Captain Dudley

"Go to your programs\ RealityXP GTN and click on it" means your Programs menu, not the C:\Programs folder.

My newly installed GTN750 to XP11.55r2 came up blank as though it had no database. Surprise, it didn't! Should have RTFM'd a little harder. Please disregard my baseless complaint.

Thank you for your reply. I did enter CC information, which seemed to process. I waited overnight to confirm my account was not debited, so I will try again.

Purchased and installed the GTN 750 via the automated installer (RealityXP? Flight1? Avsim?) Nothing appears to have downloaded or installed, no purchase information via email. Did the transaction complete? Would include a screencap but <https://pasteboard.co/lYt7CArQiX21.jpg> isn't being accepted.

Since last week, after an identical scenario to those above (including the 'personal difficulties' detail) I today canceled the debit and the card that went with it, as I would with any company that exhibited seemingly dishonest behavior. I'm used to digital transactions that process almost instantly, what in the world was this? Messages to the contact-us page, complaints on the Facebook page, mostly silence, and no product. Then tonight I received a wad of emails from their Support Lead resolving everything but, of course, too late. You guys have much more patience than I did. Having logistical issues with clients is not a disaster. Tech Support backlogs are pretty typical. Personal problems are a wildcard. But every customer-centered enterprise has some equivalent of 'Your business is very important to us, thank you for your patience', By phone, by email, by IM, by conduct. IRIS missed that section of entrepeneur class. It's tragic, they look like a great design team with products to match. Here's another almost-fan who'll likely never know. :(

Yes this is a relatively ancient thread but I have the exact same problem, exact same symptoms, and this string of replies is as average as it is annoying. Why do people respond at all? I'm glad it 'works for you'. This is a waste of text. We can safely assume it's not a universal problem, as that would be a product defect not a support issue. Thanks for your input. How to use a heading bug? Yea, he probably has that figured out. Why doesn't he refer to the users manual for proper operation! This is a wordy variant of RTFM. Also a chiding little slap to the poster who, as is clear from his query, has some experience with FSX. Then a question for a question, somebody's problems with trim. Why not start a new thread? Because it's easier to hijack this one, of course! And still no answers, troubleshooting or helpful suggestions. Zip. Okay Brian, an actual attempt here: I found the problem was not the autopilot so much as the hypersensitive roll, which explains the symptoms you noted. The autopilot is hard set to a high-speed bank angle and simply can't keep up, chasing the heading bug until it gives up, winding the aircraft into a tight 360's. This happens in both HDG and NAV mode. Pitch does not have this sensitivity, so ALT mode is fine. The '23 was legendary for its twitchy roll, I don't know about later models; but in this simulation (at least for some of us) it doesn't work well. The solution is in the aircraft.cfg. Search for ROLL_STABILITY = 1.0 and change it to a higher number. I use 4.0. True, your civilian fighter jet now turns like a 767 at max gross, but it's perfectly maneuverable and the autopilot should work. HDG changes work as well as FSX default, NAV is a bit picky and needs to be within ten degrees or so to capture a radial, and will hunt for a while. Haven't tried a glideslope capture yet but that's a different axis, so I don't expect a problem. By the way, the equally twitchy ground steering can be improved. In that same aircraft.cfg, search for [contact_points] point.0 = 1, 15.00, 0.00, -3.74, 1181.1, 0, 0.6349, 46.8, 0.100, 6.66, 0.92, 9.0, 9.0, 0, 260.0, 260.0 The 8th value of 46.8 is steering sensitivity, and most FSX aircraft (that steer worth a darn) have values in the 15-25 range. For the LearJet I use 20.0. Supposedly there's a compromise in turning radius, but I don't see it. Good luck. If you don't mind spending a bazillion virtual dollars in fuel costs, it's a great plane to fly!

Wow! Lots of speculation on the next version of Flight Simulator!It is just speculation, of course. Tenuous evidence to back up most of this lively debate. But everyone's mostly hopeful that Microsoft's decision to dump the franchise was merely a strategic reassesment. So just to throw it out there, yet another opinion: There will be no next version of Flight Simulator, there's a reason the upcoming title has a new name. Reason also that the Aces team, with their decades of experience and expertise, were disbanded. MSFS was structured from the beginning as a stand-alone sandbox environment; connectivity only came later, long after third-party solutions. It morphed into a 'base build' for add-ons that worked by itself for casual users, but allowed everyone to personalize their setup in every minute detail. Development stopped because this model was no longer sufficiently profitable.To see the future, you need merely look at what IS profitable now for the industry. I predict:Pay-as-you-go. Cloud modeling now means something differentTerrific graphicsGame-level flight dynamics: MS is not selling to this Forum. They've had their fill of we forever-dissatisfied whiners, and we're insignificant to the overall gaming market.Shoot stuff. Blow up stuff. Crash and burn. Win rewards!Fabulous graphicsRPG elements, like the new Take On Helicopters gameMore MS add-on involvement: why give it away to third parties?Fully interactive. Like Rise of Flight-Iron Cross, stand-alone play is a feature, not a foundation."It's a Simulator, not a game." Not anymore. Did I mention the incredible graphics?Get your copy of the Microsoft Happy Fun Flying Game as soon as it's released! I hope I'm wrong.