Cameron Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 2:31 AM, Diego747s said: definitely you misunderstood my post. I didn´t say LNAV and VNAV are unnecessary, it´s about how complete they are. They don't work if they're not complete. What is your point? The final say and bottom line here is we are going to be asking people for their money. In return we are going to offer them an experience worth their money. Selling people a half baked systems product is not acceptable and has been done too many times already in the marketplace. We get one shot at giving an initial impression and it won't be for you to decide the scope of version 1.0. Sorry, but that's just how it is. Being too anxious and jumpy to get a product out the door like you're going for is exactly what has diminished trust for some other developers in the market. 7 1
Yidahoo Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 Seems to me, every irrelevant question asked takes time away from the developers and extends the time we have to wait. I am sure all of the questions will be answered once the product is released and I am also sure, given that the plane is in the late stages of development any question asked right now is unlikely to have any bearing of what is released, whenever that may be. Once it is released, all of us will be able to make informed decisions on whether we want to purchase it, and the developers will have more time to answer questions I for one am immensely looking forward this plane and given what I have seen in videos and screenshots will be purchasing it on day one. 6
Litjan Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 Hehe, I love these arguments. I think it´s perfectly acceptable to have different priorities in a product, and ideally they would all be fulfilled 100%. It is also fair to argue in favour of a feature you value very much - and we do bow to the "mass market pressure" in some way, too (3D-Pilots,...) Now clearly every potential customer vies to get his favourite aspects furthered. Some want a nice cabin, some want a step-climb functionality, some want a different coloured frame of the CRT´s. All these items would count towards the "100%", and everytime we have to say: "Sorry, not in V1.0", there is negativity. But if we´d say :"Sure, we will put it in, but it´s going to push release another 3 weeks" there is also a lot of negativity. So we can´t win In the end it´s going to be like Cameron said: We will build the airplane that we want to build, we release it when we want to relase - and you buy it if you want to. Jan 10
bigbasspic Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 6:23 AM, Yidahoo said: Seems to me, every irrelevant question asked takes time away from the developers and extends the time we have to wait. I am sure all of the questions will be answered once the product is released and I am also sure, given that the plane is in the late stages of development any question asked right now is unlikely to have any bearing of what is released, whenever that may be. Once it is released, all of us will be able to make informed decisions on whether we want to purchase it, and the developers will have more time to answer questions I for one am immensely looking forward this plane and given what I have seen in videos and screenshots will be purchasing it on day one. Expand My thoughts. On 2/6/2016 at 9:32 AM, Litjan said: ... and we do bow to the "mass market pressure" in some way, too (3D-Pilots,...) ... Expand As long as I can hide them, I don't care Bassy regards Benjamin
Litjan Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 1:10 PM, bigbasspic said: My thoughts. As long as I can hide them, I don't care Bassy regards Benjamin Expand For now you will always see them when in "outside view" and never see them when "inside the cockpit". Might do a user preference if that is not satisfactory to some folks (like they don´t want to see them from outside). We won´t show them when inside the cockpit, that dude and his brother are just too ugly... Jan 2
bigbasspic Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 1:38 PM, Litjan said: For now you will always see them when in "outside view" and never see them when "inside the cockpit". Might do a user preference if that is not satisfactory to some folks (like they don´t want to see them from outside). We won´t show them when inside the cockpit, that dude and his brother are just too ugly... Jan Expand Ah, good And I don't mind seeing them from outside, as I will be on the left seat in this plane anyway... Bassy regards Benjamin 1
KDN77RUS Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 9:32 AM, Litjan said: В конце концов Вы можете сделать будет похоже Кэмерон сказал: Мы будем строить самолет, который мы хотим построить, мы выпускаем его, когда мы хотим разблокировки, - и вы купить его, если хотите. Expand Golden words...
kpregira Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 It's really gonna be nice to work with a FMC that works like the real thing. (not that I know what that's like) But I know it can't be as aggravating as the one's that others have modeled. I wish the companies that make the real ones would license the actual code to sim developers. Just thinking out loud. By the way keep up the good work IXEG team......waiting patiently!!!!! Kevin 2
Litjan Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 4:12 PM, kpregira said: It's really gonna be nice to work with a FMC that works like the real thing. (not that I know what that's like) But I know it can't be as aggravating as the one's that others have modeled. I wish the companies that make the real ones would license the actual code to sim developers. Just thinking out loud. By the way keep up the good work IXEG team......waiting patiently!!!!! Kevin Expand I wish so, too! But I think the licensing fee would raise the price of each copy to at least a 5-figure sum . Any takers? Jan
Litjan Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) On 2/6/2016 at 5:24 PM, Lansch said: Yes, here! Expand No Zimbabwean Dollars! Edited February 6, 2016 by Litjan Spelling 4
ChevyRules Posted February 6, 2016 Report Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) On 2/6/2016 at 7:22 PM, Litjan said: No Zimbabwean Dollars! Expand I think 10,000 yen would be a fair price. Edited February 6, 2016 by ChevyRules
daemotron Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 4:12 PM, kpregira said: I wish the companies that make the real ones would license the actual code to sim developers. Just thinking out loud. Expand On 2/6/2016 at 4:56 PM, Litjan said: I wish so, too! But I think the licensing fee would raise the price of each copy to at least a 5-figure sum . Any takers? Expand Ah, it's more than code behind that. It's the algorithms and their parametrization you want, since you'd have to transform it into a plugin anyway (i. e. recode in C++ or Lua against X-Plane's API). And as Jan stated in another post, this is the warp core, the holy grail of any aircraft developing company. Airframes can be replicated (anyone seen the Comac 919 ), engines are bought from 3rd party suppliers (RR, GE, PW, ...). I can't image we would give the FMGC algorithms and implementation away; not for any money. There are however cases where we grant (licensed, limited and NDA guarded) access to this knowlede (e. g. for full scale training sim manufacturers).
Litjan Posted February 7, 2016 Report Posted February 7, 2016 On 2/7/2016 at 12:22 PM, daemotron said: Ah, it's more than code behind that. It's the algorithms and their parametrization you want, since you'd have to transform it into a plugin anyway (i. e. recode in C++ or Lua against X-Plane's API). And as Jan stated in another post, this is the warp core, the holy grail of any aircraft developing company. Airframes can be replicated (anyone seen the Comac 919 ), engines are bought from 3rd party suppliers (RR, GE, PW, ...). I can't image we would give the FMGC algorithms and implementation away; not for any money. There are however cases where we grant (licensed, limited and NDA guarded) access to this knowlede (e. g. for full scale training sim manufacturers). Expand Not that anyone would want to buy FMGC code... No offense, just got burned a few times with that, Jan
3rdwatch Posted February 8, 2016 Report Posted February 8, 2016 Well on a lighter note. I have some VIP parking waiting on y'all. 3
deetee Posted February 8, 2016 Report Posted February 8, 2016 On 2/5/2016 at 9:30 PM, boeingornotgoing said: not everyone uses VNAV and programs stuff, some people just like 21st century visuals and accurate sounds. - and as usual Cameron, we disagree. your entitled to your opinion as am I Expand Friend, the X-Plane market already has a number of pretty airliners fitted with basic/generic systems. Great to look at but boring to fly. What the market is screaming out for is more airliners with robust systems that are accurate and faithful to the original. The IXEG 737 Classic aims to be in latter category. 8
-VETTE Posted February 8, 2016 Report Posted February 8, 2016 On 2/8/2016 at 6:15 AM, deetee said: Friend, the X-Plane market already has a number of pretty airliners fitted with basic/generic systems. Great to look at but boring to fly. What the market is screaming out for is more airliners with robust systems that are accurate and faithful to the original. The IXEG 737 Classic aims to be in latter category. Expand I can't say for sure, but from what I've seen as I've followed this project, the IXEG 733 will likely be the best ever aircraft for X-Plane.
daemotron Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 On 2/7/2016 at 7:06 PM, Litjan said: Not that anyone would want to buy FMGC code... No offense, just got burned a few times with that, Jan Expand Hehe, no offense taken, don't worry Jan. Another captain I know once expressed it that way: the FMGC is actually doing a good job, but is terribly poor in letting the pilot know what's doing and why...
Litjan Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 On 2/9/2016 at 3:32 AM, daemotron said: Hehe, no offense taken, don't worry Jan. Another captain I know once expressed it that way: the FMGC is actually doing a good job, but is terribly poor in letting the pilot know what's doing and why... Expand I couldn´t have said it better . And there are some weird design choices - like if I want to see the "lower part" of a flightplan, I have to click the "up-arrow"? Or "deleting" a discontinuity - just feels strange to "delete" something that isn´t there. And going to the "fix info" page is a hassle, there really should be a button for that, instead of the workaround - lateral revision page... I do like the colouring, though! Part of my problem is also that I was brought up on Boeing FMS´s, so thats what I am used to. Much easier for someone that only knows Airbus FMGC. Cheers, Jan
frumpy Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 On 2/9/2016 at 10:14 AM, Litjan said: And there are some weird design choices - like if I want to see the "lower part" of a flightplan, I have to click the "up-arrow"? Expand I had the same problem too. Growing up with text editors where I press "down" to scroll a text down, I find the Airbus solution counterintuitive. Yet most people seem to get along with it.
aljaz41 Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Those up and down arrows can be found on an MD-11 as well. My reasoning was that you can imagine the flight plan as being written on a paper and you move a paper up to see what's bellow. So here you have it . 1
Litjan Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 On 2/9/2016 at 3:24 PM, aljaz41 said: Those up and down arrows can be found on an MD-11 as well. My reasoning was that you can imagine the flight plan as being written on a paper and you move a paper up to see what's bellow. So here you have it . Expand Yep, thats how my instructors tried to justify it as well ... some people said that Airbus picked design choices opposite to Boeing´s to both establish themselves as "nouvelle", and also to avoid lawsuits. No idea if that is true. Jan 1
Longranger Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) I would guess that this was not the idea. There are simply two ways to implement this. In fact on Macs by default you have to push the scroll wheel up to get to the lower parts of a document. At least you can turn the direction in the preferences, otherwise i would go crazy if i have to switch between the Mac, Windows, Linux and Solaris... Edited February 9, 2016 by Longranger typo
Cameron Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 On 2/9/2016 at 6:56 PM, Longranger said: In fact on Macs by default you have to push the scroll wheel up to get to the lower parts of a document. Expand But on a Mac it's a "natural" feeling. There are no labels on a trackpad. Arrows labeled down and up would play tricks on my brain as well if they did opposite of what my brain is trained an arrow means. I expect a down arrow to mean it moves the page DOWN...lower. Towards the bottom of the screen. Same concept goes for up! 1 1
Longranger Posted February 9, 2016 Report Posted February 9, 2016 Well for Macs the background was more on a touch display you move the text up. But in fact 6this is the total opposite to the much older windows implementations , since they had scroll wheels for a very long time. The arrows follow exactly the same logical principal: You move the text, that you currently disply up , so that it can now show the lower parts of the text. Nothing unnatual in this concept. In fact, you could say that it is the more logical view since you want to move the text and not yourself.
Recommended Posts