Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral


  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.


    Work In Progress Screenshots

    Good work mate, keep up the good work

    Jettime (OY-JTE)

    Nice that we got it painted before they leave, as sadly they might soon bee the past as JetTime takes was it 4 out of the 6 ones they got by 737-300 out of service November this year and 2 next year, due to financial problems they try to get a smaller fleet..

    EKBI Navigraph problem

    well I got problems when I wan´t to do a flight from EKCH to EKBI or other locations. I fly a Sid and the route but when I get to the last waypoint of the route in this case RIDSI, the plane stop flying to the transition (GE2 to ILS RWY 09) as there are no star for the airport.. As the video show the plane fly to RIDSI and then turn right to a given heading and never get you to the waypoint GE according the FMS if I then do like in the video by re enter the GE the plane would do a nearly 360 degree turn, as the line was drawn. (seen about 1 min in to the video) PS. the video is for demonstration only!

    PFPX IXEG profile

    well there is a option I guess but not sure how good it might be but there is this tool http://secure.simmarket.com/toper-calculator-tool_b737-classics.phtml as alternative to the Takeoff Performance Calculation

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

    Yes that is correct but the main problem is how big an problem is it going to be worldwide. As some places it might not be as important as other places.. I also know Navigraph uses different names sometimes and when you got the chart you might figure it out.. But I still say yes the real world might not be perfect but when your way points have different names and altitudes are not correct it starts building problems.. And what I have seen... And I am nearly 100% sure the reason there is this edit in the navdata is because the Level D data is re-done to work by another newer add-on out there that also is based on the Level D navdata but need that edit for some reason I don´t know.. as I dont think it is just somebody that edit it for fun.. I guess if you want the best result you better talk to the navdata providers to get your own data base if it then should be based on the XML format go for that.. I could keep talking as I have analysed the data years back and know how they edit those data for given add-ons and why we got all those different databases.. But the best of cause would be if we for once only had 1 database for any add-on on the market, it would cost less edit time of all those data, and no cut corner would be done..

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

    Okay let me clean up an error I made late yesterday by the data from Navigraph data for Aerosoft airbus database, as I used Linux you know low and small letters matters and mixed 1406 and 1603.. I say OM26 show 1930ft that was incorrect that was for "1406" then if I go to "1603" it is 3000ft just like tkyler say it was by NavDataPro.. So that shows something has changed since last year in the main data for the Airbus data as it seems to have been correct in the past.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sadly I don´t have old data for the 767 Level-D aircraft to check that for changes, but can see in the latest data provided by Navigraph this OM26 point does not seem to exist even I try a search for the altitude it is not there.. That said it can be there is a way point (a custom name, that is not part of the chart I can see a FF26 point at 3000ft but if it might be the same I cant say) I mean I have seen that in the past for some add-ons by the databases, but I have no option to check this out and cross check as I don´t run the 767 Level-D.. or your plane to see what it might tell me on the display by the data provided..

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

    Well you are looking at the data from the Airbus and a given procedure I can´t tell you right now as I don´t have all the charts for this airport. I can just tell that the numbers after Final identify what procedure and runway you got.. and is not the same I used or the developer as the point you got is 30DME (that´s the name it might use).. But anyway you are not allowed to show those parts of the codes anyway I guess..

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

    Looks nice.. About the incorrect data of OM26 show 3000 ft what nav database do you use ? I tested it by Navigraph data for Aerosoft airbus database that some other developers are using and the data seems to be there. I know you use NavDataPro.. But it is odd if the data is missing from the Lido data.. But also know depending on database some modifications might have been done depending the end add-on.. That´s also why we have so many data bases for FSX that contain the same data more or less as developers have filtered stuff away for a database for there plane, in order to work best by there add-on.. But can´t say in this case as I don´t know the database you use or the data that is provided in the files from NavDataPro for that database. I can only read the Navigraph data files as that´s what I got and it has another value of (1930ft) that is the same as the chart..

    737s alive and kickin'

    well a few weeks back I saw this funny picture as I was tracking a flight.. I don´t know when Sao Paulo moved to Billund in Denmark and that Lufthansa had long haul flights in a 737.. Frankfurt to Sao Paulo.. A bit wired tracking sometimes

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

    Okay fine that is good news for the new device but I still say go to FlyWithLua support forum and talk about it there.. there might be someone that can help.. as yes I know 0 to 1 is a bit pain full as it is a small range.. but hardware output is 1 thing and another is the simulator (0 <-> 1)

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

    hmm I don´t know if it might be that simple, because for years back I also had a GoFlight Throttle Quadrant and know it was not plug and play as you say.. Windows only see the device but windows can´t communicate whit the hardware to calibrate it´s axis.. and If it is still that way you cant assign the axis inside x-plane directly like other plug and play devices.. only by there software that runs like a plug-in.. Then you have to know if the driver from GoFlight uses the default axis or direct input by dataref for the commands it sends out to the simulator.. this can cause a problem if it sends direct dataref input to flaps and such.. Because if this plane make use of custom codes for those things we have to know them instead to make it work but then you can only use this code for this specific aircraft and not create a general file that can be used by other values for other aircraft’s if that might be handy.. But also what input range does it use for the axis is it from -16084 to 16084 or is it like x-plane default from 0 to 1.. Not that I think you cant do it as I think you can but you have to know quite some things about it.. and sadly I don´t have my device so I could try create something that you could use.. But we are off topic here and think you might start a chat about it over at the FlyWithLua support forum.. Not that I don´t want to talk about it!

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

    Well I guess you know the answer.. No one really knows that.. Yes developers have a internal time frame when testing is started (already said in this form as well) but is only a estimate.. I know as both tester and developer of given things, how that can changes and gets updated as it´s important for you as tester to know some kind of time frame as you might work for other developers as well.. But it is a estimate that is subject to changes, the best example is (CRJ700 / 900) where things have not followed the plan as the publisher wants, and keep updating stuff to get it to the latest standards.. else you might end by a Fokker project by a new VC and the old product from 2008 just to take a ex. I know it would be the other way around in that case.. but that was a side step to get a complete understanding about the many complex things you have to take in to consideration. But you have to understand the final part is hard work and where the smallest thing can be a show stopper until corrected and sometimes that’s by going far back and re do things, sometimes as close as to the start, I have tried that and it is so frustrating. Another factor is depending on the company size and such things, you would know 1 delay cause problems further down the line. We sometimes have seen when testing is good and nearly done and ready, they need a installer but since the person that should do that does not have time as he works by other projects.. If you start count all those things, that you do not have much control about. You would realise how difficult it is to estimate to the public, as you do not know the facts about what would happen you can try but you never know what´s behind the next corner. How is it in the gaming industry do they always keep promise ? NO.. What does it cause? More negativity and bad reputation around the world.. That´s why some developers do no show what they work on, and just out of a sudden a new product ends in the store. But a EST of beta or release is never easy or a good way in the public, as it often cause more negativity when it is not going to happen, then when you get to the store and find it´s out.. Not only does it lower the pressure of the developers but also the system that should handle forum and shop in the final end.. That was a long one, I just feel it does not make any sense to keep asking as its like some just try push on to get information, but it has the opposite effect.. Would you give info if some one keeps asking the same thing ? as when they give a release date another might start arguing that it takes long time and there we go again.. We have seen it so often sadly..

    I require the FMC should be replaced.

    I don´t see the point a FMC is what was build in to the plane back in the days and they cross the Atlantic fine, even it is not the most common flight for a 737-300 other then the delivery flight. But a special kind of humour I guess..

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - December 1st

    hmm not sure as PFPX is not for X-plane as far as I know, but it is not that difficult to manually create a file as tkyler shows in the video you could also just get the data from PFPX and generate it by the small tool I did last year as a alternative: LN_FPL_Export_Tool

    IXEG 737 Progress Update - January 30th

    yes yes fast typo :-)