Please don't get me wrong, but let me add the remark that the term "Lua" alone is just referring to the programming language. I assume you are talking of "Fly with Lua", although in the past people even meant RealTerraHaze when using the term Lua.

 

Why is this important? Because a lot of plugins use Lua: FlyWithLua, SASL, Gizmo, X-Plane 11's own xLua. A general statement like "Lua works" could invoke the impression as if there were worries that none of these plugins would work.

Why is this an issue?  The message that comesup on my screeen, states "Lua has stopped", hence my reference.  Let's not make mountains out of molehills here.

 

 

But I'm still having terrible fps with Ortho4XP tiles.

 

Can't say that. What tiles did you try and at what ZL?

Why is this an issue?  The message that comesup on my screeen, states "Lua has stopped", hence my reference.  Let's not make mountains out of molehills here.

It's an issue because a lot of half-knowledge is floating around the various X-Plane forums on different X-Plane related topics already, and FlyWithLua (from which the error message comes) is an example. Some confuse it with RTH, some think this is Lua itself.

 

As X-Plane got a lot of attention by potential new users, it's esp. important to be precise. Only then proper support is possible.

It's an issue because a lot of half-knowledge is floating around the various X-Plane forums on different X-Plane related topics already, and FlyWithLua (from which the error message comes) is an example. Some confuse it with RTH, some think this is Lua itself.

 

As X-Plane got a lot of attention by potential new users, it's esp. important to be precise. Only then proper support is possible.

Well, considering that I wasn't requesting support, but rather reporting a plug-in's usage and failure/success has already been documented elsewhere, and my mentioning of it wasn't necessarily tied directly to XP11 Beta6's success or failures.  In fact, I probably should not have reported that in the first place, given the negative feedback I am receiving.  I underestimated some people here who feel the need to pick apart every single word of a poster's reply, rather than gathering useful knowledge and offering constructive support to those who may need it.

 

My report, as it were, was merely a well-structured paragraph, detailing certain aspects of XP11 Betas that I have come across since the first one and am tracking the progress through constructive observations, with the hopes of helping the XP forum here understand what is or isn't happening, as well as possibly pointing out features that others may not have caught during their testing.

 

In the future, I will refrain from submitting such observations, as I obviously have not communicated them well enough for the community to accept for what it is.

Well, considering that I wasn't requesting support, but rather reporting a plug-in's usage and failure/success has already been documented elsewhere, and my mentioning of it wasn't necessarily tied directly to XP11 Beta6's success or failures.  In fact, I probably should not have reported that in the first place, given the negative feedback I am receiving.  I underestimated some people here who feel the need to pick apart every single word of a poster's reply, rather than gathering useful knowledge and offering constructive support to those who may need it.

 

My report, as it were, was merely a well-structured paragraph, detailing certain aspects of XP11 Betas that I have come across since the first one and am tracking the progress through constructive observations, with the hopes of helping the XP forum here understand what is or isn't happening, as well as possibly pointing out features that others may not have caught during their testing.

 

In the future, I will refrain from submitting such observations, as I obviously have not communicated them well enough for the community to accept for what it is.

I think I was not clear enough in my intentions. It was not to criticize you and I don't understand why you seem to take that so personal. When I state something wrong or imprecise or misleading, and someone corrects me, I am thankful, not defensive.

 

I was also not assuming you asked for support. I just want to avoid that others think that Lua, FlyWithLua and other Lua-based technologies are all the same. Maybe you don't do that, but it's a repeating issue in customer support.

Anyone noticing the 172 morse code is still off ?  

Yep!  I bug filed under pb5. Hope more file so it gets attended to at some point.  I wonder if there is a place where bugs that have been submitted but not yet resolved can be viewed?

I don't think LR likes duplicate reports from the same folks.

Yep!  I bug filed under pb5. Hope more file so it gets attended to at some point.  I wonder if there is a place where bugs that have been submitted but not yet resolved can be viewed?

I don't think LR likes duplicate reports from the same folks.

 

You can check X-plane site where they list the bugs unbugged.

 

One can file as many bug reports he / she likes but don't expect all to be rectified.

Some claim that XP is always in Beta, but the question is, when will there be a final version for a DVD release?

 

Is it after all those known bugs are fixed? I doubt that all those bugs will be fixed by the end of this month. :smile:

"Some claim"? Why do you say it as if there's room for doubt? X-Plane 11 is quite definitely in beta. We don't know the final release date because Laminar Research hasn't announced it. If you have no stomach for beta software then stick with X-Plane 10 for now.

​Yes. Some simple airports, the same that shipped with XP10.

 

Look at Aerosoft EGLL in pb6 and tell me if you think its a simple airport

My FPS is way up. Getting 50FPS in normal areas now where I was barely getting 30 before.

 

The prop issue is partially resolved. The 172 idles at 800 RPM now, which is still too high, but the top of the power curve is right so it's not as much of a deal breaker now.

 

Yes, I think the idle RPMs are a bit too high on the 172 and B58, but this is something that can be tuned in planemaker. For what its worth, the lower limit of the throttle is not "0", otherwise the engine would quit when you pull it all the way out. So this is something that is set up in the "shop" for every engine. What is important is that the "thrust" is correct for this (too high) RPM, and I think it is.

 

We will need to wait until Austin is happy with the slipstream effect and done with tuning the propellers, and then Laminar will change the idle value of the default planes to match reality.

 

Jan

Look at Aerosoft EGLL in pb6 and tell me if you think its a simple airport

Now that you ask this I really should take another look. ;-)

What is important is that the "thrust" is correct for this (too high) RPM, and I think it is.

 

Would you say the issue affecting any prop aircraft is solved now? I.e. they behave in this regard like they did in XP10?

But would a 11kt x-wind really yaw the 172  hard to the left while on the take off run ?  I have to give full right yaw to counter it. 

 

No, this is still very unrealistic according to more than one real-life C172 pilot in the .org forum. 

 

It's a bit frustrating that we can't tell if this is something Austin thinks is working as intended, or he's aware of it and just hasn't managed to fix it yet. It isn't listed as a Known Bug among the others on the XP11 release notes page, which is worrying.

BTW anyone tried the default S-76 or any other payware helis like the AS350 ?  any changes in settling with power ? 

 

I've done a few very short flights in the X-Trident Bell 412. The overpowering from propeller/rotor thrust is reduced from the extreme it was in pb5, but it still may be a little too high. Still testing.

 

One complication here is that with planes powered by turboshaft engines like the 412 (and the PT-6 in particular), it's hard to tell which changes are due to the propeller/rotor modeling and which might be from the new PT-6 engine modeling.

 

Same thing with the Carenado PC-12 -- it still feels like it's champing the bit when standing on the "B" brake at engine idle, although not as extreme as in pb5. But I can't tell if that's from the prop modeling changes, or or if it needs adjusting in PlaneMaker engine idle speeds for the PT-6. When the release notes for pb6 just say "More flight model tuning" we don't know what's being changed from one version to the next. 

 

As for settling with power (vortex ring state), I haven't noticed any changes yet, but that's a condition I've trained myself to stay out of, because it's been too aggressively modeled in the past (IMO). So I avoid it by always keeping a small amount of forward speed when landing. If it's been reduced a bit, or the parameters are changed, I'm not sure I'd notice it. If I have time later this weekend I'll see if I can trigger it intentionally. 

Look at Aerosoft EGLL in pb6 and tell me if you think its a simple airport

 

 

Yes, I think the idle RPMs are a bit too high on the 172 and B58, but this is something that can be tuned in planemaker. For what its worth, the lower limit of the throttle is not "0", otherwise the engine would quit when you pull it all the way out. So this is something that is set up in the "shop" for every engine. What is important is that the "thrust" is correct for this (too high) RPM, and I think it is.

 

We will need to wait until Austin is happy with the slipstream effect and done with tuning the propellers, and then Laminar will change the idle value of the default planes to match reality.

 

Jan

I'm a real pilot so I know what it should be about. 500RPM is a typical observation on the many piston planes I've flown.

 

They just need to fix it, not rely on users to use plane maker.

 

The 172 actually worked correctly in B3 so something got messed up. It's not an initial design flaw. Otherwise I'd just chalk it up as it being a poorly modeled default plane. But it was correct until Austin messed with the prop effects for B5.

You can check X-plane site where they list the bugs unbugged.

 

One can file as many bug reports he / she likes but don't expect all to be rectified.

 

To clarify: Submit as many separate bugs as you like, one per report. Don't submit a bug more than once. The reporter form says "Do not re-submit the same bug repeatedly...even between versions."  If they acknowledge it as a bug and it's fixed, it will show up eventually in a release note. The best way to get their attention is strength in numbers; more people reporting the same thing. Here's the link:

 

http://dev.x-plane.com/support/bugreport.html

To clarify: Submit as many separate bugs as you like, one per report. Don't submit a bug more than once. The reporter form says "Do not re-submit the same bug repeatedly...even between versions."  If they acknowledge it as a bug and it's fixed, it will show up eventually in a release note. The best way to get their attention is strength in numbers; more people reporting the same thing. Here's the link:

 

http://dev.x-plane.com/support/bugreport.html

Good idea. We want to get rid of the weathervaning bug, so, all who have not sent a report should do so. Any suggestions on what to include in the bug report?

 

Better still, can anyone with knowledge of the problem write up a technical report describing the problem? This should get Austin's attention if enough of us file it.

No, this is still very unrealistic according to more than one real-life C172 pilot in the .org forum. 

 

It's a bit frustrating that we can't tell if this is something Austin thinks is working as intended, or he's aware of it and just hasn't managed to fix it yet. It isn't listed as a Known Bug among the others on the XP11 release notes page, which is worrying.

 

I've done a few very short flights in the X-Trident Bell 412. The overpowering from propeller/rotor thrust is reduced from the extreme it was in pb5, but it still may be a little too high. Still testing.

 

One complication here is that with planes powered by turboshaft engines like the 412 (and the PT-6 in particular), it's hard to tell which changes are due to the propeller/rotor modeling and which might be from the new PT-6 engine modeling.

 

Same thing with the Carenado PC-12 -- it still feels like it's champing the bit when standing on the "B" brake at engine idle, although not as extreme as in pb5. But I can't tell if that's from the prop modeling changes, or or if it needs adjusting in PlaneMaker engine idle speeds for the PT-6. When the release notes for pb6 just say "More flight model tuning" we don't know what's being changed from one version to the next. 

 

As for settling with power (vortex ring state), I haven't noticed any changes yet, but that's a condition I've trained myself to stay out of, because it's been too aggressively modeled in the past (IMO). So I avoid it by always keeping a small amount of forward speed when landing. If it's been reduced a bit, or the parameters are changed, I'm not sure I'd notice it. If I have time later this weekend I'll see if I can trigger it intentionally. 

 

Thanks for the info. I haven't tried the helis as yet in PB6. I have the AS350.

 

Yes there is a forward motion when the brakes are released and have already filed a bug. Maybe the 172 just needs to be tuned but as you said it could be the prop modeling hard to know.

 

I find the yaw a bit too much. 

To clarify: Submit as many separate bugs as you like, one per report. Don't submit a bug more than once. The reporter form says "Do not re-submit the same bug repeatedly...even between versions."  If they acknowledge it as a bug and it's fixed, it will show up eventually in a release note. The best way to get their attention is strength in numbers; more people reporting the same thing. Here's the link:

 

http://dev.x-plane.com/support/bugreport.html

 

Haha i keep filing the same bug maybe one day they rectify it . Ok let's not bug them