[IDEA] FMS module for developers?

[Vantskruv]

Ok, this may not be hardly linked to IXEG, but may give some ideas for the developers to earn some more money, make the community happier, relieving development of other developers, and finally increasing the quality for the major number of aircrafts for X-Plane. I guess this has already crossed IXEG:s mind, but I want to create a discussion of this.

I recently scanned through the aircraft development section in this forum, and it came to my mind, as there are so many developers fighting to get their aircrafts released, and users are complaining about bad FMS systems and not able to flying RNAV approaches and so on. Why reinvent the wheel? Why not create a FMS module, which other developers may buy (or give shares for every sold aircraft), and which they can slightly modify to represent a more realistic FMS for their current aircraft? This would speed up the development considerably, and make the developers concentrate on other important parts of their aircraft, even if they would loose some part of the income every copy they sell (though this may be compensated by a higher prize, which I would gladly pay for to get a good simulation of my current aircraft).

If IXEG:s FMS system is not too much integrated in the 737-300 they are making now, and it is more of a module-type build, would it possible to maybe sell this technology to other aircraft developers? Would it be hard to customize this module for their type aircraft?

[Crj Fan]

I don't think it would be cheap, 5 years in the making...

[Iridium]

I'm only guessing here, but there's a good chance this wouldn't be a viable/practical solution due to the fact that 1) X-FMC is a thing, and it's free (although understandably nowhere near as complete as IXEG's) and 2) there's also a payware modular FMS already on the market, specifically designed for use in nearly any aircraft add-on. I would imagine that IXEG built their FMS specifically for this aircraft (at least the details of the system, maybe not the architecture itself), meaning that they would have to put too much extra effort into making it universal throughout x-plane. I find myself longing for more accurate FMS systems in various add ons, and the lack-there-of is exactly why I've chosen not to purchase certain planes (yet). But it is an extremely difficult and complicated process to build an FMS for even just one aircraft in x-plane, let alone all of them. I'm perfectly happy to enjoy this aircraft with an FMS, and if others don't, I'll either enjoy them regardless or not purchase them (yet).

[daemotron]

The QPAC plugin is already living up to this concept - at least five commercial Airbus models are currently powered by this plugin.

Btw. when talking about "FMS", one needs being conscious about the fact that something like a "universal FMS" can hardly be programmed: the FMS is not a stand-alone system; it's always coupled with other avionics components. You could do a base FMS for a certain family of aircrafts (e. g. Boeing classics, i. e. 733, 767, 757, 744) which use similar avionics concepts.

So if you replace "universal FMS" (which could only be a least common denominator) by a QPAC-equivalent for Boeing classics, this actually could work.

[Eddie]

On 1/31/2016 at 5:13 PM, daemotron said:

The QPAC plugin is already living up to this concept - at least five commercial Airbus models are currently powered by this plugin.

Btw. when talking about "FMS", one needs being conscious about the fact that something like a "universal FMS" can hardly be programmed: the FMS is not a stand-alone system; it's always coupled with other avionics components. You could do a base FMS for a certain family of aircrafts (e. g. Boeing classics, i. e. 733, 767, 757, 744) which use similar avionics concepts.

So if you replace "universal FMS" (which could only be a least common denominator) by a QPAC-equivalent for Boeing classics, this actually could work.

You could use one basic FMS in its entirety for the 757 and 767 and that's about it. 747 and 777 share an FMC with those two (with the 777 having upgrades, but it's still the same manufacturer and works pretty much the same), but the 737 series has a different autopilot and FMC entirely. And this is discounting the different performance data for the various engine types and airframes (IXEG models one engine type and one model, and I don't think FMC performance calculations for even that were easy...now try doing that for 5-6 models with 3 different engines each) 

The only real way to do this is to abstract it like UFMC or X-FMC do. Making something more specialized like IXEG's will never work in this scenario. 

[daemotron]

17 hours ago, Eddie said:

The only real way to do this is to abstract it like UFMC or X-FMC do. Making something more specialized like IXEG's will never work in this scenario. 

I think you can do something in between. Some things are common (e. g. LNAV related stuff), some share at least a common model that can be parametrized (e. g. available autopilot modes), and some are individual per aircraft, engine and installed equipment. Saying that, I'm fully conscious this would not be something simple to plan and implement. QPAC took many years of development (and is still not completed in terms of FMGC features), and adding a new model to be supported is not done by simply waving a magic wand. Nevertheless it supports A320, A321, A330-300, A380 and A350-900, despite the huge differences between the A320 family (first generation FBW, relatively simple FMGC) and the A350 (3rd generation FBW, new gen FMGC).

[Litjan]

To tell you the truth, the FMS is the warpcore, the holy grail, the "Theory of everything" of this product. It´s the conditio sine qua non.

You see a bunch of nice payware planes out there - but the FMS is what really sets a product of this scale apart from "other" airliners.

Yes, it would be possible to license it out, but this would be akin to giving away the recipe for Coca-Cola - not going to happen. Unless you offer us: ONE MILLION DOLLARS! (Puts pinky on corner of mouth)

Jan

 

[Vantskruv]

I can you send you ONE MILLION Zimbabwean dollars, no problems here. PM!

[Litjan]

2 hours ago, Vantskruv said:

I can you send you ONE MILLION Zimbabwean dollars, no problems here. PM!

Oh no, I have a lot of money from Africa still coming my way, already! Believe it or not, I had this relative I didn´t know about, and he died recently. He left me A LOT of money, and I am in the process - with some helpful attorney from Nigeria -  to reap all that dough in!

[yawdamper]

Oh, you too? We must be acquainted!

What a small world...

[-VETTE]

1 hour ago, yawdamper said:

Oh, you too? We must be acquainted!

What a small world...

And I'll have the money as soon as I pay this friendly IRS person

[wiloghby]

This has been done with UFMC and X-FMC.  And anyone who relies on using these implementations instead of the appropriate, specific flight management system for whatever plane they are flying knows how unsatisfying it is.  At the end of the day, someone has to put in the work to model the automation in each plane accurately if they want to charge $50 or $60 for a plane.

BUT, if you are a developer, your best bet to cash in is to pick a plane that is so old it doesn't have an FMS in the first place so you don't have to bother, and then claim a perfect systems simulation just 1 or 2 years later and release it.  AND charge the same $50 or $60 that fools who picked the "hard planes" to develop happen to be charging.

Developers who don't have the capacity or desire to do the FMS work that IXEG is doing at this time will just keep releasing old school models without any modern FMS. 

It's not a coincidence that the 727 and 737-200 were modeled pretty accurately, but that FJS has stated "no intention" of doing an aircraft with an FMS anytime soon.  He saves a lot of time and money, and certainly it's his prerogative to develop whatever planes he wants or doesn't want to.  He's one guy.  He can only do so much.

It's not a coincidence that PMDG's first product for X-Plane is the DC-6 either.

All the modern planes with GOOD implementations of FMS involve the work of the *SAME* 1 or 2 people at this time... one cracked it for Airbus, one cracked it for non-Airbus.  Think about how difficult and valuable a good FMS must be if only 1 or 2 people in our community TOTAL thusfar have cracked the code.

Instead, for the benefit of the most accurate models and for an incentive to develop the deepest systems, I think there should be a much bigger retail price gap between the devs who go the extra mile to simulate a fully working, airplane-specific FMS and those who don't.  Say, $80 vs $40.  Or $30 vs $60.  The FMS programming is the part of the project with the potential to add the most value.  It's no  coincidence that, up until this IXEG 737 is released, only 2 other people have coded what even resembles an accurate FMS for a modern plane.

We should all be thankful IXEG is going the path less traveled, and we should be thrilled to pay a premium for that on this and future projects of similar scope and ambition.

Edited February 6, 2016 by wiloghby

[tkyler]

Thx wiloghby, your words are encouraging.

Indeed, a thorough FMS is a challenging beast.  I have to admit, I was quite intimidated by it, but here towards the end, finally have a good feel for it.  A friend of mind has a great saying that true success is a combination of 3 things:  1.)  Passion  2.) Ability and 3.) Opportunity....and furthermore, you only have access to 2 at a time and have to expend time to get the 3rd to align.  We've taken a decent amount of flak by 'trolls' over time, but I can tell you I lose no sleep at night knowing those guys certainly aren't going to get us a solid FMS/airliner for x-plane....so we keep going no matter the flak.  We stick with the goal, keep eyes on the prize and get it done right....and a year or 2 after its done right, nobody will care about the release time-frame.  I'm totally committed to ensuring we have a 5 year viability minimum. We will keep pushing!  Thanks for the support.

-tkyler