knock it down....but evaluated as a whole on a purely technical pro/con basis, it has capabilities that are not tapped yet, capabilities that require it to be "global" instead of local to aircraft.....imagine intelligent ground interaction, "smart jetways", dynamic loading of scenery, in-sim chat programs and browser based popups for cockpit control...such are the capabiliities of gizmo that have not been utilized yet. The promise of such features is enough for myself to overlook it's shortcomings and fight for it's survival and acceptance and reliability as the most promising technology. Those that argue "aircraft specific" functionality are limited in their vision of what can be done in X-Plane. Global plugins exists for a reason...they only need be engineered to work like anything else.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar / IXEG

Why doesn't Danklaue's use Gizmo ? Curious....

 

That's like saying "Why doesn't Bill Gates use a Mac?"

BTW, the thread that Tom is talking about, where he mentions the "good news between SASL and Gizmo..."

http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=63293

 

I'm surprised it stayed up there for as long as it did before it got locked. 3 days is some kind of record for an XA product based thread to stay open over there.

And will the 733 using GIZMO from IXEG work in 64 Bits X-plane 10?

I obviously can't speak for Dan;

 

he did it himself:

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=57240&st=140#entry693725

And will the 733 using GIZMO from IXEG work in 64 Bits X-plane 10?

 

At some point yes. The developer of gizmo is very committed to this...I think he was even doing initial testing today on the 64 bit version. We wouldn't release the 737 unless it was all working anyhow. The swap to 64 bits is a "process" that doesn't happen overnight, it's like remodeling a house. Some time must go by and then everything will be done.

 

he did it himself:

well at the least his response was predictable.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar/IXEG

Even when there is "supposed" systems depth' date=' its generally "level 1"...meaning not much simulation beyond the switches and lights. How do I know? Well....when someone makes a big Boeing aircraft simulation...call it "professional", and then they have a problem with X-Plane 10 and Ben Supnik contacts the IXEG team to ask how we do something at IXEG because that "unnamed" Boeing professional project was having issues using default XPlane systems which we don't on the 737CL..... because we write fully custom systems, it's clear that SASL just can't handle the heavy stuff.[/quote']

 

Tom, this is totally uncalled for. There's really no need to bash the others work to justify yours. The 777 is by far the deepest simulation available in X-Plane right now. It's a very, very enjoyable aircraft. I have no doubt the IXEG's 737 will take the lead when it's time comes, but stepping on someone else's hard work is not acceptable. This little war where someone is labelled "against us" when he's not "with us" is going too far. On both sides. Please bash the people in charge of the org as much as you want. But not those who do the real work.

 

Pascal

Tom, this is totally uncalled for. There's really no need to bash the others work to justify yours. The 777 is by far the deepest simulation available in X-Plane right now. It's a very, very enjoyable aircraft. I have no doubt the IXEG's 737 will take the lead when it's time comes, but stepping on someone else's hard work is not acceptable. This little war where someone is labelled "against us" when he's not "with us" is going too far. On both sides. Please bash the people in charge of the org as much as you want. But not those who do the real work.

 

Pascal

 

+1

I agree with Pascal here (even I don't own the T7).

Interesting lesson in X-Plane history anyway. Since I am quite new to the X-Plane world I didn't know anything about all this. Things start to make sense...

 

Flo

I am sorry if it came off offensive to you Pascal but it is not a bash, it is a statement of fact that happened. Did I have to implicate the developer? no probably not, I'll grant you that, but there is more to the story that you are not privvy to and I certainly will keep my perspective on the issue.... but I will heed your advice and tread a bit more lightly verbally though I make no apologies as to my position.

 

TomK

This little war where someone is labelled "against us" when he's not "with us" is going too far. On both sides. Please bash the people in charge of the org as much as you want. But not those who do the real work.

 

Pascal

 

I wish it was as simple as that.

Unfortunately, things are not so cut and dry.

Let's just leave it at that as I don't want to implicate anyone.

Tom, this is totally uncalled for. There's really no need to bash the others work to justify yours. The 777 is by far the deepest simulation available in X-Plane right now. It's a very, very enjoyable aircraft. I have no doubt the IXEG's 737 will take the lead when it's time comes, but stepping on someone else's hard work is not acceptable. This little war where someone is labelled "against us" when he's not "with us" is going too far. On both sides. Please bash the people in charge of the org as much as you want. But not those who do the real work.

 

Pascal

 

Pascal,

 

To be clear, Tom's message was not a bash on the 777 or the developers of it. The message was primarily about the limitations of SASL (though I do understand how it can be interpreted the way you saw it). The 777 was able to get around this issue Tom speaks of by having Philipp come in and work in creating a secondary plug-in written in C. There's really nothing wrong with this, other than shedding light on how far SASL is able to really go. Luckily, with Philipp's hard efforts in C, things were brought to a newer level and the community now has another product that brings X-Plane to new heights.