The B737 Classic Project

[Litjan]

This is a copy+paste of my reply to the request for some news at the .org:

Development continues at a steady pace. Programing systems is a long, tedious and sometimes very boring job. Our design paradigm calls for every button and knob in the cockpit to not only be functional, but also to have a realistic effect. If you look at this from the designer perspective in a cost/benefit relation, it is a not a very smart decision. Why? I give you an example:

We are currently working on the IRSs (don´t fret, my american friends, we are not after your money! . Well, we are, but we can´t throw you in jail if you don´t pay).

The IRS (intertial reference system) is basically a black box that does "it´s thing" in the background. A very expensive black box.The pilot turns it on, enters the position in the FMC and when the day is done he turns it off again. If you feel bored you can run a quick or full alignment after a couple hours when on the ground to improve accuracy.

This is 95.0% of the interaction that will happen in the real plane, and probably 99.0% of the interaction that users will do in X-Plane.

BUT the IRS´s can do sooo much more! You can input position manually on the CDUs. They display a lot of information on their CDUs. They have an ATTITUDE backup mode (complete with manual input of heading that will drift). Their position drifts over time. They measure latitude during alignment. They need time to align and shut down. They display certain lights, warnings, error codes and sound for certain conditions, failures and omissions. They have a test mode with effect on EADI, IVSI, etc.

Other developers claim to have "custom realistic systems" but really only program for 99% of the users - they are smart! We spend the time to get another 0.9% of the users satisfied. The ones that have some background knowledge or the time to read the real operating manual. The ones that like to push some buttons and see what happens. The ones that will try the ATTITUDE backup mode and monitor IF heading drifts over time with an accurate rate according to the current latitude... the system geeks... like me .

Other developers get away with their way - if someone shows up on the forums to complain about omissions like that it is easy to dismiss that as being not important (and 99% of the users will agree!). We draw the line a little further. We omit a feature only if it is definitely to our knowledge not possible to achieve with the current technology available in X-Plane. We have to deal with the background framework of that. We can work around, expand upon and really stretch the limits - and do as far as we can.

This costs us dearly. Developing this last 0.9% bloats development time (my estimate) somewhere between 2 and 4 fold. If we had to feed our kids with development work for X-Plane we couldn´t do that. The user base for X-Plane is not large and not wealthy enough to pay us an adequate amount for that kind of work. Think about the numbers behind this. What is the average pay per hour for a very talented programmer in your country? And a rough estimate of time necessary to make this kind of airplane? Maybe around 10,000 man-hours. Multiply this with the pay per hour. Divide by estimated copies sold. Add another 20% or so for distribution overhead. Result is the cost per copy we´d have to charge if we wanted to do this full time as a job. Obviously this wouldn´t sell many copies... This is also the answer to why PMDG can do this full time and make money. The very different variable in their equation is "estimated copies sold".

So why do we do it? Several answers to that one.

First we are determined to make the best and complete airliner available for X-Plane. Many cool planes have been done for X-Plane, but we want to not only push but shatter that boundary. We want to build a name for us, so IXEG will be synonimous with ultimate accuracy and fidelity.

Second we all have real life jobs that feed us. Yes, we want to make money with this plane. Yes, we want our time spent reimbursed. But we can afford to be economically unsound about it. This will not benefit most of you... just about 0.9% .

Third we are X-Plane enthusiasts. We love tinkering with this kind of stuff. If you love what you do, you are willing to do it for less money than someone who hates his job. (This is, by the way, the root cause of many pilots being not paid very well around the world. But that is another story ).

Forth the team was dumb enough to ask me to be their technical advisor. I get to test every system that gets into this plane. I not only test for correct functionality, but also for correct feel and look. I don´t get any money for it, but this is easily offset for me by the satisfaction of bossing them around . This light is fading too quick! This needle moves too slow! The plane isn´t floating enough during landing! I have flown this plane for 9 years now, and sometimes I get this weird feeling that something isn´t quite right, even before I can quantify and pinpoint the cause.

I will put up another demonstration movie for you guys within the next few weeks. Yes, it will be as boring as the last one. We will save the ones where I do inverted low-passes at 5 feet over the runway at 338kts chasing Austin´s deer for later .

Before the question of "release date" comes up again - I can´t say anything official, but we are not close to it. You might want to look for another christmas present for your wife or mother if you had the IXEG 737 in mind for her...

Jan

[davidngr]

I will pay u twice as much if i have a plane like this, which simulates every button and switch! I don t mind! I will go for a donation as well! Striving for perfection is your motto! Great

Edited October 17, 2011 by davidngr

[wotaskd]

Same here. I don't care about release dates, take your time and give us the best you can do. I'll pay 3x if it is as good as I think it will be

[Litjan]

2x, 3x, I like the trend I am seeing here...

Jan

[davidngr]

What we all are looking for is a FULLY SIMULATED AIRPLANE which exploits the great potentiality offered by x-plane in terms of realistic flight dynamics. As far as I can see your team is trying to make this happen for the first time! As I have said before, I will be proud and honoured to make a donation to you If this dream comes true:-) Take your time and make the most of it to do a superb job...

Edited October 17, 2011 by davidngr

[Emalice]

Other developers claim to have "custom realistic systems" but really only program for 99% of the users - they are smart! We spend the time to get another 0.9% of the users satisfied. The ones that have some background knowledge or the time to read the real operating manual. The ones that like to push some buttons and see what happens. The ones that will try the ATTITUDE backup mode and monitor IF heading drifts over time with an accurate rate according to the current latitude... the system geeks... like me .

Before the question of "release date" comes up again - I can´t say anything official, but we are not close to it. You might want to look for another christmas present for your wife or mother if you had the IXEG 737 in mind for her...

I think you may very well have to revise this 0.9% number very soon. Since there has never been, so far, a fully modeled, entirely functionnal cockpit (not even Peter's fantastic A380), 100% users have to deal with what the model let's them deal with.

What I mean is that it is geeky enough to handle a flying supercomputer in real life, it is twice as geeky to fly one on your desktop (the geekiest is assuredly developping one ). Give this geeky crowd a screenfull of bleeping lights, moving needles and pushbuttons that do "something but what ?" and they WILL play with it. Personnaly, after some hours logged with peter's A380, qpac's A320 and x737, there are so many things labeled "I wonder what this does but I can't find out because it is not modeled". This generates some frustration.

This frustration will soon be resolved with your release, and I think all the work spent to please the 0.9% will be used to its fullest by 75% of virtual users.

As for the release date, it was already dawning on me that it would never be ready for christmas, but it's cool, my wife will be very happy already with XP10.

Oh, and just for the sake of it, I am ready to pay 4x the price...

Thanks for the great work, keep posting plenty of pics and vids to help us deal with the waiting.

Yours faithfullly,

a 0.9 percenter.

p.s. by the way, do you have any estimate on the price-range for the finished thing ? Please ignore this question if you feel you cannot give an accurate estimate yet.

[Litjan]

Thanks for your replies. We do watch the response we get on these forums very closely. There is an ongoing fruitful debate within our team about user expectations, and it is very interesting to hear what users like - although we know that there is also a "silent majority" that never posts.

No one wants to model a feature that is never used. And everyone wants to model the feature that is used the most. But which is which? Where to draw the line? Fortunately (for me, and also you, Emalice) it turns out that once you do a system to a certain level, it is EASIER to make it more realistic than to work around the problems brought about by leaving out some stuff.

Let me give you one example. Yesterday I talked to one of our developers about the AUTO FAIL feature of the pressurization system. This light (and the subsequent auto-switch to STBY mode) gets triggered by 5 different conditions, one of them being the TRANSFER BUS 1 being unpowered for more than 15 seconds. We faithfully reproduce that - with the unwanted outcome that every time you start the airplane cold and dark, the "AUTO FAIL" will be triggered when you turn on the battery switch (those warning lights are powered by the battery bus). Of course it is triggered, because the transfer bus wasn´t powered for 15 seconds! But this is not what happens on the real plane, otherwise I would have to reset the pressure control every time before flight when taking over a plane that was without AC power for more than 15 seconds.

So where is the difference to the real plane? The real controller doesn´t monitor the 15 sec interval until it is powered (STANDBY controller is powered by TRANSFER BUS 2), so it won´t trigger during initial powerup.

Now back to what I said before about modeling the whole system. If you decided to model a part of it (the 15 sec trigger) you are basically forced to also model the "don´t guard until powerup" part. Otherwise it won´t work satisfactory. This chain of features depending on subfeatures seems to lead us into modeling things all the way - which takes it´s time, but will ultimately be worth it, I think.

Regarding the price - nothing is decided yet and I could not even give you a rough estimate.

Jan

Edited October 20, 2011 by Litjan

[clavel9]

Let me give you one example. Yesterday I talked to one of our developers about the AUTO FAIL feature of the pressurization system. This light (and the subsequent auto-switch to STBY mode) gets triggered by 5 different conditions, one of them being the TRANSFER BUS 1 being unpowered for more than 15 seconds. We faithfully reproduce that - with the unwanted outcome that every time you start the airplane cold and dark, the "AUTO FAIL" will be triggered when you turn on the battery switch (those warning lights are powered by the battery bus). Of course it is triggered, because the transfer bus wasn´t powered for 15 seconds! But this is not what happens on the real plane, otherwise I would have to reset the pressure control every time before flight when taking over a plane that was without AC power for more than 15 seconds.

So where is the difference to the real plane? The real controller doesn´t monitor the 15 sec interval until it is powered (STANDBY controller is powered by TRANSFER BUS 2), so it won´t trigger during initial powerup.

Now back to what I said before about modeling the whole system. If you decided to model a part of it (the 15 sec trigger) you are basically forced to also model the "don´t guard until powerup" part. Otherwise it won´t work satisfactory. This chain of features depending on subfeatures seems to lead us into modeling things all the way - which takes it´s time, but will ultimately be worth it, I think.

Jan

I have done some work on proof-reading real-life Airbus manuals and am somewhat aware of the depth of detail and level of work involved in all of this. I'm sure producing a user manual will be a huge amount of work in itself!

[Morten XPFW]

I have done some work on proof-reading real-life Airbus manuals and am somewhat aware of the depth of detail and level of work involved in all of this. I'm sure producing a user manual will be a huge amount of work in itself!

It is, the real manuals are a couple of thousand pages long and making something like that would delay the project significantly.

Hardcore simmers and real pilots we recommend getting the real manuals which are publicly available for an in depth understanding

of the systems (link earlier in this topic).

In addition to a manual with brief descriptions of the systems and avionics, we will make samples of real normal flights step-by-step

from dark and cold to shutdown. You are gonna love those. Also more systems video like the one above to give a basic understanding

of how they work

Edited October 20, 2011 by Morten XPFW

[clavel9]

In addition to a manual with brief descriptions of the systems and avionics, we will make samples of real normal flights step-by-step

from dark and cold to shutdown.

Yes, I think that would be most useful and a very good approach to take.

[davidngr]

When I heard about this project for the first time, I realized that it would be the best of all times. After purchasing several aircrafts, I said to myself"I will no longer buy an aircraft if all its systems are not fully simulated and its flight dynamics are not realistic...." To be honest I thought that this would never happen, but thanx to your team and your project this dream seems to come true. I have always felt that other aircrafts lacked something that would make them up to the mark. You re perfectly right when you say it is worthwhile waiting, because your project will be worth the wait:-)

Edited October 21, 2011 by davidngr

[meshboy]

Screenshot time! Maybe one more night photo?

Or maybe a picture of the pfd in action on an ils?

[Litjan]

All right, all right

Here is a shot of an approach to KPHX 25L. Autopilot is in command, just past the decision height. Again, a beta shot. Minor things are not right in that picture, yet.

There is no Vref depicted on the speed tape. Also notice the hollow yellow bar extending from above - this shows the placard limit for the next logical flap setting. In this case it would be 158kts for flaps 40 - in the real plane this wouldn´t show, because the landing flap setting of 30 is known to the FMC.

Also some minor things not working yet on the engine instruments (oil pressure too low), and some symbology on the EHSI missing (M denoting magnetic heading, track line, etc.).

If you have any other questions about what you see, please fire away.

Jan

Edited October 29, 2011 by Litjan

[Lukasz]

I'm following the development of your B737 with much interest. I like detailed planes and, for some unknown reasons, I have a great fondness to the classic variants of 737. I see you guys put a lot of heart into the project, which is something I always admire!

[karingka]

Are you kidding me? That looks amazing!

[Morten XPFW]

Update from the 3D department

Will show you an in-sim shot soon.

[Redfisher]

Wow.

Unreal.

[RojanTrojan]

Fantastic modelling skills. I love the scratches on the yoke it makes it much more believable. Will the overall cockpit look used in the same fashion as the yokes or will it have a new lick of paint? Looking forward to the cockpit shots.

[flyinhawaiian]

I'm liking the fact you're keeping the interior of this model worn. These planes are workhorses, and old workhorses at that. I hate models that are perfectly clean and shiny - they have no soul to them. The dirt, grime, and scratches all indicate another mile flown, or another approach completed. The images you've shown look absolutely fantastic, and I can't wait to see the final result.

Keep it up!

[wotaskd]

Completely agree. Quoting John Pavlus (via John Gruber),

"Director Ridley Scott famously told his production designers to make Alien’s spaceship and costumes look roughed-up, slightly messy, and above all, lived in. Otherwise, it just isn’t believable enough to see yourself in."

You are making the IXEG 737 believabl enough I could almost smell it

[Litjan]

You are making the IXEG 737 believabl enough I could almost smell it

You wouldn´t want that - trust me

Jan

[Morten XPFW]

You are making the IXEG 737 believabl enough I could almost smell it

Yepp, with each purchase we'll include a bag of sauerkraut, bratwurzt, mustard and coffee you

can toss under you desk. Most realistic effect is after about a week.

[Ben Russell]

so that's what wears through the paint on the yokes...

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ben Russell

[davidngr]

Amazing...Speechless

[meshboy]

How about a new video with some demo of a small system?

I have watched the pneumatics demo about 250 000 times, would be nice to learn something new! =)

Maybe you could do a new electric demo with same kind of voice description?

Edited November 9, 2011 by meshboy