DescendDescend

Yup. I've just run 5.1 with no offset and it makes little difference to voltage or temperature with Realbench.

Just built a 9900K machine on an Msi Z390 Ace motherboard. Moved my Noctua NH-D15 air cooler with a single fan from a 6700K. Overclocked to 5.1Ghz. HT off. -2 offset for AVX. Volts 1.2ish and regulating as required. Typical temperature on hottest core with Realbench is 80C. It would easily go to 5.2 Ghz but temps get a up to 85C typical. Clean Win10 Pro install activated with my Win7 Ultimate key.

Fixed it. My own fault. Not pointed at Xplane folder. Thanks for help.

I thought that may be possible although I've taken reasonable care to restore it to normal including an update from 11.2 to 11.25 In any case the message: No data for this X-Plane version (UNSUPPORTED) would suggest a version incompatibility and not a shader incompatibility. Thanks for your response. I just redownloaded the installer and tried it again but get the same message: No data for this X-Plane version (UNSUPPORTED). followed by: Fatal Initialisation error: Stream read error. There is no way of knowing from the exe whether the version is correct for 11.25 before you try and install it. I assume that you can only read the ''About'' after it is installed and running.

I can't get it to install. I have Xplane 11.25. The installer downloaded from the link on the developers site says this version of Xplane is unsupported. Is there a link to a version that supports 11.25. Also I cant see where it says the version number of XVision.

Does anyone know if the FMGS bugs on the FSLabs forum have been fixed yet e.g. slowing too early for distant speed constraints, and the SP1 features applied e.g. MORE DRAG, TOO STEEP PATH added? Also dual hydraulic behaviour inconsistencies between PFD's towards the end of this video:

I've been dabbling with various A320 since around 2000 -2001 and beta tested a couple of them and have a little experience on the Level D sims as well. I've waited a very long time for an accurate A320 as have many others no doubt. The FSLabs A320 is certainly an excellent product. I fully expected it to be the only accurate A320 produced for a desktop simulation. I can't claim to have tried it in P3DV4 yet as my system is in storage pending a house move. I'm not too sure what has been fixed with respect to the FMGS that was released in P3DV3 but there were a few bugs and omissions in that version (peculiar constraint/limit handling, problems with managed descents, missing messages - TOO STEEP PATH, MORE DRAG, vertical path intercept missing on ND etc.) that needed to be fixed although some have been promised for SP1. The systems modelling is excellent. With the Flight Factor A320, looking at various YouTube videos, the FMGS seems to be more comprehensive with the above omissions modeled accurately. Furthermore the FBW has been demonstrated as well as the systems that appear to have been built in a similar fashion to FSL with valves, relays, circuit breakers etc interacting with each other as if they were built as part of a system. Consequently ECAM and SD pages work as one would expect. One video shows a command line interface where such valves, relays etc can be failed although it is not clear whether this will be in the final product. Another excellent video shows a Managed NPA with rain on the windshield and wipers adding a significant level of immersion. As far as I can see there is no Weather Radar. Bear in mind that the videos show a beta and some of the demonstrations seem to be done by those not completely familiar with an A320. Just type in FF A320 or Flight Factor A320 in You Tube and form your own opinion.

I've probably missed a step as I've not flown the NGX for a while but I didn't see any brake temperature readings after landing. They remained at zero.

I must admit to being baffled as well. For example, Fly Tampa have provided numerous compatibility patches but I cant find anywhere that it explains where you should place the updated sceneries. I have assumed that you cant install the patches in the FlyTampa folder in P3D V3 because they would not work in V3 anymore. Currently I have made a duplicate folder of the FlyTampa sceneries and added the patches. I understand you can place the folder anywhere (but where is the best place?) If you then add it to the scenery .cfg using the Add Scenery dialogue in P3D V4 then for EHAM at least the buildings are floating and the terrain is all over the place.

Paid for but unable to download. Cant get download page after repeated attempts. Will try early tomorrow.

I've been using 3.2.

Got a response from Goflight a couple of days ago. Parts are on back order in the UK.

Having used two sets of Saitek throttles and both ending their life with one or more defective pots I decided to move on to something I thought would be of better quality and more robust. Having spent £400+ on the TQ6 ADV around four years ago I expected the pots to last much longer than on the Saitek. Unfortunately this is not the case with the F lever now faulty. Looked at the Go Flight site with a view to repairing it with a new pot. While the repair kit is around $35 the delivery to the UK is a mind boggling $80+. Not sure if any duties will be added. I messaged GoFlight (no response) and then emailed Customer Service a couple of days later (21st Dec) to see if the kits are available in the UK. Response currently awaited. More to follow only if I get a response otherwise you can draw your own conclusions. Not too sure what high quality alternatives are available.

Is it going to break UK2000 Scenery like the previous update which then needed to be tweaked?

Interesting The 74 failures I just counted which can be set to activate based on speed or altitude must be hidden on your installation. I dont use SGSS at all and the instruments are perfectly readable. There are always bugs with new releases require hotfixes and services packs and the 777 was no exception. its fantasy to think that any complex software is going to be released without them, There are number of issues with Saved Flights and the FMGS in particular which they they say they are working on. I won't pass final judgement until i've seen all of the bugs identified in their forum addressed together with updates to the FMGS but in the meantime its perfectly flyable and by far the most accurate A320 built for FS.