Things that are NOT going to be in V1.5

[Litjan]

Hi IXEG team:

 

on the fms, will the fms support full sid/star procedures? i am particularly asking about those which include conditional orders, will they be supported release 1? future? not decided yet?

 

Yes, full support, including editing, adding or deleting restrictions, changing runways, adding transitions, etc. Also correct "magenta" including turn-radii, bypass behaviour, etc. Also conditional waypoints like "when passing 800..." or "fly until intercepting radial..." Correct fly-by and fly-over waypoint behaviour, etc.

 

Jan

[mmerelles]

Yes, full support, including editing, adding or deleting restrictions, changing runways, adding transitions, etc. Also correct "magenta" including turn-radii, bypass behaviour, etc. Also conditional waypoints like "when passing 800..." or "fly until intercepting radial..." Correct fly-by and fly-over waypoint behaviour, etc.

 

Jan

Impressive thanks for the reply

[cod360]

On a related note, will RNP equipment be considered in the initial release? I know both Alaska and Southwest retrofitted their fleet of 733s with RNP.

Thanks

Sent from somewhere over the rainbow...

[Litjan]

On a related note, will RNP equipment be considered in the initial release? I know both Alaska and Southwest retrofitted their fleet of 733s with RNP.

Thanks

Sent from somewhere over the rainbow...

 

What is RNP equipment?

[jettojig]

This stuff. Does it need specialised equipment or is it just an FMC mode though?

[cod360]

From what I remember, it's in upgraded navigational accuracy, using extra sensors in the GPS.

Found one for my home airport here.

http://imageserver.fltplan.com/merge/Canada/merge1513/Single/CYYC_RESTRICTED_RNAV_RNP_Y_RWY_17R.pdf

Sent from somewhere over the rainbow...

[Litjan]

Well, I know what RNP is, but it´s a requirement for navigational accuracy (Required Navigational Performance) and not per se any aircraft equipment. The aircraft equipment on the other hand determines the ANP (Actual Navigational Performance). This in turn determines if an aircraft is certified to be satisfiying certain RNP´s.

 

The 737´s I flew (and the one we model), satisfy RNP 1 for terminal procedures (P-RNAV), and also the RNP for GPS standalone non-precision approaches. It can not fly the new RNP AR approaches with GBAS (comparable to CAT II/III approaches), because it only has a single FMS and a single GPS receiver. It would also require an onboard receiver for GPS correction data, and an upgrade to the FMS.

 

I don´t really want to add this to the list, though, because it is not something we ever set out to model - this technology is now just slowly starting to get into service, and I doubt that many Classics will receive the necessary upgrades to be able to fly those (if it´s even possible at all).

 

Jan

[cmbaviator]

Well, I know what RNP is, but it´s a requirement for navigational accuracy (Required Navigational Performance) and not per se any aircraft equipment. The aircraft equipment on the other hand determines the ANP (Actual Navigational Performance). This in turn determines if an aircraft is certified to be satisfiying certain RNP´s.

The 737´s I flew (and the one we model), satisfy RNP 1 for terminal procedures (P-RNAV), and also the RNP for GPS standalone non-precision approaches. It can not fly the new RNP AR approaches with GBAS (comparable to CAT II/III approaches), because it only has a single FMS and a single GPS receiver. It would also require an onboard receiver for GPS correction data, and an upgrade to the FMS.

I don´t really want to add this to the list, though, because it is not something we ever set out to model - this technology is now just slowly starting to get into service, and I doubt that many Classics will receive the necessary upgrades to be able to fly those (if it´s even possible at all).

Jan

So the classic is not certified to land on RNAV0.3 approaches ?

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[cod360]

Well, I know what RNP is, but it´s a requirement for navigational accuracy (Required Navigational Performance) and not per se any aircraft equipment. The aircraft equipment on the other hand determines the ANP (Actual Navigational Performance). This in turn determines if an aircraft is certified to be satisfiying certain RNP´s.

The 737´s I flew (and the one we model), satisfy RNP 1 for terminal procedures (P-RNAV), and also the RNP for GPS standalone non-precision approaches. It can not fly the new RNP AR approaches with GBAS (comparable to CAT II/III approaches), because it only has a single FMS and a single GPS receiver. It would also require an onboard receiver for GPS correction data, and an upgrade to the FMS.

I don´t really want to add this to the list, though, because it is not something we ever set out to model - this technology is now just slowly starting to get into service, and I doubt that many Classics will receive the necessary upgrades to be able to fly those (if it´s even possible at all).

Jan

Good to know, thanks.

Sent from somewhere over the rainbow...

[Litjan]

So the classic is not certified to land on RNAV0.3 approaches ?

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

 

It is. These are "normal" standalone GPS/GNSS approaches, down to a non-precision descision altitude and RVR. This is an example for that type of approach: https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1513/pdf/00237RRZ6L.PDF

 

The GBAS approaches are to CAT I and better minima, they are precision approaches.

 

Jan

Edited December 12, 2015 by Litjan

[zengei]

The GBAS approaches are to CAT I and better minima, they are precision approaches.

 

So that would be (at least in the US), any GLS approach like those at KEWR (e.g. GLS RWY 4L) or KIAH (e.g. GLS RWY 8L)? From what I can tell those two are the only airports in the US to currently even have those kinds of approaches.

[Litjan]

So that would be (at least in the US), any GLS approach like those at KEWR (e.g. GLS RWY 4L) or KIAH (e.g. GLS RWY 8L)? From what I can tell those two are the only airports in the US to currently even have those kinds of approaches.

 

That is correct. We also have a few in Europe (I know of some in EDDF and I think also LSZH).

 

No way of knowing if those will get more numerous (remember the MLS disaster?). It requires the airlines to invest money, something that they REALLY don´t like...

 

Jan

[Dhruv]

Southwest's NG fleet is still incapable of doing RF legs for RNP 0.1 such as the RNAV X 22L at KMDW, for example. I believe their Classic fleet is the same.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cmbaviator]

Southwest's NG fleet is still incapable of doing RF legs for RNP 0.1 such as the RNAV X 22L at KMDW, for example. I believe their Classic fleet is the same.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Are you sure for the NG? The A320 family can perform RNP0.1 approach. I think that only difference of 0.1 and 0.3 is the database and you have to obtain an authorization from EASA?

CMB

Sent from Tapatalk

[Litjan]

Are you sure for the NG? The A320 family can perform RNP0.1 approach. I think that only difference of 0.1 and 0.3 is the database and you have to obtain an authorization from EASA?

CMB

Sent from Tapatalk

 

I would think that Southwest does not care much about EASA, they are rarely seen here in Europe.

 

The big difference for the 0.1RNP is that you have to have a physical receiver in the aircraft to get the correction signal to the GPS, without that it´s not going to work, and someone has to pay for those and install them. So unless that is done, an aircraft will be unable to fly it, even though other aircraft of the same type would be able to (after the modification).

[Dhruv]

I would think that Southwest does not care much about EASA, they are rarely seen here in Europe.

 

The big difference for the 0.1RNP is that you have to have a physical receiver in the aircraft to get the correction signal to the GPS, without that it´s not going to work, and someone has to pay for those and install them. So unless that is done, an aircraft will be unable to fly it, even though other aircraft of the same type would be able to (after the modification).

Exactly. Outfitting a fleet of 500+ NGs isn't cheap!

[teban13]

[*]Dedicated support for more advanced hardware like multiple thrust levers, flap levers, speed-brake levers and other cockpit hardware. Very eager and interested to make it work eventually, but nothing tested (might work, might not) for V1.0.

Cheers, Jan

Hi

I am sorry if this is a silly question but I just want to be sure what to and what not to expect.

When you say advanced hardware are you talking about something other than for example Saitek Pro Flight Yoke and throttle quadrant? Are these simple hardwares supported?

Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[Litjan]

Hi

I am sorry if this is a silly question but I just want to be sure what to and what not to expect.

When you say advanced hardware are you talking about something other than for example Saitek Pro Flight Yoke and throttle quadrant? Are these simple hardwares supported?

Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

 

Not a silly question at all. I would say that every hardware that you can get working with X-Plane in the "primary" flightcontrols will work. Anything that tries to access other stuff, like assigning an axis to the speedbrake or the flaps, will likely not work, or only with limitations. Same goes for the engine start levers. We provide many controls that can be mapped to buttons, so if the hardware supports that, then it might work.

 

Again, nothing tested beyond the primary flightcontrols and the thrustlever (just a single one, not dual ones) for V1.0

 

Jan

[OlaHaldor]

 

• 3D Pilots in Cockpit - not added because we don´t have a good model and its hard to get that right. Will the guy just sit there? Smile at you? Pick his nose? Very hard to get a realistic person. Not ruling out taking a stab at that later.

I might be able to help you with that. I've rigged and animated bipeds before. But I have no knowledge of the animation, limitations, possibilities and solutions for animation in X-Plane.

[Litjan]

I might be able to help you with that. I've rigged and animated bipeds before. But I have no knowledge of the animation, limitations, possibilities and solutions for animation in X-Plane.

 

We are in favor of adding pilots to see from the external view (at a later time). It´s not so up close and personal, so you can get away with guys (or gals)  that just sit there. Thanks for the offer, we might pick you up on that!

 

Jan

Edited December 16, 2015 by Litjan

[teban13]

Not a silly question at all. I would say that every hardware that you can get working with X-Plane in the "primary" flightcontrols will work. Anything that tries to access other stuff, like assigning an axis to the speedbrake or the flaps, will likely not work, or only with limitations. Same goes for the engine start levers. We provide many controls that can be mapped to buttons, so if the hardware supports that, then it might work.

Again, nothing tested beyond the primary flightcontrols and the thrustlever (just a single one, not dual ones) for V1.0

Jan

Thanks a lot! Here you have another costumer waiting for the great day!

Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[sweetty365]

A really nicely done wing flex model would add a lot off immersion! This for me personally would be top priority, speaking of 3d stuff.

[Cameron]

A really nicely done wing flex model would add a lot off immersion! This for me personally would be top priority, speaking of 3d stuff.

 

Hey there,

 

If you don't mind, please find us some video of a 737 Classic flexing its wings in the way you wish it to. Seems some of you are having a hard time understanding this aircraft has such minimal to nil wing flex that I'd like your proof of what it should look like instead.

[sweetty365]

Hey there,

 

If you don't mind, please find us some video of a 737 Classic flexing its wings in the way you wish it to. Seems some of you are having a hard time understanding this aircraft has such minimal to nil wing flex that I'd like your proof of what it should look like instead.

 

Here you go

http://forums.x-pilot.com/topic/8526-things-that-are-not-going-to-be-in-v10/page-2#entry90045

http://forums.x-pilot.com/topic/8526-things-that-are-not-going-to-be-in-v10/page-2#entry90050

 

Always a good idea to search the forums. Just a general tip!

 

OnT: It is easy for all of us wannabes who have nil real flight experience to have opinions on how a plane should or could handle. In real life, forces still exist, and although a wing can be more or less stiff, it certainly can not withstand the laws of physics. Thanks for your input though!

[Cameron]

Always a good idea to search the forums. Just a general tip!

 

You're making no sense. You just showed me a video of a 767-300, and a 737 NG, both of which have much larger wings.

 

This is not a 737-300 you have shown me. Therefore, what you have shown me is also not a realistic representation.

 

I suggest you read what you search rather than tell me I should search. I've been a part of this discussion from the get-go.