Rylo

So there used to be an aircraft performance site specifically set up for PFPX profiles, but it's now long defunct. Where do you guys get your profiles from for new planes? Specifically, does anybody have a working A20N or similar working profile for PFPX? I've been trying to add the A320-251N CFM variant but haven't had any luck. Interestingly I was able to add FlightFactor's A359 but I just cannot get the A20N to show up in the aircraft editor. Any accurate aircraft profiles, for that plane or any others that are accurate, would be much appreciated, or a pointer on where I should go to find these now. Thanks.

I actually just bought it - updated the nav database with the Navigraph FMS manager and generated a flight with it alongside the same flight generated with Simbrief. How do you modify the OFP layout? I've seen that mentioned a few times in this thread but haven't come across that yet with the program, although I only just started really poking around.

@Konterhalbe, So true story - I typed for about 15 minutes and submitted and the server was down. Suffice to say your post is exactly what I was looking for and when you say you could continue on for hours, I wish you would and I'd read it all. I've been looking for a good alternative to Simbrief for years (I really want all my stuff to be local as much as possible) but all the old tutorials and comparisons with Simbrief are super out of date and it's difficult to know what the current differences are. I'd appreciate hearing what else you find specifically useful about PFPX vs Simbrief (the NOTAM thing is exactly the kind of thing I'd love to use). Or you could always make a tutorial, if videos are your thing. Really appreciate your post and I'll read as much as you want to write! PS - TopCat is amazing even after all these years. I just wish its plane database was more configurable. Copying this before submitting...

LittleNavMap is truly great but I have no clue why I see it compared to PFPX or SimBrief. It does not and cannot replace them at all as far as IFR flight planning is concerned and it is misleading to others to give them the indication that it can.

Uh... any news? Anybody have a working ini file?

There is an update, it's free, and it's a native XP12 plugin. I think there's also one for the 530, if you have it. Therefore, I was 100% incorrect in my understanding of the situation and predictions that Jean-Luc would charge an upgrade. I was apparently also wrong about why version checks were introduced into the plugin. I do wish communication had been better and I'm not sure why it wasn't, but I have seldom been so happy to be so wrong and I will change my username to reflect this. Happy flying.

I can confirm that there is an update, it's free, and it's a native XP12 plugin. Therefore, I was 100% incorrect in my understanding of the situation and predictions that Jean-Luc would charge an upgrade. I was apparently also wrong about why version checks were introduced into the plugin. I do wish communication had been better and I'm not sure why it wasn't, but I have seldom been so happy to be so wrong and I will change my username to reflect this. Happy flying. -Wrong (formerly 'Rylo')

The website is now showing 'XP12' under all X-Plane Products - can anybody confirm that's the case? If there was a compatible version pushed out (for free) in the past 10 hours then: 1). I was completely wrong; and 2.) I have absolutely no idea why this wasn't communicated better to users, nor do I understand why the version checks were implemented. Nevertheless, if I was wrong (going to test now), then obviously I'll wear the egg on my face.

My good man, one minute you are copy pasting the RXP party line about how RXP is having XP12 compatibility issues (a demonstrably false claim and one that EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE has nothing whatsoever to do with why a developer would introduce new code into a product that BREAKS its ability to even run in the first place) and the next you're talking about contractual clauses with Garmin (which is something RXP could have said instead of claiming there were insuperable compatibility problems). I will bow out of our conversation here and allow Jean-Luc to respond if he chooses. Merry Christmas good sir.

Here's the EULA: https://reality-xp.com/store/eulas/rxp-flightsim-eula.pdf "Anyways, you purchased and licensed the tool(s) for a certain platform". There is nothing in the EULA purporting to make the copy of RXP 'platform specific'. The only part of this EULA that is even remotely relevant here is Clause 1.1.1: and you may copy the Software for archival purposes,’ In other words, I can back up my copies of the software - which is what I did. All the best.

Good sir, I first posted about this in August. I and the dozens of others in this thread have waited quite patiently for RXP to give us a substantive update. I have used RXP's software for more than 10 years. I have given them the benefit of the doubt. However, as you know, X-Plane 12 launched last week. And as somebody who has been using an old version of RXP just fine in XP12 since Beta5, you can understand that I find it very strange indeed to read RXP state that there are compatibility problems and that it's proving difficult to get it up and running in XP12. So, I figured that 4 months give or take is probably long enough to give a developer to write a short explanation explaining why they added the version check, or why they are telling us there are major compatibility issues when there apparently aren't, or why they wouldn't just let their customers decide if they're willing to try running the software on an unsupported platform instead of forcibly removing the ability to do so, or why they haven't released even a beta of RXP for XP12, or what the time frame is, etc. These aren't unreasonable questions. They've been asked by different people for more than 4 months. I don't think many people would care if RXP hadn't removed the ability of the plugins to run in XP12, but the fact that they did understandably has people a bit frustrated. I am trying to get @RXP to respond. If he chooses not to, or replies as you have in ways that aren't satisfactory, then I think most people will take their future business elsewhere. However, he also might have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this, in which case it's time we all hear it. But asking longingly into the abyss hasn't gotten us anywhere - it's time we were more direct. If you can't understand that then I'm not sure I can communicate with you. Peace.

You aren't really understanding this very well, are you? This is not a complaint about a lack of XP12 compatibility; this has nothing to do with the SDK. The problem is that it appears that RXP sabotaged its own software so that its users couldn't use the software - that otherwise worked perfectly fine - with future versions of the simulator they bought the software for. The obvious reason RXP would do this is so RXP could charge said users for an upgrade. Read that until you understand that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Laminar's plans or the SDK or whatever laughable excuses you are trying to think of here - we are talking about a developer apparently inserting limitations that otherwise didn't exist into a product for the purposes of hamstringing it. Suppose Apple released a phone that wasn't explicitly advertised or promoted as being 6G compatible, but then once 6G came out it turned out the phone worked with 6G just fine. Then, Apple released an update preventing the phone from working with 6G. There would be an outcry and Apple would get sued in multiple countries, certainly the US, in Europe, and in Australia. Go learn about consumer protection laws and consumer guarantees and do some research on how a court might construe a developer pushing out updates the practical result of which is to limit a product's functionality. Entitling customers to refunds would probably just be the start of it. You can see, I hope, that this has nothing to with Apple predicting the future and everything to do with Apple pushing out updates to its users that quite literally break the functionality of their device. Your comments about the license/terms of service aren't even worth addressing. Good day.

The trouble is, it absolutely is compatible with XP12 and has been since at least Beta 5. I've got more than 500 hours in XP12 with the 530 and 750, and both work brilliantly and they are from 2017 and 2018. RXP has known for many months that both are compatible because dozens of users have posted here that earlier versions work just fine. So, in effect you just parroted the same nonsense we've been hearing since August. Looking forward to hearing something substantive from @RXP and not having boilerplate statements that are demonstrably false pasted here. Thanks.

Did RealityXP release updates to their GNS/GTN (750 and 530) that deliberately prevented those products from working with XP12, ostensibly so they could charge for updates? I've managed to get both the 750 and 530 working perfectly in XP12 by using old installer versions I had lying around, as discussed above. In fact, the 530 is graphically integrated perfectly into the 3D cockpit in several planes that only came out this year, like the TOGASIM v2 MU-2. So why introduce a version check that prevents the installer from installing and the plugin from running in later versions of X-Plane, when the installer and the plugin both work perfectly fine with those later versions? The version check didn't exist until, as far as I can tell, 2019. If the reason was that RXP couldn't be sure the software would work with later versions of X-Plane, surely the prudent route would have been to alert the user that that version of XP (that the user was either trying to install into or use the plugin in) was unsupported and might not work properly or be unstable. Instead, it seems to me that updates were released that restricted and reduced the usability of the software without being of any benefit whatsoever to the end user. I would have gladly paid $20 or whatever for an 'official' XP12 version that could have just been a re-branded version of the 2017 530 (which is what I'm using now and works perfectly). But the introduction of the version checks, without any explanation by RXP, followed by months of radio silence, have really put me off the product unless there is a reasonable explanation. Very much looking forward to hearing @RXP's position on this.

I would like to know why the old versions of both the 530 and the 750 work just fine in X-Plane 12. Were the version checks that prevent users from running the software in XP12 introduced solely so that RXP could charge an upgrade fee? And given that the old versions work perfectly fine in XP12, where are the XP12 releases for them? They literally already work. None of this makes sense - even assuming the worst (viz., that the entire point of the version checks was to prevent people from using perfectly good software in the new version of X-Plane, and that the updates were intended to reduce/remove functionality) I still can't rationalise why we don't have 'official' XP12-compatible versions. They already work just fine, RXP - you don't even have to do anything except... what, upload versions of your software from 2017-2018 for everybody? Extremely disappointed and something that has always been a must-have add-on for me will now be something I desperately try to find an alternative for. @RXP