Jump to content

Shobhan Nandy

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Shobhan Nandy

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Shobhan Nandy

    All issues with V1.21

    JohnMAXX,,, I agree with the self importance part I'll try to resolve that issue by being more considerate in future posts, it's just when a study simulation doesn't abide to the official book it kind of drives me insane. marpilot, I'll take your suggestion and fly more but it won't be this aircraft until the basic stuff is resolved. Thank you for your consideration and replies, hopefully we will have updates in the future which will unleash the full potential of the aircraft.
  2. Shobhan Nandy

    All issues with V1.21

    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
  3. Shobhan Nandy

    All issues with V1.21

    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.
  4. Shobhan Nandy

    All issues with V1.21

    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
  5. Shobhan Nandy

    All issues with V1.21

    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.
×