IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

[tkyler]

Ok, here's a real report.   In the last few days, we have seen very, very few gizmo crashes (from my bad programming) with regards to FMS work.  There are a few fringe cases, but they are getting very tough to reproduce and usually come about when you start punching buttons like that kid in the movie, Airplane 2. ...stuff most of you would not do.  In prep for the final steps before letting beta folks test it, I have refactored (programmer speak for "cleaned up") the code to be more user friendly towards VNAV predictions and debugging VNAV performance values......and that is what we are currently working on.  If you don't plan to use VNAV, well I'm sorry, the FMS was ready for you a long time ago....but once you do learn it, and it actually works as expected, its quite satisfying and fun to experience....hence our efforts to really make it work.  So tomorrow I'll be flying some test routes to fine tune the descent code....and if all goes well, we want to let the beta testing folks have a hand at it asap.  I think Jan is planning a "full flight" preview, but no promises, I can't speak for him, he may not have plans for that.  (no micro-management here).   Now I know most folks automatically assume that once a closed 'beta' begins, that will uncover a slew of other bugs, which adds to the development time, but I have to tell you now...that I have NEVER seen a tester like Captain Jan Vogel!  (He IS that kid from Airplane 2), except with 100x the knowledge (very dangerous).  This guy finds stuff that nobody will EVER try.  and when this guy says, "its good for V1.0", then I will challenge the beta guys to find something we don't already know about.  Now note I said, "know about".   We know there's holes in the FMS, but feel its getting to the point to handle a good 90+% (or better) of use cases.  If you are that super hard-core simmer that likes to explore the fringes of FMS usage....well...I'd say, "fly some normal routes first or wait".   Work continues daily!

-tkyler

[poodster]

Ohhhhhh I'm getting Excited!!!!! How long is the closed beta supposed to be once it starts?

Great work IXEG! 

Edited March 12, 2016 by poodster

[Celis]

Nice.... That's good for me.. can live with that and get an update later. Close beta should be 1 day tops... 

its getting closer... i guess... 

[mmerelles]

In my opinion the VNAV is the soul of the fmc, it has so many calculations, variants, considerations. No aircraft available on xplane as of today has a working, solid predictable and realistic VNAV featured FMC.

All them fall short on predictions, last minute flight plan changes, etc. I am not blaming developers, we are talking here about an extremely complex piece of software that takes boeing lot of people full time to improve and develop for decades and they never stop.

Edited March 13, 2016 by mmerelles

[Nkmsw8]

Even though i can be impatient at times I thank you guys for taking your time to get it as right as possible for version 1. God knows X-Plane needs an aircraft of this caliber. It will push other developers to take the same care when releasing products going forward. 

[KAPTEJNLN]

9 hours ago, poodster said:

Ohhhhhh I'm getting Excited!!!!! How long is the closed beta supposed to be once it starts?

Great work IXEG! 

Well I guess you know the answer.. No one really knows that..

Yes developers have a internal time frame when testing is started (already said in this form as well) but is only a estimate.. I know as both tester and developer of given things, how that can changes and gets updated as it´s important for you as tester to know some kind of time frame as you might work for other developers as well.. But it is a estimate that is subject to changes, the best example is (CRJ700 / 900) where things have not followed the plan as the publisher wants, and keep updating stuff to get it to the latest standards.. else you might end by a Fokker project by a new VC and the old product from 2008 just to take a ex. I know it would be the other way around in that case.. but that was a side step to get a complete understanding about the many complex things you have to take in to consideration. 

But you have to understand the final part is hard work and where the smallest thing can be a show stopper until corrected and sometimes that’s by going far back and re do things, sometimes as close as to the start, I have tried that and it is so frustrating.

Another factor is depending on the company size and such things, you would know 1 delay cause problems further down the line. We sometimes have seen when testing is good and nearly done and ready, they need a installer but since the person that should do that does not have time as he works by other projects..

If you start count all those things, that you do not have much control about. You would realise how difficult it is to estimate to the public, as you do not know the facts about what would happen you can try but you never know what´s behind the next corner.

How is it in the gaming industry do they always keep promise ? NO.. What does it cause?  More negativity and bad reputation around the world..

That´s why some developers do no show what they work on, and just out of a sudden a new product ends in the store.

But a EST of beta or release is never easy or a good way in the public, as it often cause more negativity when it is not going to happen, then when you get to the store and find it´s out.. Not only does it lower the pressure of the developers but also the system that should handle forum and shop in the final end..

That was a long one, I just feel it does not make any sense to keep asking as its like some just try push on to get information, but it has the opposite effect.. Would you give info if some one keeps asking the same thing ? as when they give a release date another might start arguing that it takes long time and there we go again.. We have seen it so often sadly.. 

Edited March 13, 2016 by KAPTEJNLN

[Tekavia]

At the moment, I use an fsx sim for the 737-300, but it has a number of shortfalls compared to the real thing. I am hoping that this sim has those issues resolved, so my question is, does this sim have (a) a supplementary nav page - useful for adding fixes for emergency turns or complex go arounds. (b) can N1 be engaged at acceleration altitude - annoyingly the fsx sim doesn't (c) can a  negative vertical speed be applied when the missed approach altitude has been set as in a circling approach - another annoying error in the fsx sim!

[Martin D.]

Thank you for your report. Good news. Do you need to final testing some "normal" users? For testing VNAV etc.

[Cameron]

Thank you for your report. Good news. Do you need to final testing some "normal" users? For testing VNAV etc.

Please stop asking. You've already been told no.

[Martin D.]

OK. Im sorry. 

Martin.

[poodster]

6 hours ago, KAPTEJNLN said:

Well I guess you know the answer.. No one really knows that..

Yes developers have a internal time frame when testing is started (already said in this form as well) but is only a estimate.. I know as both tester and developer of given things, how that can changes and gets updated as it´s important for you as tester to know some kind of time frame as you might work for other developers as well.. But it is a estimate that is subject to changes, the best example is (CRJ700 / 900) where things have not followed the plan as the publisher wants, and keep updating stuff to get it to the latest standards.. else you might end by a Fokker project by a new VC and the old product from 2008 just to take a ex. I know it would be the other way around in that case.. but that was a side step to get a complete understanding about the many complex things you have to take in to consideration. 

But you have to understand the final part is hard work and where the smallest thing can be a show stopper until corrected and sometimes that’s by going far back and re do things, sometimes as close as to the start, I have tried that and it is so frustrating.

Another factor is depending on the company size and such things, you would know 1 delay cause problems further down the line. We sometimes have seen when testing is good and nearly done and ready, they need a installer but since the person that should do that does not have time as he works by other projects..

If you start count all those things, that you do not have much control about. You would realise how difficult it is to estimate to the public, as you do not know the facts about what would happen you can try but you never know what´s behind the next corner.

How is it in the gaming industry do they always keep promise ? NO.. What does it cause?  More negativity and bad reputation around the world..

That´s why some developers do no show what they work on, and just out of a sudden a new product ends in the store.

But a EST of beta or release is never easy or a good way in the public, as it often cause more negativity when it is not going to happen, then when you get to the store and find it´s out.. Not only does it lower the pressure of the developers but also the system that should handle forum and shop in the final end..

That was a long one, I just feel it does not make any sense to keep asking as its like some just try push on to get information, but it has the opposite effect.. Would you give info if some one keeps asking the same thing ? as when they give a release date another might start arguing that it takes long time and there we go again.. We have seen it so often sadly.. 

I know all about that, all I was asking was an estimated time because I've seen them say it before. Thanks for the info though. 

[tkyler]

Hard date estimates are too tough...but as an eternally optimistic kind of guy, what I can give you is a "hey, it would be awesome if we could have something in X weeks".  Then when we get to that day and we're not there, I'll say it again, "it would be awesome if we could have something in X weeks"....and if we don't make it then, we'll do it again and again and if we're steadily moving closer to our goal, then one day, the estimate will converge with reality.   I don't care if I have a moving target as long as the delta between me and the target is always closing....that math adds up to convergence at some point if you go far enough....the trick is to get there.

This is the way I find my motivation to push on, I always have to believe I'm close enough to keep moving...and if thats what it takes to get this done so we can all have this sim experience, then it is what it is.  I understand other folks would do it differently, but hey, they're not doing it now are they  .   It would be awesome if we could have something in 5-6 weeks wouldn't it? 

-tkyler

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by tkyler

[A121017]

8 hours ago, Cameron said:

Please stop asking. You've already been told no.

please stop playing big brother for the IXEG team... They might actually be willing to shed some light on it (as tkyler did a few posts later)

I notice that I'm getting more and more irritated by the attitude you are showing from time to time... Most of the time questions like 'is it ready yet, when will it be released, how much will it cost' will sort out themselves. just save your moderator powers for when discussions really get out of hand.

and for the IXEG Team: Keep it up guys, nearly there... I'll be cheering at the finish for you !

just my 2 cents

 

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by A121017

[Litjan]

9 hours ago, Tekavia said:

At the moment, I use an fsx sim for the 737-300, but it has a number of shortfalls compared to the real thing. I am hoping that this sim has those issues resolved, so my question is, does this sim have (a) a supplementary nav page - useful for adding fixes for emergency turns or complex go arounds. (b) can N1 be engaged at acceleration altitude - annoyingly the fsx sim doesn't (c) can a  negative vertical speed be applied when the missed approach altitude has been set as in a circling approach - another annoying error in the fsx sim!

 

a.) Not for 1.0 This is something that real airline pilots use very rarely, well, except for adding the fix "HOME" so they can input the coordinates of their house. Complex missed-approaches are part of the database, or can be made with conditional waypoints (PBD). But for 1.0 we won´t have conditional waypoints, but you can use the FIX page to "visualize" maneuvers that are off the normal FIXES.

b.) not sure what exactly you mean - the acceleration altitude is the altitude at wich the plane should start to accelerate, this has nothing to do with the thrust rating. Thrust is reduced (usually from TO or R-TO to CLB) at the thrust-reduction altitude. This altitude can be set on the TAKEOFF REF page (it defaults to 1500AGL). If you push the N1 button below this altitude, then the autothrust will set the current thrust limit (which will be R-TO or TO). You can change the thrust limit manually on the N1 LIMIT page, though.

c.) Yes, of course. But - as in the real plane - you must be at a different altitude than the one set in the altitude window. So you can´t be at 3000 feet, have the altitude window set to 3000 and then expect to engage V/S. It is not allowed (technically the aircraft intercepts the 3000´ again before you even start to gain any vertical speed). To start a final approach descent in V/S just put the MCP ALT to something suffiicently "high", then dial it down to missed approach altitude when you have safely descended from it.

Jan

 

[chadryan]

Thanks for the update!

[Morten]

I never get tired of looking at XP's lighting.  It's just so realistic! Not sure if I counted them correct, but the 737 has about 18 (!) different lightsources inside the cockpit that you individually can adjust to your liking.  Great way to waist time during a long cruise at night

 

[Tom Stian]

19 minutes ago, Morten said:

I never get tired of looking at XP's lighting.  It's just so realistic! Not sure if I counted them correct, but the 737 has about 18 (!) different lightsources inside the cockpit that you individually can adjust to your liking.  Great way to waist time during a long cruise at night

I started to follow this awesome product for just 2-3 months ago (and im glad for that).  
Dont understand how people can survive for years without going crazy when seeing these nice screenshots and the videoes that are up.

Its like being 5 years again on christmas. 

Really looking forward to the release of this product when its ready and done.
Keep up the good work.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Tom Stian

[Tekavia]

21 hours ago, Litjan said:

 

a.) Not for 1.0 This is something that real airline pilots use very rarely, well, except for adding the fix "HOME" so they can input the coordinates of their house. Complex missed-approaches are part of the database, or can be made with conditional waypoints (PBD). But for 1.0 we won´t have conditional waypoints, but you can use the FIX page to "visualize" maneuvers that are off the normal FIXES.

b.) not sure what exactly you mean - the acceleration altitude is the altitude at wich the plane should start to accelerate, this has nothing to do with the thrust rating. Thrust is reduced (usually from TO or R-TO to CLB) at the thrust-reduction altitude. This altitude can be set on the TAKEOFF REF page (it defaults to 1500AGL). If you push the N1 button below this altitude, then the autothrust will set the current thrust limit (which will be R-TO or TO). You can change the thrust limit manually on the N1 LIMIT page, though.

c.) Yes, of course. But - as in the real plane - you must be at a different altitude than the one set in the altitude window. So you can´t be at 3000 feet, have the altitude window set to 3000 and then expect to engage V/S. It is not allowed (technically the aircraft intercepts the 3000´ again before you even start to gain any vertical speed). To start a final approach descent in V/S just put the MCP ALT to something suffiicently "high", then dial it down to missed approach altitude when you have safely descended from it.

Jan

 

Hi Jan,

 

thanks for for your answer. I do fly the real thing by the way. I like to use a home sim as a tool to prepare for OPC/LPC and I find it helps despite its shortfall. Personally, I like to use the supplementary nav page to plot an emergency turn, so I find it useful and hope I never have to use it in anger. The N1 selection is made at acceleration altitude on take off. N1 and dial up speed 210 or 220. For the VS question I am referring to a circle to land where the higher missed approach altitude has been set at circling height but I want a negative rate of descent at base turn (-350ft/min) and configure for landing. The fsx sim doesn't do any of these. 

Keep up the good work.

[poodster]

2 hours ago, Morten said:

I never get tired of looking at XP's lighting.  It's just so realistic! Not sure if I counted them correct, but the 737 has about 18 (!) different lightsources inside the cockpit that you individually can adjust to your liking.  Great way to waist time during a long cruise at night

 

Beautifal picture morten. It really shows how great x-plane 10's lighting is. 

Keep up the great work and I can't wait for release of this beast. 

[Cameron]

please stop playing big brother for the IXEG team... They might actually be willing to shed some light on it (as tkyler did a few posts later)

I notice that I'm getting more and more irritated by the attitude you are showing from time to time... Most of the time questions like 'is it ready yet, when will it be released, how much will it cost' will sort out themselves. just save your moderator powers for when discussions really get out of hand.

and for the IXEG Team: Keep it up guys, nearly there... I'll be cheering at the finish for you !

just my 2 cents

 

 

The guy has asked me on Skype, in private message, and on here, as well as to other team members. He was told politely many times we were not seeking more beta testers. He's not asking for a progress update.

I (or anyone) really didn't need you to chime back. No one was "moderated". I asked him to "please stop asking." Simple request. Don't blow this up.

I'm now going to politely ask you to please discontinue any attempt to moderate or derail this topic. Further discussion on this will NOT be had, and that's definitely my warning to you.

[A121017]

2 hours ago, Cameron said:

 

The guy has asked me on Skype, in private message, and on here, as well as to other team members. He was told politely many times we were not seeking more beta testers. He's not asking for a progress update.

I (or anyone) really didn't need you to chime back. No one was "moderated". I asked him to "please stop asking." Simple request. Don't blow this up.

I'm now going to politely ask you to please discontinue any attempt to moderate or derail this topic. Further discussion on this will NOT be had, and that's definitely my warning to you.

I wasn't relating my post solely to the post you singled out... 

I'm not trying to moderate anything.

and what did I do to receive this remark ?  "Further discussion on this will NOT be had, and that's definitely my warning to you."

*edit: feel free to respond in a  private message, so we can keep the unrelated and non IXEG stuff to a minimum here

Edited March 14, 2016 by A121017

[FSSteven]

So Morten, you provide us real cockpit images in night now? I rather see IXEG cockpit

Edited March 15, 2016 by FSSteven

[Cameron]

6 hours ago, A121017 said:

I wasn't relating my post solely to the post you singled out... 

Then your post had absolutely no business being in this topic.

Back on topic, please.

To all others: We have a pretty awesome product to discuss here! Let's keep it clean and on topic. Further posts like A121017's will be removed from the topic so as to keep this thread what it's really about.

Nice screenshot Morten!

[Jojo38000]

I've been following this project for a couple of years now, and you keep to blow me away every time. This will definitely be a game changer.

Just a quick question/suggestion regarding the way you handle the flap lever. I personally use an axis to control my flaps, and sometimes (not to say everytime) it can be quite painful to set this axis just right (usually it's slightly off, so I get flaps 15,3 instead of flaps 15). You stated in a previous topic that you are not focusing on anything too complicated for V1 (regarding hardware interaction), but I certainly hope that you will take a closer on how to handle the flap lever with an axis once you get all the hot stuff out of your way.
I think you could tackle this by implementing some sort of "flaps intervals" : if the axis is between 100 and 95% then it's flaps 0, if it's 95 and 85 flaps 1, etc...
 

I've been thinking about developing a standalone plugin like that myself, but I don't know if it's even possible ?

[jimbim]

Hello Jojo,

You could use FlyWithLua and write a little script to read the axis. Then you can define ranges and trigger the correct flap position fitting to your range.

Should be pretty easy.

 

Greetings,

Sebastian