Things that are NOT going to be in V1.5

[poodster]

3 hours ago, fffirefly said:

My sentiment exactly.  When everyone was peppering Cameron as to when this a/c was going to be released, he replied 'when it's ready'.  I defended his reply from the standpoint that it should be released when it is ready to be released, meaning almost completely bug free.  As a result I got a bunch of dislikes hence my negative reputation.

For me personally I can wait another year if need be.  Tired of products being released only to have their forums quickly filled with bug complaints.

All these suggestions of 'nice to haves' are great and I look forward to them.  They surely have been noted by IXEG and will be added in subsequent versions.

People are just angry because they want it right away. A good example of getting something right away would be the rotate md-80. That plane had soooo many bugs on release and they just released a HUGE patch to fix a bunch of bugs. I think people should on that plane when they get antsy about this plane not being released yet. 

For me, another year would be too long lol, plus it wouldn't make sense from the updates we have been seeing. 

Oh yea for sure! These nice to haves are wonderful to think about, and to be honest, whenever i look at the features not available in V1.0, it's very small! Most of it is just super minor details that don't ruin the product at all. In fact, IXEG has way more features and in depth systems than any current X-Plane 10 airliner has. 

[poodster]

I have found some videos regarding wing flex for this plane. 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

Sorry if I've missed it somewhere but I can't find any information relating to this product working with Mac OS when it's ready? I'm a Mac user....obviously.

[jimbim]

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Sorry if I've missed it somewhere but I can't find any information relating to this product working with Mac OS when it's ready? I'm a Mac user....obviously.

Finally someone broke the silence here :-)

 

Hello Daniel,

as far as I know it will work on Windows and Mac OS X.

 

Greetings,

Sebastian

[zfrankdesign]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

Sorry if I've missed it somewhere but I can't find any information relating to this product working with Mac OS when it's ready? I'm a Mac user....obviously.

On a related note (mac performance): Do you guys foresee this plane being nice on the frame rate of us with wimpy computers (MacBook Pro 2.9ghz with Intel Iris Int graphics)? I haven't been able to find any estimated hardware specs around the forum posts on the 737-300. Just wondering if this plane will be like the FF757 pro (runs really great on my machine and still has pretty good graphics 20-30fps with low rendering settings, like it was optimized to work with less capable machines) or do you foresee it being more like the Rotate Sim MD80 (cannot get it to run great on my machine, 14-16 fps with really low rendering settings, using 2k textures, etc). Just curious. Is there another thread you can point me to or give me a reco? I really want to build a machine.

Zach

[cod360]

4 hours ago, zfrankdesign said:

On a related note (mac performance): Do you guys foresee this plane being nice on the frame rate of us with wimpy computers (MacBook Pro 2.9ghz with Intel Iris Int graphics)? I haven't been able to find any estimated hardware specs around the forum posts on the 737-300. Just wondering if this plane will be like the FF757 pro (runs really great on my machine and still has pretty good graphics 20-30fps with low rendering settings, like it was optimized to work with less capable machines) or do you foresee it being more like the Rotate Sim MD80 (cannot get it to run great on my machine, 14-16 fps with really low rendering settings, using 2k textures, etc). Just curious. Is there another thread you can point me to or give me a reco? I really want to build a machine.

Zach

I remember from a while back. Jan compared IXEG with the default XP10 747. To everyone's surprise, the 733 performed BETTER than the 744. I wouldn't anticipate any issues. 

 

Regarding a PC build I'd go looking in the Hardware section of the forums. I just did one last September so feel free to PM me for my specs.

 

Kells

[Ben Russell]

Hardware is guaranteed to get faster.

People are guaranteed to get slower.

It's not fair to expect that ancient hardware is specially catered for on a multi year project.

 

Having said that; hundreds of hours have been poured into Gizmo in the last year or so to make it perform as fast as possible and more time will be invested in the 737 to ensure that your modern hardware is utilised where and when we can.

It's more prudent and beneficial for all our customers to focus on making any product run as well as we can on modern and future hardware than it is to spend time making it run on ancient hardware that is, relatively speaking, the cheapest part of the development chain and the only one certain to be thrown away eventually.

 

This becomes more and more important as we start moving into the age of VR.

Modern VR latency requirements and old legacy hardware support are simply mutually exclusive options.

 

I don't think there are any current X-Plane payware products truly technically suitable for use in a VR sim at every level.

It's very easy and very tempting to use legacy GL features to provide features that users want today while getting us into a bit of technical debt for features people are going to want tomorrow. (200 fps, VR immersion, full use of modern GPU's etc. etc.)

The sanest course is to set the GPU resource usage as high as possible because by the time your product is eventually released the hardware will be there, or be there shortly.

 

...a bit of a rant, but please, over five years plus, it's impossible to set a legacy hardware target.

 

I think everyone will be able to find a happy medium. It's an experienced team building the product on a varied set of hardware.

[SkyCoyote]

As for features left in or left out. I'll fly this bird without the computer.

I carry my own.

[Diego747s]

Does the 1st versión will be AutoGate (plugin by Marginal) ready?

[jettojig]

1 hour ago, Diego747s said:

Does the 1st versión will be AutoGate (plugin by Marginal) ready?

Probably. You only need to enter door position values in plane-maker, so IXEG should have done that!

[Domestos]

Quote

While it seems to be the economically "smart" thing to do to NOT talk about the shortcomings of your product (and then sometimes to just ignore the complaints after you cash in the money), we are trying to run things a bit differently here at IXEG.

I'm late to the party as usual!

 I've got countless aircraft that I don't fly because they have one or two "killer" omissions. I thought it would be ok to work around them but in reality it just really ****** me off. It almost made me give up flight simming altogether.

I thank you for your honest approach and I see things on your list already crossed off. I'm going to wait till people have actually flown the plane before I buy it (probably :-) but reading between the lines I don't doubt your commitment and passion. 

Best of luck with the release and try not to kill the internet on saturday!!

Jim Harris (grizzly old cynical flight simmer)

[Litjan]

I have updated the list in post no. 1 of this thread to todays status. While mostly removing things, I had to add that the PROGRESS page didn´t quite make it into 1.0.

I also considered adding:

• a totally bug-free experience with no soft-crashes

as something that will NOT be in 1.0. While we worked hard to find as many faults as possible, we are fully prepared to receive a flurry of reports (both real and due to lack of understanding) over the next few days. We will be hear to listen, help, catalogue and fix them - and it is our goal to get an update to fix any critical problems to you VERY swiftly.

Happy landings, everyone,

Jan

[signmanbob]

On 12/6/2015 at 5:05 PM, AKSledhead said:

Clicking and dragging is for the birds, hopefully scrollwheel support gets added sooner rather than later.

The list is very small and certainly no problem for me, except for scrollwheel support. I really would love to have this for this Classic. Please, please move it up on the priority list.

 

Thank you,

Bob

[drh]

iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015
4 GHz Intel Core i7
32 GB 1867 MHz DDR3
AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4096 MB
mac os 10.11.3
Xplane 10.45 (64 bit)

 

Wow, Wonderful plane. Thanks a lot. I love it. coming in for a landing.. the auto throttle stopped working at 180 K. Everything els was perfect.  Nice , Very nice plane.. oops I said that before.

: )

[Tivish]

Ok, i got a question - is it a feature, to be able to start the engines without any fuelpump is on?

[poodster]

38 minutes ago, Tivish said:

Ok, i got a question - is it a feature, to be able to start the engines without any fuelpump is on?

Yep, that's what the real plane does i'm pretty sure. Jan said this in one of his videos

[leinsters]

guys - this plane is amazing. I am like a giddy child looking forward to all the stuff yet to be added!

[mmerelles]

5 hours ago, Tivish said:

Ok, i got a question - is it a feature, to be able to start the engines without any fuelpump is on?

There seems to be a misconception about fuel pumps on any aircraft being required for the fuel to reach the engines or they won't work. This is wrong.

All engines have their own mechanical internal suction pumps that pull fuel. If you do not turn on any external fuel pump they will work anyway.

External fuel pumps (the ones you manipulate on the cockpit) are there to guarantee fuel to the engines in case their internal fuel pumps fails, and during full throttle or critical phases of flight/attitude/maneuvers to guarantee the right amount and constant positive fuel pressure on the lines.

[Tivish]

3 hours ago, mmerelles said:

There seems to be a misconception about fuel pumps on any aircraft being required for the fuel to reach the engines or they won't work. This is wrong.

All engines have their own mechanical internal suction pumps that pull fuel. If you do not turn on any external fuel pump they will work anyway.

External fuel pumps (the ones you manipulate on the cockpit) are there to guarantee fuel to the engines in case their internal fuel pumps fails, and during full throttle or critical phases of flight/attitude/maneuvers to guarantee the right amount and constant positive fuel pressure on the lines.

 

Good to know! Thank you very much!

[maumauthompson]

WING FLEX IS A MUST HAVE!!!!!

Try to put into version 2 if possible.

[jettojig]

13 minutes ago, maumauthompson said:

WING FLEX IS A MUST HAVE!!!!!

Try to put into version 2 if possible.

Have you seen how minimal it is on the classics? You can barely notice it in reality - only the very outboard portion moves, and even then only a few inches at most! It's nice to have but in small, stiff-winged aircraft it is far from necessary.

Save dev time for more interesting additions I say!

[mgeiss]

Please implement EVERYTHING ELSE on the list before even thinking about adding wing flex.

Edited April 25, 2016 by mgeiss

[HamSammich]

Agreed.

I've never flown a plane from seat 22F

[Alpha Floor]

On 12/6/2015 at 11:00 AM, Litjan said:

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 may, I want to input my desire for this to be modelled!

I like to record videos doing approaches. What I do typically is take-off, fly straight to the IAF and enter the holding over that waypoint while I prepare and brief for the approach.  Without a good way of entering the hold, I won't be able to just let LNAV make me fly in circles over the IAF and be able to forget about it while I install and prepare everything.

 

[Alpha Floor]

On 4/25/2016 at 7:15 PM, mgeiss said:

Please implement EVERYTHING ELSE on the list before even thinking about adding wing flex.

Haha, agreed

For all I care, it wouldn't really hurt me if they got rid of external model and pax cabin altogether as long as the cockpit is "perfect". More close to a real FFS where you don't look at externals at all.

But yeah, having a good external model is also nice, who am I kidding