Things that are NOT going to be in V1.5

[BaBene]

21 minutes ago, tkyler said:

...

The community coined the term "study sim" somewhere along the line, I'm quite sure we've never used it in our official jargon at IXEG.

...

Our primary goal was/is an airliner that is an accurate simulation of a normal and typical 737-300 flight, so that we can get busy flying ops on vatsim and using the FMS to conduct normal flights because its just fun....NOT a 'study sim' as I define it in my head.

...  

Actually I didn't want to get into this discussion as I'm seeing it like you guys at IXEG do. But I just couldn't resist for this one :

 

 

Not that long ago ... I don't want to offend you, I just kinda smiled while reading your post with the video still in my mind

Regards,

BaBene

 

[tkyler]

No offense taken, I knew someone would bring that up so for the record.....I don't consider that video IXEG 'official jargon', but rather an impromptu interview, hence my usage of the term (didn't work though).  I think your post misses the point of my post (but not my quote #1) and this thread; however....your keen memory is noted by all.

-tkyler

Edited January 30, 2016 by tkyler

[Tom Knudsen]

18 minutes ago, tkyler said:

A great quote by author Cory Doctorow,

which is why we type in these infernal forums incessantly, so need to question why people have to sound off on every little thing, its in our nature to just gab.

..and another great quote:  

The community coined the term "study sim" somewhere along the line, I'm quite sure we've never used it in our official jargon at IXEG.  I'm also pretty sure there is no written down definition of just what a study sim is so each person's expectation is up for grabs no?.....furthermore, our simulation is only what we target it to be and Morrigan hit the nail on the head there.  

Our primary goal was/is an airliner that is an accurate simulation of a normal and typical 737-300 flight, so that we can get busy flying ops on vatsim and using the FMS to conduct normal flights because its just fun....NOT a 'study sim' as I define it in my head.   If ol' Bob the customer's goal is to engage in mental masturbation while looking at fold out technical diagrams in the center of the manual....ol' Bob will just have to wait or build his own simulation.....while the rest of us will be 'flying'

Now nearly every thing we have put into the sim thus far has a physical manifestation that can be observed by the pilot in some capacity and is the reason why our 'behind the scenes' stuff is as detailed as it is...its not just for the sake of the detail or so some A&P can practice his diagnostics.  We have simulated electrical relays because it affects how things appear and get powered in the cockpit, VERY visible when simulating normal flight.   We have simulated hydraulic systems in depth because it affects the controls and gauges....VERY visible during normal flight.  We have simualted the LNAV and VNAV as best we can because when you don't level off at the right altitude...VERY visible during normal flight.   Manually entered holds....NOT very visible during normal flight....is everybody getting this?  note our goal above if not.....and read it as many times as you need to until you do....think of this post as a study level post.

...I wasn't going to type anymore but I know that some folks will miss the fact that the word 'primary' insinuates 'secondary', i.e. a follow-on goal.  Our secondary goal is to get the simulation as accurate as we can in the infrequent/abnormal areas, just for the satisfaction of completeness and bragging rights....and no other reason....I have ZERO desire to use a manual hold in sim, don't even care to read about it.  BUT....those that do want it all can rest assured that the pursuit of our own satisfaction in this regard will ensure that we keep going well after V1.0 hits the shelves.

-tkyler   

 

I think the last post by Jan and Vantskruv was kinda a wast of time reading on any level of the english language,  but thats just me. I can only speak for my self and share my honest opinion to my fellow debaters in hope they would care to read it or not. But I am truly a fan of Jan and his 1. dedication to IXEG and X-Plane community by his population of airports and teaching about the 737, I welcome that with all my heart and mind. I have also followed Tom since he first launched MU-2 back in 2008 and I have known Mortens work since his earlier days in X-Plane 8, heck I even remember all the heated discussions with him on the norwegian forums back in the day.. That said I did not fully start to use X-Plane since it become XP10 but used periodicly XP all the way during v8 and 9.. Lack of 3D cockpits was one of the main reasons for me using FS which had been the flavour since FS98 back in the earlier days. And I do belive my obsession for the system simulation was born on the ACE Combat Simulator when pcs was running at DX2-100Mhz and the arcitechture was only 386..  Seems so far away now, but then again so does my youth..  Anyway I digress, my humble request for a "close to real" seems to be take right out of context and made the developers question their own product and what to include or not to include in version 1.0.  Its always hard decide what you want to deliver and what you feel is safe to deliver to the public, on one hand you want to provide the best product to meet the expectation builded over several years, through selveral videos and tons of text, and on the other hand you want to make sure the aircraft is working as it should. So in that sense I truly understand what the developers are coming from, not saying I want to buy verison 1.0, but then again I am in no hurry either. I know and look forward to this airplane as 99% of the majority of X-Plane users are shortcomings or not. Heck I would go as far as state that whilst 95% may be buying the version 1.0, the rest will soon follow making this bird the best developed airplane for any flight simulator.

Quote

Our primary goal was/is an airliner that is an accurate simulation of a normal and typical 737-300 flight, so that we can get busy flying ops on vatsim and using the FMS to conduct normal flights because its just fun....NOT a 'study sim' as I define it in my head.

I would concure with Tom, this is what I vision the airplane would be, a fully working model that you can use to fly, enjoy and play with either you use it to train procedures or not

Quote

The community coined the term "study sim" somewhere along the line, I'm quite sure we've never used it in our official jargon at IXEG.  I'm also pretty sure there is no written down definition of just what a study sim is so each person's expectation is up for grabs no?

I belive PMDG started this "false" and "perculiar" statement, as it did become an airplane "real life pilots" did use to train before taking their "re-test" in this excellent place of knowledge

And I persume most of the "study sim" was contributed by places like http://www.b737.org.uk/book.htm  and wonderful and dedicated books by Captain Mike Ray http://utem.com/

So yea, I do belive there is a basis in the word "study sim", just quite sure it has never been used to describe IXEG just yet, mearly a wishful thinking.

Its because of this we now are being reverted back to my initial saying "we want to bird to be close to real" and of course we know IXEG does not build a real airplane, but hopefully it can be used as a base for "cockpit builders" down the line too hook up to equipments and thirdparty programs like the genious PROSIM http://prosim-ar.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=40&sid=17fe3158cb2df8a54ef7f4447833b127

So in a sense, we hope it can be a study sim down the line, a place where "geeks" like us can train on procedures, failours, emergencies, navigation, known and unknown routes and or just have an excellent time whilst study for the ATPL exam like many do. At least if anybody is like my, study the 737NG for the past 8 years you will now have a hardcore follower to this plane down the road.

So please get back on track, do not give into all of us that say or mention that we will not persue the first official release of this plane, will be customers one day anyway.

PS..

To Jan !!  Whilst I hold you dear to my heart with your dedication, it does not matter to me if IXEG remove LNAV or RNAV or even the entire FMS system. But you might shake the willingness of other core dedicated customers for version 1.0 - Perhaps more will wait for bugs and features are added or fixed.

To sum up my feelings on the pervious mentioned "shortcomings" or features not included in version 1.0

There are many things I would like to have such as a working HOLD function in the FMS system, LEGS page etc.  Simulation that touches the basic navigation of the system and how it flies, others might not be important as it is just eyecandy. Like eyebrows (which by the way got removed from most airplanes - at least Norwegian if I do not rembember wrong anyway), wing flex and cabin detail, heck opening doors and windows is a new feature to x-plane as it is LOL.. Even JARDesign Ground Handling Deluxe do package delivery to default x-plane aircraft without having doors opening he he..

So what I am saying, continue with your development in the timeframe you need or want regardless of what our wishes are for the release, better serv a working product without important shotcomings than a pre and under developed aircraft just to please the market.

If you need money, I would recommed to use websites like https://www.kickstarter.com/  or something like it! A nice way to support and invest in this lovely bird.

[BaBene]

10 minutes ago, tkyler said:

No offense taken, I knew someone would bring that up so for the record.....I don't consider that video IXEG 'official jargon', but rather an impromptu interview, hence my usage of the term (didn't work though).  I think you're missing the point of my post and this thread; however....your keen memory is noted by all.

-tkyler

I don't think that I'm missing the point of this thread. I just wanted to throw that video in and at the same time wrap it in a kind of humorous fashion. I'm not the only one that has a good memory and there are certainly people here who would have taken the opportunity to put you and your post into a bad light.

Your post made me think that you (or IXEG) are kind of backpedaling from your past statement(s). I don't think you need to ... I think most people will agree that a study level sim should enable the humble sim enthusiast to take a FCOM and apply it to his or her "study level" sim. This includes most things concerning the operation in flight (not the typical flight). For me this includes a complete simulation of the FMS for example, even if most of the missing features have no relevance for a real pilot in everyday operation. Truth be told, I was quite disappointed that those features concerning the FMS won't be implemented in the initial release (because I was expecting a study level sim)

In conclusion: For me this aircraft won't be a study level sim at release. However it eventually will be when the missing features are implemented after the release. I can only give you my perspective as a consumer. And I'm confident that some consumers will see it like I do. For me this is not a criterion to not buy the plane. It is my believe that this aircraft will still be the most accurately modeled airplane for X-Plane even on initial release. You did an incredible job (judging by the videos, screenshots and statements you and your colleagues at IXEG made). Once again I'm confident that most of the consumer are thinking the same. 

No one is able to look into your head or in the heads of the other IXEG developers to get insights of your definition of "study level" sim. If you still believe that the meaning of "study level sim" is so ambiguous you should've refrained from using it in an interview in which you are representing IXEG. That's why your post is primarily and sadly going to feed the trolls.

Cheer up!

Best regards,

BaBene

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, tkyler said:

 

...I wasn't going to type anymore but I know that some folks will miss the fact that the word 'primary' insinuates 'secondary', i.e. a follow-on goal.  Our secondary goal is to get the simulation as accurate as we can in the infrequent/abnormal areas, just for the satisfaction of completeness and bragging rights....and no other reason....I have ZERO desire to use a manual hold in sim, don't even care to read about it.  BUT....those that do want it all can rest assured that the pursuit of our own satisfaction in this regard will ensure that we keep going well after V1.0 hits the shelves.

-tkyler   

And I think this is the point - it's not like these features are never going to be added in, the constraint is for initial release and not "this isn't important" or "we're not going to be simulating this, it's useless", which I respect. 

[Cameron]

1 hour ago, BaBene said:

I think most people will agree that a study level sim should enable the humble sim enthusiast to take a FCOM and apply it to his or her "study level" sim.

Sometimes I wish I could agree with this statement, but I cannot. There have now been numerous releases across several platforms which have somehow convinced people products are "study sim" and majority of people are none the wiser. They will literally fight to the death to defend their purchase after the fact too if anyone dare point out deficiencies.

One man's study level sim is another man's piece of garbage. In other words, Tom is absolutely right in saying the term is subjective, and as someone who deals with customers on and off these forums more than anyone, I say such with great certainty and confidence.

In the end this aircraft is summed up simply for me: Even as a version 1.0 release it is the most immersive, fun, detailed, and truthfully simulated product ever put out for X-Plane. It would remain that way for quite a while if IXEG chose to never touch it again after release. Luckily, the drive is there to continue forward beyond 1.0.

[tkyler]

Quote

For me this aircraft won't be a study level sim at release

Fair enough, for me it will, because I don't care to study manual holds.   Is manual holding required for 'study level sim' status?   I know that the NGX was called study level without having weather radar and without proper manually extending gear and with a faulty brake accumulator model.....But maybe those items are not required to get the study level sim merit badge.  I'm still looking for the official governing body who bequeaths study level sim certification status so we have something to go by.

Being serious,   I get it,  what study level means to you....we don't qualify yet given your personal definition, but you can't put your interpretation on everybody else because as illustrated above, there are areas of ambiguity and relevance based on what one wants to study....so when I used the term in the video, given what I know we've put into the FMS and systems, its pretty darn 'study level' to me.   

We fully understand that we have your support, indeed most everybody's and we are extremely grateful for that and we will keep plodding along and hopefully get those things in for you.

-tkyler

[BaBene]

Well written @Cameron and @tkyler. It wasn't my intention to give you the impression that every consumer interprets the meaning of "study sim" like I do (but I have not doubt that some might do ;)).

Let me add something at this point: I'm totally amazed of the way you interact with the community. You leave no doubt that you're really trying to be as transparent as possible regarding your product. I do appreciate the fact that you clearly stated what features are missing in the initial release. And this appreciation outweighs the disappointment of missing features that I'd really like to see in the initial release. I'm also confident that you'll keep your promise of implementing those features after release.

 

PS: @Litjan Sorry Jan, I somehow forgot to answer to your response I'm not that lazy (but I actually might be a pretty bad pilot) What I actually wanted to point out is the ratio of flight time performed in autoflight (or with autopilot on, don't actually know how to call it :P) and the total flight time. I guess 90% isn't that unrealistic, is it? At least for mid- to long haul flights (Yeah I know, you wouldn't wanna do long haul with this bird ...)?! 

Cheers,

BaBene

Edited January 30, 2016 by BaBene

[Tom Knudsen]

 

Quote

Fair enough, for me it will

 

 

Me too, I want to study the 737Classic and this aircraft will be a useful study aid.  I will use it as is, and the more detail it has, the more of an study aid it will be to me. Luckily I've had the pleasure of flying the 737-300 and 500 in a true real life simulator. Also I love the 737-300 EFIS instruments over the 737-300 Non-EFIS F/O flight instruments so I tend to favour the NG series. Regardless a 737 for X-Plane is most welcome and highly anticipated.

However an classic example of why I do not want to buy this airplane just yet, is the A350.. Whilst a very nice airplane indeed and one of my favorite airplanes, it is still an basic edition. It is said that an Advanced version with a working FMGS will come, but it takes for ever and  as far as I know, its not released yet. I was stupid enough to not wait then and most likely I need to spend more money when the advanced verison is released, seems this is the agenda of many developers. Hope it is not the case with IXEG, just a way to increase sales and milk the general public for their money?? Please do not follow examples like SkyMaax and others like it, its just makes for a bad overall product.

 

Good luck and god speed.

 

[Morrigan]

The thing is, people try to argue semantics using their own, subjective dictionaries. It's silly.

It's a colloquial term, created by us, the simming community, to distinguish between very complex and those less complex addons. 

More or less, the general consensus can be made between the simmers of what is and what isn't a "study sim", but there will be obviously some differences here and there.

What I find crazy though, is that looking at some posts in this thread, NOTHING is a study sim, and nothing EVER will be. If you are looking for 1:1 simulation, then go ahead and pay $550/hr for a Boeing simulator and then you will have an actual experience. 

PMGD is regarded as study sim by the majoriy of the community, and yet it's missing quite a lot of features of the real thing. Maybe some people should just accept it's a game, and that "study sim" means something different in PC simulation games than they think it means. 

So tl;dr (as some people seem to get lost in posts): "Study sim" is a term colloquially used by specific community, which isn't to be taken literally. It has its own meaning given by that community. While everyone has right to their own opinion, arguing with semantics widely spread in the community is rather silly. 

 

Cheers.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Morrigan

[Cameron]

However an classic example of why I do not want to buy this airplane just yet, is the A350..

Not even in the same league. Sorry to those who made the aircraft, and also sorry (kind of) for even saying it when I probably shouldn't...but I just did.

Please do not follow examples like SkyMaax and others like it, its just makes for a bad overall product.

 

Good luck and god speed.

 

Uncalled for, Tom. SkyMaxx is easily the most successful and used add on in the X-Plane payware market to date. The fact they gave version 1 to 2 free of charge , and version 3 two years later at 50% discount was more than generous. Don't even bother replying to this in here. You're on an edge that will eventually lead to suspension if you keep it up, and I'm very serious about that. This is your one and only warning. Behave.

[frumpy]

1 hour ago, Tom Knudsen said:

Also I love the 737-300 EFIS instruments over the 737-300 Non-EFIS F/O flight instruments so I tend to favour the NG series.

F/O is first officer, the right seat, it has nothing to do with the EFIS or non-EFIS. Usually the -300 to -500 have EFIS, but it's a different formatcompared to the NG (-600 to -900). I believe only some -300 still have them steam gauges.

Edited January 30, 2016 by frumpy

[dr_nerdrage]

10 hours ago, Litjan said:

Edited first post to reflect current state of development a bit more accurately.

Jan

 

Thanks, Jan!

I see the 3D pilots item was stricken. Does that mean someone modeled and textured an accurate version of yourself? You know we'll be disappointed if it's not you in that seat... 

[Cameron]

Thanks, Jan!

I see the 3D pilots item was stricken. Does that mean someone modeled and textured an accurate version of yourself? [emoji3] You know we'll be disappointed if it's not you in that seat... 

It is Jan modeled in one of the seats. I have to say he's a lot uglier in real life though.

[Tom Stian]

 

Really looking forward to this aircraft. 
Ive been a fsx/p3d user for many years and latly started to try out x-plane. 

One thing I discovered after bying aircrafts to x-plane is that they often are buggy or lack of features. And they are charged at full price and updates are comming slowly or not at all. So Im glad you putted this list out so I know what to expect.

 

• Pilot entered HOLDS. While we have database-inherent holds (like at the end of a missed approach), we won´t feature the HOLD page where you could enter all sorts of HOLDS. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later.

If I could vote for one thing that i want in version 1.0, it have to be the "Hold" function. I do all my flights online on Vatsim. And with heavy traffic events you are often told to hold. So that is a feature I personaly would love to see in the first release. Im not demanding anything, its only my feedback on the list.  

Keep up the good work.

 

[Litjan]

2 hours ago, Tom Stian Bjerk said:

 

Really looking forward to this aircraft. 
Ive been a fsx/p3d user for many years and latly started to try out x-plane. 

One thing I discovered after bying aircrafts to x-plane is that they often are buggy or lack of features. And they are charged at full price and updates are comming slowly or not at all. So Im glad you putted this list out so I know what to expect.

 

• Pilot entered HOLDS. While we have database-inherent holds (like at the end of a missed approach), we won´t feature the HOLD page where you could enter all sorts of HOLDS. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later.

If I could vote for one thing that i want in version 1.0, it have to be the "Hold" function. I do all my flights online on Vatsim. And with heavy traffic events you are often told to hold. So that is a feature I personaly would love to see in the first release. Im not demanding anything, its only my feedback on the list.  

Keep up the good work.

 

That is noted. Thanks for the feedback!

Jan

 

[Dhruv]

That is noted. Thanks for the feedback!

Jan

 

That being said, as an 8-year VATSIM ATC veteran, I don't think I've EVER given an unpublished (i.e. Not retrievable via database) hold on VATSIM, event or not, that a pilot didn't specifically request for training purposes.

The dirty secret is that for as much as pilots dislike random holding, controllers (both real and virtual), equally hate issuing it since it creates issues with protecting random chunks of sky from penetration by other air traffic.

[Litjan]

2 hours ago, Dhruv said:

 

That being said, as an 8-year VATSIM ATC veteran, I don't think I've EVER given an unpublished (i.e. Not retrievable via database) hold on VATSIM, event or not, that a pilot didn't specifically request for training purposes.

The dirty secret is that for as much as pilots dislike random holding, controllers (both real and virtual), equally hate issuing it since it creates issues with protecting random chunks of sky from penetration by other air traffic.

Unfortunately we won´t be able to feature the "database" holds for the many enroute holdings published, though.The holds that we have are part of procedures, for example at the end of most missed approaches. But we don´t do (YET!) the enroute holdings where you click on HOLD, enter the relevant fix, and then the database "suggests" the correct holding with inbound course, turn direction, etc.

We definitely want that - if the database supports it - but for now you would just have to hold "manually", using the EHSI map. Of course you can use the FIX page already to draw the fix to hold at and the inbound radial, that helps a lot with situational awareness.

The holding function is on the very top of the list for stuff post 1.0, so I expect us to tackle that right after the worst glitches you guys will certainly find are fixed.

Jan

 

[Hovercat]

Regarding TCAS:

On 7.12.2015 at 11:00 AM, Litjan said:

You can hear the basic X-Plane audio warning, but no symbology or resolution advisory for now.

Does that mean i am not going to see those "diamonds" at all, or does it only mean there wont be any pitch commands and call outs?

I would love to see even a "simplified" indication of traffic on the map for better situational awareness.

Greetings

Jonas 

[Litjan]

1 hour ago, Hovercat said:

Regarding TCAS:

Does that mean i am not going to see those "diamonds" at all, or does it only mean there wont be any pitch commands and call outs?

I would love to see even a "simplified" indication of traffic on the map for better situational awareness.

Greetings

Jonas 

 

Hi Jonas,

I would love so, too. But unfortunately in V1.0 all you will hear is "traffic, traffic" (we replaced the default "TCAS alert!" sound from X-Plane). There is no symbols, resolution commands, etc.

Jan

 

[Hovercat]

14 minutes ago, Litjan said:

 

Hi Jonas,

I would love so, too. But unfortunately in V1.0 all you will hear is "traffic, traffic" (we replaced the default "TCAS alert!" sound from X-Plane). There is no symbols, resolution commands, etc.

Jan

 

Ok, fair enough! Thanks for your answer, Jan!

Jonas

[ricky1414]

I also would love to see the hold page in the FMC available since all my flights are online on IVAO and if you fly to a busy airport you're very likely to get a hold. You could fly it manually but it's not the same... Anyway I'm going to buy your addon as soon as released and I'd like to thank you guys for this incredible project.

[Red Barron]

Jan just slightly off the topic.

How will the flight director command bars be depicted?

Will they be cross hairs bat wings or both options available for version 1?

Red

[jimbim]

2 hours ago, Red Barron said:

Jan just slightly off the topic.

How will the flight director command bars be depicted?

Will they be cross hairs bat wings or both options available for version 1?

Red

Hello Red,

I think it was said somewhere that it will be the cross hairs.

 

Greetings,

Sebastian

[Red Barron]

5 minutes ago, jimbim said:

Hello Red,

I think it was said somewhere that it will be the cross hairs.

 

Greetings,

Sebastian

 Thanks Sebastian.

Also thought I saw it somewhere.

Regards

Red