Bjoern

Yes, the demos are are good means to test before you buy and the support is excellent.

Can't help you as I only have a TM16000M and an XBox 360 pad.

Thought I'd never leave FSXSE because it did run quite well, but after having tried the XP11 demo, first out of the box, then with add-ons, I couldn't resist but to buy it (the currency exchange rate helped a bit). Despite the drawbacks like horrendous disk space consumption with add-on terrain and libraries installed, long loading times, (still) no MSFS-equivalent AI and ATC implementation (regardless of add-ons used) and lack of seasonal textures (needs an add-on), it provides so much out of the box and as freeware that it makes up for it. While FSX felt like nothing but a giant construction site for me lately (so many unfinished projects), XP11 is a real breath of fresh air. It has switch sounds out of the box, a FMC out of the box, weapons out of the box, better scenery out of the box, better lighting out of the box, a centralized airport scenery repository out of the box, better framerates out of the box, weather radar functionality out of the box, TCAS out of the box, cloud shadows out of the box, better controller mapping options out of the box, WAY better default aircraft out of the box, way better file and folder handling (no registry paths!), multiplatform support out of the box (ever tried running MSFS/P3D on Linux?) and certainly more that I forgot to mention. The only other investments I had to make were AI traffic (World Traffic) and white noise for ATC (X-ATC-Chatter). Other than that, there's not as much freeware as for MSFS, but a lot is payware quality (HD Mesh, X-Europe, VFR Objects, Zibo 737, L-410, An-2, DR400, Lancair Legacy, X-RAAS, Terrain Radar, 124th ATC or EasyATC) to keep you busy long enough. So all in all, I got farther with $100 in XP11 than I could have in P3Dv4 with the same amount. Granted, a comparison is a bit unfair since X-Plane has been in continuous development while MSFS' platform was dead for quite a while before having been picked up again by LM. But still, the list of improvements compared to MSFS, even after subtracting the advances made by P3Dv4, is nothing to be scoffed at! So far, I'm quite happy about having given X-Plane a try. P.S: Unlike common opinion, you can even run X-plane x64 with less than 8 GB RAM if you make the page file large enough (~20 GB) and have it on a fast hard drive or SSD. However, scenery load times will be really long (even more so with terrain add-ons and VFR objects) and there might be stutters when loading a new tile, but it's totally doable. My next upgrade step is an external 512 GB USB 3 SSD for running X-Plane from and maximum portability between my desktop and laptop PC. This is something you just can't do with MSFS/P3D.

While not as bad as the third party models, the in-house stuff is not perfect either. Had massive framrateissues with the Tornado and massive VAS issues with the L-1011. With more emphasis on performance optimization, these could be 10 by 10. Due to less required complexity in terms of models and systems, it's not much of an issue in the GA lineup though, which is very good.

From what support told me, an update is low on the priority list. In JF's defense, the DC-8swere developed under contract by a third party and the in-house team did already fix it up quite a bit in terms of code for the service packs.

My experience with the JustFlight DC-8 (50 to 70 series): - Some models dragged my frame rate down to 2 to 3 FPS due to some kind of bug - The models that did not possess that bug still were much too hard on frames - Something in the copy protection or so clashed with my Antivirus (at least that's what support told me) and prevented some gauges from operating - Some other, minor stuff After some troubleshooting with JF's support, I got a refund. So in my experience: The models do look good and cover the whole DC-8 family, but that's about it.

Turning the AP master off is all it takes to disconnect it for landing.

Never mind, you've used the F1 tool and the problem persists with FS9, so a manual registry check is pretty much pointless. For reference, the relevant registry keys are discussed here: https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/registry-keys-fsx-fsx-se-p3dv1-p3dv2.432633/ If more than a single tool was affected by a problem, I'd pretty much opt for a complete clean installation (Windows and all programs).

This is not default behavior for FSXSE. Check the registry entries for FSX. And the "SITUATION=" line in the fsx.cfg for good measure. And remove some DLCs you might have installed. And THOROUGHLY review your security measures INCLUDING those of your web browser.

Is FSX installed in "C:\Program Files(x86)"? If so, Windows security might have locked it down. The red bars with missing text might be caused by a faulty video card driver or missing DirectX runtimes. And check that the required Visual C++ runtimes (2005 SP1 or so) are installed.

No problems after the 1803 update. The only occasions on which I've experienced an error message loading a saved flight is a missing user aircraft. Loading a flight saved with real world weather injected by a third party tool (FSXWX in my case) sometimes also makes FSX hang or crash.

Edit the panel.cfg and replace the guges you want with the ones from ISG. Located in the subfolders in "SKYSIM DC-9\Config". 16 copies all in all. But beware: The virtual cockpit model has 3D gauge bezels, so there is the risk of visual artifacts.

I rarely, if ever, use a third party ATC tool now despite flying airliners. AI interaction and extensibility is just too limited. Save for the annoying lack of auto-reply and anticipating runways at the target airport, default totally does the trick for me. And as long as the destination weather permits, I can simply revert to flight following during climb and fly whereever a FMC takes me, including STARs. Hints: During descent, ATC expects a vertical speed lower than -1000 fpm or so. That number is fixed and ATC doesn't care whether you're at your target altitude when the next instruction comes. Altitude is only monitored within +/- 300 feet of your target altitude. If you're not careful, you'll be vectored onto the localizer with 8000 feet between you and the airfield, necessitating a combat approach or a go-around. ATC usually vectors your aircraft to 20 to 30 nm out, also after a missed approach, and puts it on an intercept course to the localizer. AI follows the approaches defined in the airport layout (ADE) file, so if properly defined, it ironically has less issues in difficult terrain regarding ATC compliance. Runway selection is determined by the airport layout, wind and available runways. Default ATC basically uses aircraft weight to pick the runways in use. If ATC thinks your aircraft can't handle a short runway, you'll be vectored onto the next available longer one. If a parallel runway is used for takeoffs only, you can still approach it, but you'll be ordered to sidestep. If the airport is coded for crosswind runway use, you can select any runway that's open and available. FSX/P3D ATC is a masterpiece of code, despite the quirks and limitations. Only Falcon 4's(!!) comes close. Note: X-Plane's ATC is still mostly a planewreck, FlightGear's and Aerofly's is (still) nonexistent.

Default ATC can be used with STARs (SIDs aren't an issue) if you cancel IFR when receiving the initial vectors can live without clearances for altitudes can accept the risk of the tower denying your landing request when the airfield is IFR Other than that, if the airport approach data (from the ADE/AFX/AFCAD file) matches the FMS' database, you can request your desired and programmed approach from ATC. It's not entirely foolproof (due to wind shifts and potential sidestepping), but it works.

Random figures and you can obtain a rudimentary loadsheet, IIRC.