Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Shobhan Nandy

All issues with V1.21

Recommended Posts

Most of the issues which I have with your aircraft is related to the functionality, 75 USD is a high price to quote unless you think people are paying that money for eye candy. Let us do this in a structured manner shall we. First, the Frames are unbelievably jumpy that is an indication of unoptimized programming. The VNAV is still majorly buggy. VNAV SPEED and PATH can be selected but the integration is poor and doesn't follow the FCOM, there is no provision for STEP CLIMB. Apparently your FMC don't feature a CAPTURE mode. FMC functions by agility tuning which cannot be verified unless the NAV STATUS page is simulated. Speed restrictions cannot be set in the FMC using the DESCENT page, there is a way to do that dial in the speed you want and press ERASE yes you herd me right ERASE NOT EXECUTE. Sometimes VNAV wouldn't engage even when all the parameters are met. VNAV engagement without LNAV till the aircraft is maintained with in the RNP depending on the section of your leg is not simulated. IRS alignment 2nd pass test not done properly check the FCOM for further details. SPEED mode in MCP IS buggy takes a while before the plane realises it has slowed down too much, CUSTOM WAYPOINTS not simulated, OFFSETS and HOLD patterns are a known issue. Right now I am in the process of reading the FCOM just finished 100 pages in the NAVIGATION section and so many issues came up. Then did not mention which version, revision and update version no. of the FMC is simulated. FMC logic with the radios are okay but because of the primitive nature of the radio I cannot manually select the DMEs I want the FMC to use during alignment as reference. Progress page is just depressing quite honestly. Alternate destination has issues as well. VNAV speed and path cannot be interchangeably used if I do that it messes the VNAV path. During level change climb sometimes if I want to reengage VNAV it wont engage. I'm really sorry but the aircraft is not well done and don't use study level because its just not. I seriously regret spending the money. I'm certain in days to come I will find even more bugs as and when I learn about the systems. Every page in the FMC has something or the other missing. Your aircraft is quite frustrating. The ZIBO mod does a better job than you. I'm really sorry but its not even close to a pay ware and you are charging 75 USD.    

Edited by Morten
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 75 USD is a high price for a virtual aircraft (costing more than the simulator itself), so that puts a certain demand on the quality of the product. I can confirm that as my only XP aircraft, the IXEG 737 creates a jerky movement in the picture which is very noticeable when taxiing and looking out of the captain's window and also outside view of the aircraft. The stutter occurs every 750 ms or so and is not related to overall fps.

As for the VNAV functionality, this is of course disappointing that it doesn't work properly given the price tag. So the FMC/FMS needs the biggest overhaul, but reading posts on this forum I know that IXEG are well aware of this. With a lack of proper ATC, VNAV is important, or shall I say convenient, when flying STARs. The OP mentions the 737 Zibo mod, but even in the latest version, I found that VNAV didn't work properly there either. And even PMDG's VNAV fails, albeit rarely.

The IXEG 737 looks fabulous, and the flight model is very good. The aerodynamic feel and feedback from the plane is probably unrivalled on the market, especially during landings. All the 737s are quite nimble in handling in real life and I think the IXEG 737 exhibits this as well.

I think something in X-Plane v 11.20 didn't go well with the IXEG 737. I've tested the aircraft twice, and both times, it had thrust issues with different power readouts and performance (on my first attempt, the plane nearly swapped ends on the runway due to the difference in thrust between the engines) and difference in N1/N2 performance and fuel consumption. See the attached image for the readouts, this at cruise level.

IXEG_733_bug_in_11_20.jpg

Edited by parsec71
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

Most of the issues which I have with your aircraft is related to the functionality, 75 USD is a high price to quote unless you think people are paying that money for eye candy. Let us do this in a structured manner shall we. First, the Frames are unbelievably jumpy that is an indication of unoptimized programming. The VNAV is still majorly buggy. VNAV SPEED and PATH can be selected but the integration is poor and doesn't follow the FCOM, there is no provision for STEP CLIMB. Apparently your FMC don't feature a CAPTURE mode. FMC functions by agility tuning which cannot be verified unless the NAV STATUS page is simulated. Speed restrictions cannot be set in the FMC using the DESCENT page, there is a way to do that dial in the speed you want and press ERASE yes you herd me right ERASE NOT EXECUTE. Sometimes VNAV wouldn't engage even when all the parameters are met. VNAV engagement without LNAV till the aircraft is maintained with in the RNP depending on the section of your leg is not simulated. IRS alignment 2nd pass test not done properly check the FCOM for further details. SPEED mode in MCP IS buggy takes a while before the plane realises it has slowed down too much, CUSTOM WAYPOINTS not simulated, OFFSETS and HOLD patterns are a known issue. Right now I am in the process of reading the FCOM just finished 100 pages in the NAVIGATION section and so many issues came up. Then did not mention which version, revision and update version no. of the FMC is simulated. FMC logic with the radios are okay but because of the primitive nature of the radio I cannot manually select the DMEs I want the FMC to use during alignment as reference. Progress page is just depressing quite honestly. Alternate destination has issues as well. VNAV speed and path cannot be interchangeably used if I do that it messes the VNAV path. During level change climb sometimes if I want to reengage VNAV it wont engage. I'm really sorry but the aircraft is not well done and don't use study level because its just not. I seriously regret spending the money. I'm certain in days to come I will find even more bugs as and when I learn about the systems. Every page in the FMC has something or the other missing. Your aircraft is quite frustrating. The ZIBO mod does a better job than you. I'm really sorry but its not even close to a pay ware and you are charging 75 USD.    

I agree with you, if you are expensive for me is $ 75 x 3.74, there is some other aircraft better than this for the X-11 in addition to the fairing, Just Flight, 320 Ultimate by Flight Factor that also is not 100% complete now I ask why the PMDG does not come to the X-11 ?????? I do not regret having migrated to XP-11 the dynamics of võo is excellent just missing more quality paid addons and they keep updating and correcting problems that are normal in any software, I like the IXEG B737-300 and continue to improve your products and XP-11 get more developers of paid addons is of great quality that have commitment to their customers. Let's see what news awaits Flight Sim Expo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I don't have an appreciation for the product but for the price it's lacking in countless unjustified ways. The Navigation in capabilities ruin the approach. It's not that it cannot be done. The developers are being lazy. For example, today out of frustration purchased a new aircraft it's the toliss a319. I honestly haven't seen fly by wire implemented that well now I don't have the flight factor a320 but I have the fslabs one. I believe the toliss has a better FBW just amazing implementation. We all know it doesn't look that good but what an amazing systems simulation. Whatever has been done is properly executed and it's an airbus so more complications but the developers have done an amazing job. Considering all that I refuse to accept that a b733 is more tedious to simulate and the delay in relevant updates is just unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

Considering all that I refuse to accept that a b733 is more tedious to simulate

Which contradicts your statement of appreciation.

This product, even in its current state was a 6 year development time. There are numerous version of an FMC and even systems in 737s, so while I won't comment on everything you listed, I will leave it to @Litjan to do that.

I could not disagree with you more about the price and value of the product. Jan specifically, as a longtime Captain in the 737 Classic worked tirelessly on the systems simulation, and from the FMC standpoint, crucial/vital parts to what were used in everyday flight were implemented. Accordingly, IXEG was also very candid in what was not simulated, and has always been (albeit, in our eyes non-crucial).

VNAV is a debatable topic. I think we'll all agree that it's the sore point that needs to be worked out next for the team. That said, simulation enthusiasts tend to have this dependency on VNAV that is really not so present in the real world. That may be due to the fact we do one-man pilot operations (I'm making up excuses for why a simmer depends on it more that an real world pilot) in our cockpits, but in the real world, VNAV was not such a heavily used item for Jan.

I'm sure he'll reply to your other points when he can. It sounded to me like you may have a wrong perception about how certain things are done, irrespective of the FCOM reading you're doing. Jan can further clarify that for you.

12 hours ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

First, the Frames are unbelievably jumpy that is an indication of unoptimized programming.

This is an indication of you likely not knowing anything about "unoptimized programming". It has nothing to do with that at all.

In Gizmo's tool tray menu you'll find a Garbage Collector icon. Utilize that and adjust some values to get a more favorable, smooth experience. I'd start with a value of something like 500.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

Most of the issues which I have with your aircraft is related to the functionality

And most of those we have been very open about.

If things go as planned we will have an update ready later this year that will address a lot of VNAV stuff and more.  

Quote

 I'm really sorry but its not even close to a pay ware and you are charging 75 USD.

You are off course entitled to your opinion.  We have however thousands of very satisfied customers, and the IXEG is one of the most flown aircraft in X-Plane according to Laminar statistics (actually flight time). We have dozens of real 737 pilots flying it and reporting it to be overall the most realistic simulator aircraft they have ever flown!  

Can it be improved in some areas - off course  - and it will be.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here is all I want to say about the OP´s post:

You are entitled to your opinion.

Cheers, Jan

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is almost every single developer in the X-Plane world so touchy when it comes to criticism? I told Dan Klaue to calm down when he answered harshly to a customer wanting to know when the next update for a virtual aircraft was scheduled. I also told him that he's in the entertainment industry where time pressure is far less of a factor than devs working for professional individuals and industries, where people such as myself have vast experience with the software in use and know a thing or ten about how customer support ought to be given.

Cameron should know that the customer is always right, Morten should know that kunden har alltid rett, and Jan should know that der Kunde ist König. The OP feels that the IXEG 737 isn't worth 75 USD in its current state, and I agree. With a better-working FMC/FMS, the price tag will be more correct. In my opinion will this aircraft be a industry leader as soon as a fully functional VNAV is implemented. Why? Because in the VNAV, and thus flight management system, that's where the software engineering really stands out, showcasing the level of competence in the developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe - at my real job I deal with roughly 800-1000 customers every day, and let me assure you, sometimes the customer is a total idiot :lol:.

Now to elaborate a bit more in relation to this post: I don´t think that Shobhan Nandy falls into that category.

But I think he is victim of false expectations. I think he is really really REALLY fascinated with the details of the FMC and I must say that we did not develop this aircraft to be a training tool for FMC technicians. What does the term "study level" entail? Well, there are different perceptions, but I don´t think that any software exists (and that includes all LEVEL-D simulators) that can truthfully simulate the real aircraft´s behaviour in all circumstances.

I am fully aware of our FMC´s shortcoming (although I never even knew the " version, revision and update version no. " of the FMC when I flew the real aircraft). We have placed emphasis on recreating the experience of flying a 737-300 in a realistic, "close to true life", fashion. I don´t even know some of the features that Shobhan is talking about (capture mode? Agility tuning?).

We get good feedback on the areas that matter to me as a pilot (flight model, system modeling) and we are planning to work on the FMC some more in the future. I am not happy with the speed of updates myself, but it is what it is, to quote someone I know ;). Study level? Certainly not for the FMC, I agree. I can´t say if the Zibo mod is better than our aircraft, haven´t tried it myself.

Cheers, Jan

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still my favourite airplane when comes to RFE on Ivao and the best in handflying!

I often fly it VFR just for the fun :)

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, parsec71 said:

 I also told him that he's in the entertainment industry where time pressure is far less of a factor than devs working for professional individuals and industries,

Never try and tell someone else what their life situation is.

You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ben Russell said:

Never try and tell someone else what their life situation is.

You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

 

I lost my mother to cancer a couple of years ago, and under circumstances that could easily make me a real grumpy asshole. However, I do my best to be polite against other people despite my personal struggles. I certainly wouldn't project my aggression onto customers.

For all businesses, customers are the most important thing. Without them, there are no businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parsec71 said:

Cameron should know that the customer is always right

Hardly, especially in the X-Plane world. There are many who are. There are many who are not, and it goes beyond just some opinion.

He can have his, and I can have mine. We're humans in the end. Just because there's some saying that exists in the world does not make it true. People tend to become warriors behind a keyboard when they don't have to face you in the flesh, so perhaps that saying works better in a retail space environment, although Jan said how he feels about this saying of yours too. ;) 

I believe Jan validated some of my points in his own assessment of not even knowing some of the items Shobahn was discussing. 

I did not tell him he was wrong for having an opinion, I stated I disagreed, and that I felt he had some wrong perceptions. But, on the same token, going around typing nonsense that some code must be non-optimized because he says so IS wrong, and I'll happily point that out. The customer is not always right.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parsec71 said:

Why is almost every single developer in the X-Plane world so touchy when it comes to criticism?

Well, there is a sharp line between criticism and insults.  When someone tells you what you have been working hard on for 7+ years is worth nothing, that is an insult.  It is all about choice of words.  But as you say, those people who react in this way usually have had a difficult past/life or really bad day.  

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all the x aviation staff and IXEG developers,

I'm not trying to insult anyone here. The fact that I purchased the product is a testament to my consideration and appreciation for the aircraft and the developers hard work. This version is not 1.0 anymore and that is the reason I believe that the continued development is lacking. I'm pointing out the shortcomings of the aircraft that needs a complete overhaul in certain areas. FIXING won't give long term benefits. Not knowing which version of FMC you are simulation can be considered as ignorance. How can you simulate something when you don't have the detailed description of how something works in real life. My concerns are well justified considering the issues with the basic functionality of the FMC. Let's say I only want an aircraft with the basic steam gauges and limited navigation capabilities then I'll fly the 732 by the way quite well done by flyjsim. Flight dynamics wise your aircraft is great and is meticulously taken care of but people buy the 733 as they want a fully functional systems and much more. To undermine one of the most important factors which makes modern aviation what it is today is unacceptable to me. Sure I can be an FMC junkie but let me tell you without it you cannot do what we all are quite used to in a modern jet. It's more like a command center.

A bit of reality check is also important, gone are the days when you would get away with moderately well done aircrafts, the reason being the competion has increased bad for developers but good for us. For me I like to play with all the navigation capabilities. Let me elaborate for example when I'm performing a complex  departure I'll use the radios and mcp  if the procedure has DME fixes compare it with the FMC restrictions and plotted route and see how good I'm manually flying the aircraft then once the challenging bit Is over I'll revert back to FMC navigation and use all the different modes and capabilities to see how it's put together and to see how different modes are integrated and if they play nicely with each other. You cannot achieve accuracy with any one given type of navigation. It's the combination of various options which makes a fairly modern  jet do what it's does with a given accuracy. As a pilot you must learn how to use all these systems to you best advantage. Of course VNAV path works and you may use level change when required. But is that all you are concerned with. Options exist for a reason, and the reason is accuracy an redundancy. These are not my words but BOEINGzz.

PARSEC71 thanks for the support. I must acknowledge that there are areas where the plane is well done for instance it doesn't seem like a nimble aircraft but does feel like a jet. But creating a true experience does mean that you get system logic and integration right, which is lacking considering the navigation capabilities. Just try throwing in something complicated and you will know. Changing descent modes messes with path calculations. I SUGGEST THE DEVELOPERS TO PICK UP A MODEL NO. SO THAT THEY WONT END UP MAKING THEIR OWN VERSION OF THE FMC PROBABLY WE CAN CALL IT IXEGzz FMC AND FORWARD IT TO BOEING. Let me also remind you that you are simulating something and not making your own version.

" The easy way out". There are areas of the aircraft which gives an impression that the most simlest version of the equipment was picked up and simulated. For example the weather radar, the radio ohhh, no way to manually tell which reference dme stations to take for the purpose of cross checking the IRS and getting the position accurately. The modern versions have an auto and manual mode which allows you to manually select the dme stations for the purpose of accurate alignment and checks. All this must happen in realtime and I believe it's a hard job and thus there are people willing to pay even more provided the aircraft offers all that.

At the end of the day it's up to you. Most annoying fact is the delay in the releases of updates and fixes. I'll tell you a basic problem with that which even an infant can. For instance I start working on an update for my aircraft and the current xplane version is 11.10. I decide to take my own merry time and I release the version when xplane 11.20 is out.Now let's say laminar decided to do a major change for x plane 11.20 which has a significant effect on the update you were working on and will render the aircrafts functionality buggy if not correct. So now you have to redo the work.

I can actually go on and on. So let me conclude, the facts

1) You did not redo the aircraft but the intention was to make it work in xplane 11 with fixes and patches.

2) Proper model no. of the panels and systems must me mentioned so that the end user if interested can learn how to use them properly by the book which is even subject to the extent of accuracy achieved by the developers.

3) Probably your team is limited but it's not an excuse for delaying updates as it can pretty much result in a buggy simulation pretty much all the time.

4) System logic integration in real time is not quite there yet, I'll ask a 733 pilot do do an FMC and navigation challenge and will submit a report.

5) Its an aircraft which you are simulating and not a centrepiece in an art gallery. So shiny aircraft with limited functionality is a big NO NO.

6) There are a certain expections which you should have met by now, and stop quoting texts which are years old. Considering the price you should have reached exceptional standards by now.

7) If you keep on defending yourself then it gives an impression that you are not interested in improving your current creation and to the end user the team seems reluctant and delusional.

8) 6 years + 2 years post release=8 years. It took that much time for the real a320 to get European commercial aviation certification.... rest fill in the blanks I think you pretty well know what I mean.

 

Cheers

 

IXEG_733_bug_in_11_20.jpg

Edited by Shobhan Nandy
Misinterpretion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Litjan the aircraft has been done well in many aspects. But the above listed stuff is an experience killer. Please turn it into a milestone achievement. We expect greatness from the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shobhan Nandy

Sorry dude, but the vast majority of customers don't agree with you. If this product doesn't fit your goals, I'm sorry. We get endless comments daily in e-mails and support tickets praising this product and the immersion. I'm not claiming perfection, nor is the rest of the team (though it's desired), but you're in a pretty small pool right now with these comments.

You're sitting here saying you'll "ask a 733 pilot do do an FMC and navigation challenge and will submit a report." This is ridiculous. Truly. @Litjan was a rated captain up till retirement of the aircraft at a major airline. I'm quite certain we have all the pilot validation we need (never mind the fact more were involved in the actual testing of it), and where any shortcomings may be; all of which the team has been open and public of in a single topic.

The rest of your reply is really hard to read without producing a headache. The words could be articulated a lot better, and the tone of you being the almighty payware God speaking to the days of half baked goods being done and asserting such an accusation here could be done without.

 

59 minutes ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

" The easy way out". There are areas of the aircraft which gives an impression that the most simlest version of the equipment was picked up and simulated.

Another example of you having no clue what you're talking about and throwing accusations. No, "the easy way out" was never taken. The simulation was based off the fleet of a particular airline who contributed the most help to the project. If you feel they had some form of simple systems then that's pure coincidence and nothing more. I have never heard a customer say something like this in all the time this product has been out.

 

59 minutes ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

8) 6 years + 2 years post release=8 years. It took that much time for the real a320 to get European commercial aviation certification.... rest fill in the blanks I think you pretty well know what I mean.

Hahahaha. Remind me. How many employees does Airbus have? You have no grasp on simulation content production if you're using an analogy like this. Consider the facts and budget of such a company before you try and compare it to an X-Plane project.

30 minutes ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

But the above listed stuff is an experience killer.

...for YOU.

30 minutes ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

We expect greatness from the team.

And so many already do.

There's improvements that can be made in this project. This much is certain, and the team is very acknowledging of such. That said, I maintain what I said from the beginning. You have some very wrong perceptions.

59 minutes ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

7) If you keep on defending yourself then it gives an impression that you are not interested in improving your current creation and to the end user the team seems reluctant and delusional.

The bolded word in this quote is important. It's how I feel about quite a number of things in your post, including this very sentence quoted.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, marpilot said:

Shobhan,

please stop it or go back to FSX!

No need dissing FSX. After all, some of the best aircraft reside on that platform. And the majority of flight simmers are still using FSX (if you don't believe me, just ask Orbx).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD

Cameron,

Probably the articulation is a bit too complicated for you to understand, I believe my previous post is kind of chaotic since I tried to include all my thoughts. Right now I do agree that probably you have customers who are contended with this product and think you are a god sent, this usually is the case when your knowledge pool is restricted and your ignorance has led to a state where you cant even appreciate the obvious observations. Let me simplify it so that you don't get a headache, your delighted and satisfied customers have never used a proper study level product and this seems to be the only explanation. They have no idea/ comprehension of what can be achieved in a simulator be it x-plane 11/ ESP.

Since my first post I have noticed this defensive strategy DUDE, where you just say you have a ton of satisfied customers, that being said there are NUMEROUS people who have been your customers in the past and have been let down. Some of them going to the extent of not recommending you anymore, I see the reason why.

I have met a lot of people but never met somebody who is proud and defensive about vital systems not being simulated which in todays day and age is considered standard.

This is exactly the attitude which is not going to help your product, no wonder the development pace is sad, in fact apart from few bug fixes nothing significant has been done since the aircrafts early days at least not systems wise, nothing commendable, I know people who have your plane parked for months and they believe IXEG development is dead and they have all the reasons to do that.

If you are so certain about your product you shouldn't mind if I ask a pilot to check the parameters and by the way your product is quarter baked cake, its depressing... not even half baked, what a shame. A proper review is coming be prepared for the impact, but I assure you, ill just state the facts rest it will be up to the people and your satisfied customers.

Ya airbus as a company is huge with a large revenue but don't forget what they are delivering is nothing short of a giant which includes the tangible aircraft and everything associated with it, they are not a software manufacturing company isn't it!!!! you can keep on patting your back and blame everything else except yourself for you deficiencies.

Marpilot,

First of all I need to ask you a question, from where exactly do you get the idea I'm supporting and favouring FSX. In my previous post I mentioned about Toliss/QPAC a319, if my memory serves right its an x-plane product, so is FLYJSIM. We have other developers doing a great job and increasing the bar of what can be achieved with x plane 11, this was not a problem when the competition wasn't fierce, now the scenario is different and I believe IXEG is a victim of that. More over the base simulator provides you with the basic tools which you can use to achieve the best possible results that defines your ability as a developer. I can see 2 reasons for this not happening. Either you don't want to or the team is seriously lacking in decent programming skills, there is no excuse for a badly written program. Rest I believe parsec71 is enough capable of handling you.

Anyway, BE ADAMANT STUBBORN KEEP ON REMINDING YOURSELF THAT YOU THE SUPREME LEADER OF A FULLY BAKED DELICIOUSLY ICED CHEESE CAKE, it will most certainly help your company, I can see a bright future for you ahead.

Cheers  

     

Edited by Shobhan Nandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shobhan Nandy said:

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD

Cameron,

Probably the articulation is a bit too complicated for you to understand, I believe my previous post is kind of chaotic since I tried to include all my thoughts. Right now I do agree that probably you have customers who are contended with this product and think you are a god sent, this usually is the case when your knowledge pool is restricted and your ignorance has led to a state where you cant even appreciate the obvious observations. Let me simplify it so that you don't get a headache, your delighted and satisfied customers have never used a proper study level product and this seems to be the only explanation. They have no idea/ comprehension of what can be achieved in a simulator be it x-plane 11/ ESP.

Since my first post I have noticed this defensive strategy DUDE, where you just say you have a ton of satisfied customers, that being said there are NUMEROUS people who have been your customers in the past and have been let down. Some of them going to the extent of not recommending you anymore, I see the reason why.

I have met a lot of people but never met somebody who is proud and defensive about vital systems not being simulated which in todays day and age is considered standard.

This is exactly the attitude which is not going to help your product, no wonder the development pace is sad, in fact apart from few bug fixes nothing significant has been done since the aircrafts early days at least not systems wise, nothing commendable, I know people who have your plane parked for months and they believe IXEG development is dead and they have all the reasons to do that.

If you are so certain about your product you shouldn't mind if I ask a pilot to check the parameters and by the way your product is quarter baked cake, its depressing... not even half baked, what a shame. A proper review is coming be prepared for the impact, but I assure you, ill just state the facts rest it will be up to the people and your satisfied customers.

Ya airbus as a company is huge with a large revenue but don't forget what they are delivering is nothing short of a giant which includes the tangible aircraft and everything associated with it, they are not a software manufacturing company isn't it!!!! you can keep on patting your back and blame everything else except yourself for you deficiencies.

Marpilot,

First of all I need to ask you a question, from where exactly do you get the idea I'm supporting and favouring FSX. In my previous post I mentioned about Toliss/QPAC a319, if my memory serves right its an x-plane product, so is FLYJSIM. We have other developers doing a great job and increasing the bar of what can be achieved with x plane 11, this was not a problem when the competition wasn't fierce, now the scenario is different and I believe IXEG is a victim of that. More over the base simulator provides you with the basic tools which you can use to achieve the best possible results that defines your ability as a developer. I can see 2 reasons for this not happening. Either you don't want to or the team is seriously lacking in decent programming skills, there is no excuse for a badly written program. 

Anyway, BE ADAMANT STUBBORN KEEP ON REMINDING YOURSELF THAT YOU THE SUPREME LEADER OF A FULLY BAKED DELICIOUSLY ICED CHEESE CAKE, it will most certainly help your company, I can see a bright future for you ahead.

Cheers  

     

It's obvious you feel above anyone else in this post, may i remind you that we all put one leg on at a time. 

Unfortunally for you, anything written at this point is framed in the fact that you have an extremely warped sense of self importance.

I think it's been clearly articulated,from multiple people involved with ixeg, the full scope of the project, yet here you are beating a dead horse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less reading more flying guys :)

I feel sorry for you Shobhan that you don't have fun from your hobby.

Bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×