Davehibes

I think you have exhausted this. You have decided what I meant and are now asking me to defend a position I never expressed. I'm not going to keep participating in that particular exercise. Feel free to have the last word. I'm done with it.

I think you're reading rather more into “i smell a rat...” than I actually put there. I didn't say LR copied AutoHaze, nor did I suggest that anywhere in the text. You seem to have supplied that part of the argument yourself. Now unruffle your tail feathers and relax....

Interesting notion youve arrived at there. Not quite sure where you got that from. 😉

I find the 12.4.4 changes to haze rather interesting when I think back to the discussions relating to the topic on another forum about six months ago. A lot of us were complaining that XP12 was simply far too hazy, even in good weather. The response from some of the more senior and outspoken voices was basically that this was realistic and that perhaps we just didn't understand what real aviation looked like. I never bought that argument. I said so on a popular forum fairly forcefully at the time, and let's just say the discussion eventually resulted in my forum participation being temporarily reconsidered. 😄 Then AutoHaze came along. I installed it and the difference was obvious. For me, it made XP12 look considerably more realistic, without turning it into some crystal-clear MSFS postcard. Now look at 12.4.4. The excessive haze has disappeared, and I have reluctantly removed AutoHaze, as the new XP12 haze fix is exactly the same as using Autohaze. More interestingly, LR says the new system now keeps haze, mist and fog in a more realistically modelled surface layer rather than carrying it upwards through the old fixed altitude range. That sounds remarkably similar to the problem AutoHaze was addressing. I'm not suggesting anything improper happened, or that anyone was deliberately wrong. Two developers can obviously arrive at similar solutions independently. But it does make me wonder about those old discussions. Perhaps the lesson is that even very experienced pilots, developers, moderators or long-standing community voices aren't necessarily right about how a particular simulator system is behaving. Sometimes the users saying “this doesn't look right” are worth listening to. And in this case, it seems they may have had a point.

i smell a rat...

you never mention hitting autopilot. I assume you are arming it along with the Lnav arming.....

im not in an argumentative mood so lets just say my view, your view, both correct from each others perspective...i can live with that.

If someone can't afford a modern gaming rig, that's a financial reality for them, not a development requirement for the industry. Not everyone is in the same financial bracket, and not everyone can afford the latest hardware. But that doesnt mean those who can afford it should have technology deliberately held back to accommodate those who can't. Gaming is discretionary entertainment. Developers should absolutely optimise their products properly, but they should not be expected to make older or low-end hardware their primary target indefinitely. There has to be a point where older hardware simply stops being the target. That's how technology has always progressed. The sensible argument is “developers should optimise their products properly” , not “developers should stop advancing because I can't afford to keep up.” Technology moves forward, and hardware requirements often move upward with it. That's not some new crisis in gaming. It's been the reality of PC gaming from the beginning.

@Bjoern "Looks like the NPS option is off, so it’s not exactly a bug. To enable NPS, go into the EFB’s displays options and I believe under Systems (or Displays if it’s not in Systems), there should be an option called “NPS” that can be turned on and off." I had never had to set this setting before in the EFB for the other models, so I wasnt really looking for it. Saw NPS and wondered what it did. Know i know. Problem solved, thanks for your assistance!

I have issues with the LU737/800 V2. On descent there is no purple VNAV deviation indicator next to the altitude markers. The indicator shows with the 600/700/900 models, as well as with the Zibo737/800. I have tried multiple flights in different locations with different setups but the error persists. Anyone else?

Do we know anything about livery placement? Will we have generic looking aircraft on ground and in the air, as there are still so many liveries not available for XP12?

I uninstalled it after 5 minutes. I couldnt get ATC at all after departure, and there was no way to communicate as there is no prompt button to call ATC. The aircraft were a mix of alsorts so really didnt enjoy the initial experience. Simbrief loaded ok. I will wait until i hear if i can just use the ATC communications and disable the aircraft from Next ATC and use Traffic global aircraft only.

I use the paid Traffic global (TG) for traffic, but it doesnt have ATC. TG is awesome as it dedicates local aircraft only to a specific airport, so if im flying in South Africa i will only find local SA aircraft, and not Ryan air and Easy Jet which do not exist in SA. I tried NextATC in conjunction with TG, but the aircraft are not localized and not very realistic in terms of aircraft that should be at a certain airport. Is there a way to disable the traffic from NextATC and link the ATC only to Traffic Global. I know its a long shot.....

Schoolboy error...navigraph airac cycle had not been updated. Updated, and everything working again. Thanks for the input.

Thanks Litjan, i know the setup procedures for ILS approaches. Fly them every day. It is not the complexity of the aircraft, but an issue with the frequency (or something else) im guessing. The ILS frequencies work on the other approaches (08R,13,26L,26R). Just tested again...08R working perfectly, but 08L no ILS for me!