Things that are NOT going to be in V1.5

[frumpy]

Tom, V1.0 won't be a "public beta", it will be a addon with specific areas that are worked on at a later stage. Even though it won't be 100% bug free, what we can expect is a fully working addon in the areas that are simulated. I do too prefer a "complete" addon over one with things that are done later, but lets face it - the development has taken much longer than anticipated and I believe with V1.0 95% of the customers will be satisfied. For the other 5% you've got the list of items.  Since you seem to belong to the 5%, it's perfectly okay not to jump in at the first release. But what disturbes me here is that it seems like you are trying to spoil it to other people. IXEG is playing with open cards, there is no need to badmouth their work. I deeply respect them for their dedication.

 

As for ABS, navigation system, cruise control - it's all in. Okay, no offset and no pilot entered holds (thats the rain sensors). Would you notice, unless someone told you about it? You can do normal VFR flying, radio navigation and LNAV/VNAV and explore lots of other features around. Try mastering that, unless you have a professional license and a rating, it'll keep you busy for a long time.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by frumpy

[Tom Knudsen]

Quote

But what disturbes me here is that it seems like you are trying to spoil it to other people. IXEG is playing with open cards, there is no need to badmouth their work. I deeply respect them for their dedication.

 

Please stop putting words in my mouth frumpy, tell me where I badmouth IXEG??? I am not trying to spoil it, far from it actually. But I only said

Quote

Thanks for warning us to buy version 1. I for one will wait and see what the next versions will bring to the table, especially regarding the system simulation shortcomings...

Us being the customer they address this thread to, and shortcomings being a quote from the first post.

In the middle I added my own opinion

[Paterpilar]

1 hour ago, Litjan said:

Battlefield 2

Battlefield 2 is already out ?? 

 

[Cameron]

1 hour ago, Tom Knudsen said:

 

Please stop putting words in my mouth frumpy, tell me where I badmouth IXEG??? I am not trying to spoil it, far from it actually. But I only said

Us being the customer they address this thread to, and shortcomings being a quote from the first post.

In the middle I added my own opinion

short·com·ing: a fault or failure to meet a certain standard

It's not hard to see what @frumpy found to be badmouth-like language. If you fail to see how your post could have ever felt that way then I too am confused.

Truth be told, most everything Jan has listed is non-consequential. He went out of his way to list items that in all reality have zero bearing on daily flying life of a 737-300. As a captain with thousands of hours experience, I would trust his word.

Your post was indeed a slight. One that came about a LONG time after this thread had been made, on a forum you visit practically daily, and only after you were found in a spat in another topic. Let it go, man. Quit arguing, acting like you have no idea what other people are talking about, and move on. 

[Tom Knudsen]

Quote

Truth be told, most everything Jan has listed is non-consequential. He went out of his way to list items that in all reality have zero bearing on daily flying life of a 737-300. As a captain with thousands of hours experience, I would trust his word.

I would think the ability to enter HOLD information in the FMS is pretty much a day to day routine, but then again I am not an 737pilot and not arguing it as you instruct.

While you say jump and I say ok, I must take the chance to ask why it is so horrible and aweful to state that I personally (never said anybody else) should wait to buy this bird? Never even thought the thought about NOT buying this plane and whilst waiting is unthinkable to you or anybody else, I tend to wait on the boarder to see if a bird is worth buying or not. Got at least 30 planes for FSX bought on impulses due to its eyecandy, even the Feelthere 737 was a shitty wast of money.. Heck I have not even started to re-evaluate the 767 by FlightFactor even though it is one of my favorite airplanes or the A330 by JARDesign.. I have the money to buy product everyday of the week if I want to, but as a reasonable grownup person would do, wait and see without spending money like there is no tomorrow.

Is that so wrong of me Camron?

With respect, I do apologies for arguing, but I feel your authority lable me as a troublemaker where the real fact is that Im as dangerous as a teddybear can be..

 

 

[Cameron]

4 minutes ago, Tom Knudsen said:

Is that so wrong of me Camron?

Timing is everything, sir.

[BaBene]

On 12/7/2015 at 11:00 AM, Litjan said:

...

FMS

 

• 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.
• ...
• OFFSET feature. Omitted due to time constraints,planning to add later, but low priority.
• ...
• Entering user created waypoints (point-bearing-distance, for example) and using those in the flight-plan. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later.
• ...
• Display of "RTE DATA" on EHSI/map, i.e. showing ETA and restrictions next to waypoint. You can see that on the LEGS page, for now. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later.
• ...

...

Hi,

I can't really understand why everyone is talking about the wing flex  I for myself would love to have a really complete simulation of a powerful FMS. Therefore the limitations above are the only disappointing items on the list (from my perspective). I have absolutely no experience flying a real airplane so I'm going to trust you guys (especially Jan) that these features might rarely be in use in a real airliner flight. However, I somehow would love to be able to enter custom holds, etc.. Displaying the RTE DATA on the map is just a convenience feature, but I like convenience  

Don't get me wrong. I actually will love to to take this beauty out for a slant alpha ride, but after all you still got to admire this marvelous piece of 80's tech called FMS and the proper simulation / implementation of it in a consumer sim.

I guess 90% of the flight is performed by the FMS so give it some love  I hope those items will be a rather high priority on your todo list 

 

Cheers,

BaBene

[Litjan]

8 minutes ago, BaBene said:

Hi,

I can't really understand why everyone is talking about the wing flex  I for myself would love to have a really complete simulation of a powerful FMS. Therefore the limitations above are the only disappointing items on the list (from my perspective). I have absolutely no experience flying a real airplane so I'm going to trust you guys (especially Jan) that these features might rarely be in use in a real airliner flight. However, I somehow would love to be able to enter custom holds, etc.. Displaying the RTE DATA on the map is just a convenience feature, but I like convenience  

Don't get me wrong. I actually will love to to take this beauty out for a slant alpha ride, but after all you still got to admire this marvelous piece of 80's tech called FMS and the proper simulation / implementation of it in a consumer sim.

I guess 90% of the flight is performed by the FMS so give it some love  I hope those items will be a rather high priority on your todo list 

 

Cheers,

BaBene

 

Hi there,

I agree with you - the goal is a fully functional FMS, and no feature is so "unimportant" that we will simply leave it out "forever". But - as I said before - we need to omit some stuff for 1.0, or delay release even further.

We opted to omit things that you can probably do without the easiest.

Custom Holds: I have never, ever flown a custom hold AFTER I got away from that pesky instructor in the glaring Arizona sun in1993. Maybe a "hold at present position" (can´t remember, though), but if ATC asks an airline pilot to "hold at the R-155 at 35DME  to LBE with 267 deg inbound, right turns" I would LOVE to hear the reply on the radio.

Regular holds :I fly about every two months or less. Of course that depends on the destination/weather/time of day. If I had to fly a holding and my FMS couldn´t fly it, it wouldn´t even raise my heartbeat - I probably wouldn´t even have to put down my coffee! Just push HDG SEL as you come up on the fix, turn the heading bug in the direction of the hold to the outbound bearing (you can use a calculator, if you have to), push the stopwatch as you complete the turn. Maybe adjust a bit for wind. ATC won´t berate you if your inbound timing is 0:55 instead of one minute, they have other problems to worry about if they stick you in the hold...

Offset: I think I said that before, only really used on Oceanic/African Ops. If you really have to, you can also do that with HDG SEL as a substitute.

User created points in flightplan: This is something I do about once a year in real flying. If I am bored.

Display of RTE data on EHSI: This is one I actually miss, as it greatly enhances situational awareness. Restrictions to meet, speeds to fly. I think we will have that fairly quick. Of course you can just look at the LEGS page to see the data...

 

If you let 90% of your flight be completed by the FMS, you are either lazy, a bad pilot, or need to get an Airbus!

Jan

[Cameron]

I would think the ability to enter HOLD information in the FMS is pretty much a day to day routine, but then again I am not an 737pilot and not arguing it as you instruct.

Jan's post above addresses this armchair pilot assumption quite nicely.

[3rdwatch]

35 minutes ago, Litjan said:

ATC asks an airline pilot to "hold at the R-155 at 35DME  to LBE with 267 deg inbound, right turns" I would LOVE to hear the reply on the radio.

I don't post much, but as an Instrument rated SEL pilot you just made me spit out my coffee when I read the above, It's just not an airline pilot.

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Cameron said:

short·com·ing: a fault or failure to meet a certain standard

It's not hard to see what @frumpy found to be badmouth-like language. If you fail to see how your post could have ever felt that way then I too am confused.

Truth be told, most everything Jan has listed is non-consequential. He went out of his way to list items that in all reality have zero bearing on daily flying life of a 737-300. As a captain with thousands of hours experience, I would trust his word.

1

Honestly, whether something has "zero bearing on daily flying life" has nothing to do with whether or not it should be in a full study sim. Look at Aerosoft's Airbus X - they only model what the pilot would use on a daily basis, and it's an incredibly shallow, superficial simulation.

Obviously that's not what IXEG's going for (as mentioned, they'll be added in later), but to claim that these features are completely unnecessary in a study simulator is absurd.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Eddie

[Cameron]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Honestly, whether something has "zero bearing on daily flying life" has nothing to do with whether or not it should be in a study sim. Look at Aerosoft's Airbus X - they only model what the pilot would use on a daily basis, and it's an incredibly shallow, superficial simulation.

Obviously that's not what IXEG's going for (as mentioned, they'll be added in later), but to claim that these features completely unnecessary in a study simulator is absurd.

Please stop trying to make a bunch of nothing, Eddie. You're being ridiculous. You're not oblivious as to the intentions of this project in the future. Don't blow this out of proportion more than Mr. Knudsen already has.

Thank you.

[Eddie]

Just now, Cameron said:

Please stop trying to make a bunch of nothing, Eddie. You're being ridiculous. You're not oblivious as to the intentions of this project in the future. Don't blow this out of proportion more than Mr. Knudsen already has.

Thank you.

I'm not making a "bunch of nothing", nor is it being blown out of proportion. I'm giving my honest views on the subject and your mere disagreement is not enough to warrant my silence.

In fact, this is IXEG's own philosophy - "we'll simulate even the things you don't see at first to add depth to the simulation". You seem to have the wrong idea as to their intentions, honestly. I can understand wanting to defend the product, but just because the features aren't in v1.0 doesn't mean that IXEG themselves don't think they're important or worth adding. They're useful to several users, including myself, and I don't appreciate being brushed off like that.

[Fabio Pittol]

2 hours ago, Litjan said:

User created points in flightplan: This is something I do about once a year in real flying. If I am bored.

 

In simulation, the only times I need to set these up is when flying into Gibraltar (LXGB), 'cause their arrival procedure have Alpha, Bravo and Victor waypoints, which I think in really is bypassed by ATC vectors. But, as XP ATC's don't handle arrivals and I'm not flying on VATSIM. There's no way out, other then eye-ball it, which I did a lot with the FJS 727

[Cameron]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

In fact, this is IXEG's own philosophy - "we'll simulate even the things you don't see at first to add depth to the simulation". You seem to have the wrong idea as to their intentions, honestly. I can understand wanting to defend the product, but just because the features aren't in v1.0 doesn't mean that IXEG themselves don't think they're important or worth adding. They're useful to several users, including myself, and I don't appreciate being brushed off like that.

This alone is worth its weight in gold you cannot comprehend my intentions. Perhaps you just love to debate, don't know...don't care.

I stated nothing to indicate a study level sim will not and should not have specific features. I stated for a version 1.0 release, these items are non-consequential. You are definitely making a bunch of nothing, and given the actual usefulness of the features (or lack thereof) in day-to-day life as Jan has so eloquently pointed out, these are really not enough to be making a big party about...especially knowing the commitment IXEG has to implementing them.

If you're a nerd and want to use these features, great. They'll come. But, it's apparent some people assume some features are or would be used more in real life than they are. That's my point. It has zero to do with whether they should or will be implemented.

You're quite educated on this product, Eddie. Let's stop debating. It's wasteful in the context of time.

[Tom Knudsen]

Quote

If you're a nerd and want to use these features, great. They'll come. But, it's apparent some people assume some features are or would be used more in real life than they are. That's my point. It has zero to do with whether they should or will be implemented.

Can only speak for my self, but at least I "want all the features to be close to real, at least functional to some extend"  Shotcomings or not,  things not simulatated is just shit in the cockpit that has no real value to the overall flight simulation experience and PMDG is a good example of such. Flying around with their "in op" buttons and gadgets.

I suggest we drop this debate and move on to rooting for IXEG, because in the end it must be up to the individuals if they want to buy a unfinished aircraft or not.

 

 

 

[Morrigan]

1 hour ago, Tom Knudsen said:

I suggest we drop this debate and move on to rooting for IXEG, because in the end it must be up to the individuals if they want to buy a unfinished aircraft or not.

I promised myself I will stay out of it, but oh god.

IXEG isn't builiding an actual, real aircaft. They are creating an addon to a game. Lack of some feature on release that you would normally never even use (or wasn't even aware of it's existence) doesn't mean something is "unfinished", especially if the features that will be present from the start already put that, again, addon to a game in the top category in terms of complexity. 

A lot of unnecessary jabs. 

[Ben Russell]

I'd like to see a show of hands;

All the multi-thousand hour pilots that have a hand-picked team of x-plane experts crafting a product to their exacting specifications in an effort to preserve what is your favorite aircraft of your entire career, please raise a hand?

 

Please remember.

This product is built up to a spec. NOT down to a price.

 

Only the truly luxurious items that 99% of people never get to own are built with the kind of "unlimited time and energy" that has gone into this product.

[Tom Knudsen]

Quote

IXEG isn't builiding an actual, real aircaft. They are creating an addon to a game.

I promised my self I stay out, buuuuut.....

 

[Litjan]

Please, please, please, please, please:

READ my post again. Slowly. A third time. Ask if you don´t understand a word. I know English might not be your first language (it´s not mine either, so maybe I used a wrong word?), so please don´t jump to any assumption on a casual glance of what I wrote. Entertain the possibility that for the first time in your life you might be wrong or have made a mistake.

I refrain from quoting my own post, because if you can´t comprehend what I wrote the first time, you will most likely not be able to if I just post it again.

I never said we "drop" anything because it is not important or not used. I only said it won´t be in 1.0, and stated reasons why we picked feature X over Y to omit FOR THIS INITIAL RELEASE ONLY!

So all your posts and bickering about this are just meaninlgless hot air and I refer back to Tom Knudsens initial commentary that still holds true: If you NEED a feature that we omit for 1.0, don´t buy it yet.

Otherwise please don´t make me feel sorry for you and your lack of reading comprehension ability, every day I am mad or sad or sorry I can´t help Tom to finish the FMS and next thing we know we just might drop LNAV for 1.0. How about that?

Jan

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Litjan

[Litjan]

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

Jan

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Litjan

[Vantskruv]

I need to fill in a little.

I think this discussion is overblown and overreacted (as humankind does naturally and subconsciously).

From where the discussion blew up like a balloon filled with fart, a user stated that he felt the simulation may not comfort his requirements for a fully blown replica of the systems. His statement should be respected as for his personal requirements, and text on a screen may not fully mirror exactly what is meant; rant, personal statement or discrepancy from thought to text; this may be differently absorbed by different people, hence as wavelengths may not be aligned which each other just because they both start at wrong points, but the wavelengths are still the same. There is no need, or rather, it is not possible to judge, only preconceive (which is a bad nature of human kind).

As for IXEG, they may want to make a simulation they dream about and give with the exchange of cheese to other people. They may decide to keep it for them selfes, but they don't. Also, making a fully 100% blown simulation, is not very easy. If we require something that is 100%, we either get something like that if we are lucky, or not. I guess IXEG try their best to deliver as close of 100% with their resources, but as stated in the first post, this is not possible because of time and funds. Either they cancel everything, or they release it to i.e. 95%. If we want to have fully blown 100% simulation of this aircraft, either we look elsewhere (good luck with that), or we buy IXEG:s 95% simulation, and with this action of ours, IXEG may continue and be able to create a 99% simulation, or if we are very lucky, 100%.

To conclude:

Either:

- No simulation 737-300 at all

Or:

- 95% simulation of 737-300, and later on maybe 99.5% simulation (if IXEG is supported well enough).

 

NOTE: the percent values given in the above text is just examples, so please no preconceptions here.

 

[Javier]

1 hour ago, Litjan said:

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

Jan

 

All I wanna say is....Thanks to people like you...There is people like me who loves this sim-world. And in the past five years I´ve been learning so much about it that I won´t even consider not to buy it...

I´m looking looking forward to watch all Jan´s videos...And fly this beauty addon.

 

Thanks guys. Great work IXEG!!

Edited January 30, 2016 by Javier

[Litjan]

Vantskruv put it nicely, and I want to put my above post a bit into perspective.

We at IXEG welcome our future customers voicing their wishes and opinions, this is what makes us strive to get as good as we can and also helps to steer our development (a little).

What we don´t like is people turning our words around in our mouths, with thinly veiled attempt at slandering us or our product. Things like "You promised to release in 2015! You didn´t, so obviously you are henchmen from hell!" or "You said it would be a realistic simulation, but now you say the wheels don´t wear after many landings! You *=$§% liars!". If you don´t communicate along commonly accepted customs and protocols, don´t expect the communication to work well. If you are married, you know what I mean .

I try to stay professional and just take into account that not everyone is bringing the same assets and social skills to the table - but I think you are still accountable for the things you say - and need to weigh your words a bit, even on the internet. It is really easy to make a fool out of yourself, been there, done that!

Jan

 

[tkyler]

A great quote by author Cory Doctorow,

Quote

"Conversation is King, Conent is just something to talk about"

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:  

Quote

"Disappointment is the difference between expectations and reality"

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   

Edited January 30, 2016 by tkyler