Aerosoft are aiming at a new full installer release (including latest hotfixes) for tomorrow.

3rd party vendors will need a couple of additional hours (or even days) to make it available in their stores.

Keeping my fingers crossed for a (L)NAV fix, most of all.

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126532-i-might-be-stupid-but/&do=findComment&comment=838238

58 minutes ago, Gone said:

Keeping my fingers crossed for a (L)NAV fix, most of all.

For real tho. That's all I want.

There was a hotfix for the LNAV problem. For anyone using 1.0.0.5 that was having the problem, could have installed the hotfix, giving you version 1.0.0.5c. The hotfix is experimental, so it didn't mentioned much. It can be downloaded from within the "zig zag" thread on the AS forums.

 

In any case, with 1.0.1 being released tomorrow (hopefully) it's probably better to wait for that.

1 hour ago, nealmac said:

There was a hotfix for the LNAV problem. For anyone using 1.0.0.5 that was having the problem, could have installed the hotfix, giving you version 1.0.0.5c. The hotfix is experimental, so it didn't mentioned much. It can be downloaded from within the "zig zag" thread on the AS forums.

 

In any case, with 1.0.1 being released tomorrow (hopefully) it's probably better to wait for that.

You obviously haven't been following any of the discussion at all, the hot fix didn't fix anything for like 90% of us. 

2 hours ago, nealmac said:

There was a hotfix for the LNAV problem. For anyone using 1.0.0.5 that was having the problem, could have installed the hotfix, giving you version 1.0.0.5c. The hotfix is experimental, so it didn't mentioned much. It can be downloaded from within the "zig zag" thread on the AS forums.

 

In any case, with 1.0.1 being released tomorrow (hopefully) it's probably better to wait for that.

Unfortunately, the 'c' hotfix made navigation problems worse for me, and it seems a lot of other users.

Hopefully the new build will resolve the issue once and for all.

On 8/27/2017 at 11:23 AM, joemiller said:

Therefore, when I hear (or read) people asking for a "study level" add-on, I shyly* ask:

- Are you a pilot trainee?

Yes, no, and sometimes… They do always say a certificate is license to learn.  But why does that matter?  Some simmers like to learn and understand how the systems in a real aircraft operate.  You can always use a study level sim and not notice or care about the details, but it doesn’t work the other way around.  Being study level aircraft doesn't seem to dissuade novice users from buying PMDG, FSlabs, or Majestic  products either, so what is there to lose?

 

On 8/27/2017 at 11:23 AM, joemiller said:

-  Are you willing to spend $200 million ++ for a study level ...hmmm... a/c or sim?

Don’t confuse study level with a level D sim, they aren’t the same.  A study sim for a home simulator fits in nicely with both the CBT (Computer Based Training) and FTD (Fixed Training Device) portions of a type rating. Neither of which are anywhere close to $200 Million.  But again there’s no law that says you need to be a pilot trainee to enjoy it.  On the other hand if you’re a P3D user and not learning or training then hmm…

 

On 8/27/2017 at 11:23 AM, joemiller said:

If your favorite add-on is the best planet earth has seen (lol) or a "study level" a/c; then why (tell me why) isn't that "...." not being used by NASA, Lockheed Martin,  CAE, Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Flight Safety International, etc, etc as a Study Level Sim ? 

PMDG, FSLabs, and Majestic all have their eyes on the commercial user.  No company can expect  to get in the door with a blank resume, and what better way to get experience than provide a study level aircraft to a broad consumer base first. At some point I could see the CBT for type ratings evolving into something that uses these products.

 

Aerosoft controller:

"CR7/9, you can have delay vectors or holding instructions, what's your choice?"

CRJ driver:

"OK, we'll take the pattern then."

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126457-new-build/&do=findComment&comment=838443

 

EDIT:

Hans' reasoning for the intentional delay actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Edited August 29, 20178 yr by Gone

17 hours ago, Mitch24 said:

You obviously haven't been following any of the discussion at all, the hot fix didn't fix anything for like 90% of us. 

I'm well aware that it didn't fix the problem for everyone, but no, I haven't been following this thread all that closely. I only posted it as a suggestion for those who not have installed the "c" fix.

 

And I can only assume you plucked the "90%" figure out of thin air. Basing it on replies to this thread is a bit amateurish considering most people it DID work for probably wouldn't bother posting here. Because if you look at the Aerosoft forums, you'll see that it fixed it for quite a lot of people.

A looong changelog emphasizing "all the lateral stuff":

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126457-new-build/&do=findComment&comment=838478

 

Time-to-go (my own uneducated guess only): 48 hours or more.

12 minutes ago, Gone said:

A looong changelog emphasizing "all the lateral stuff":

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/126457-new-build/&do=findComment&comment=838478

 

Time-to-go (my own uneducated guess only): 48 hours or more.

So why announce a long anticipated update and then say they need more time? Okayyyyyy

20 minutes ago, Mitch24 said:

So why announce a long anticipated update and then say they need more time? Okayyyyyy

Come on, give them a break Mitch.   A couple more days is nothing in the scheme of things - if we get a good CRJ with NAV tracking out of it..

Dear God.

 

Mitch, if you're that unhappy with it, just ask for a refund. You have nothing to loose.

 

Have you looked at the list of things being addressed in the latest update? It's obviously a major update, compared with the updates that have already been released. If you can't wait patiently for another couple of days then you seriously need help. Have you no other aircraft you can play about with? I bet you were one of the ones moaning about the original delay. It's because of people like that that it got rushed in the first place. Some people are never happy.

Looks like a good list. Only thing I can't find is a fix for the ICE detect thing where you have to reload fuel/payload. Not game-breaking but it is super obnoxious.

10 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

Looks like a good list. Only thing I can't find is a fix for the ICE detect thing where you have to reload fuel/payload. Not game-breaking but it is super obnoxious.

Is that the bug where the light stays on? Personally I just leave it be, as it turns itself later. (I can't quite pin point the exact moment the light goes out, but I think it might be after the engines are started, I keep meaning to keep an eye on it, but I always end up missing it). But yeah, it's pretty minor as far as the list of bugs go, compared to what some people are experiencing.

19 hours ago, BrianW said:

Yes, no, and sometimes… They do always say a certificate is license to learn.  But why does that matter?  Some simmers like to learn and understand how the systems in a real aircraft operate.  You can always use a study level sim and not notice or care about the details, but it doesn’t work the other way around.  Being study level aircraft doesn't seem to dissuade novice users from buying PMDG, FSlabs, or Majestic  products either, so what is there to lose?

 

Don’t confuse study level with a level D sim, they aren’t the same.  A study sim for a home simulator fits in nicely with both the CBT (Computer Based Training) and FTD (Fixed Training Device) portions of a type rating. Neither of which are anywhere close to $200 Million.  But again there’s no law that says you need to be a pilot trainee to enjoy it.  On the other hand if you’re a P3D user and not learning or training then hmm…

 

PMDG, FSLabs, and Majestic all have their eyes on the commercial user.  No company can expect  to get in the door with a blank resume, and what better way to get experience than provide a study level aircraft to a broad consumer base first. At some point I could see the CBT for type ratings evolving into something that uses these products.

 

^ (1) However, we have folks asking for a sim which they can study with? So it must be near 99% accurate in all systems and so. Will that make a difference if you're not flying the real thing nor getting off the ground? Hmmm, no. Then? That's like someone saying: "Oh jeez, I always wanted to be a surgeon; so I'll buy tons of books and a lab. But, I don't like a particular lab cause it's missing the ventilator or a volunteer  I can cut his neck" 

(2) A sim is a sim, it simulates something, in our case, flight. My point is if someone is going to scream because his add-on is missing a screw, (or ) then, what he really needs is the real thing, and no it will not cost $50.00 nor $140.00 , but millions. 

(3)  And, if I may ask..... who are PMDG, FSLabs and Majectic's customers?  Hmmmmmm... Boeing , Airbus,  CAE, NASA, United Airliner, Virgin, Locheed Martin? Hmmm, or some local instructors wanting to show his students what a 747 will look like in 20 years when they no longer fly the Cessna 182?  (Maybe). 

And, by-the-way, Aerosoft also have commercial customers for their Aircraft, so? Shouldn't they be part of your list?  LoL 

Enjoy!