IXEG 737 Progress Update - March 12th

[poodster]

1 hour ago, sizziano said:

Sure, doesn't change what I wrote and that I told him to reread it several times.

Only twice actually . The first time u told me It was 3am where I live which didn't help. So, yes, part of it is on you for the poor wording. 

That's it, its done here.

Edited April 3, 2016 by poodster

[cessnarox]

17 hours ago, reincarnate said:

They just keep posting pics of their DC6 on facebook

They keep saying "coming soon". I feel like they are trying to build hype, but whats funny is every post gets filled with comments about the 747. I have a running wager with myself to see if the IXEG or PMDG comes out first. Very exciting time for X-Plane!

[Diego747s]

I think that it will be IXEG in 2017 or december

[poodster]

26 minutes ago, Diego747s said:

I think that it will be IXEG in 2017 or december

Very highly doubt that.  

[BMFlight]

26 minutes ago, Diego747s said:

I think that it will be IXEG in 2017 or december

Lets hope not...

[Diego747s]

2 hours ago, BMFlight said:

Lets hope not...

I wouldn´t be surprised at all, but let's hope not as you said.

[tkyler]

7 hours ago, poodster said:

Very highly doubt that.  

VERY

[martinjprocter]

hi guys, i have been a member of this forum for about 'no time whatsoever' certainly in comparison to some of you folk out there. i really don't know how you've managed to hang in there for so long. i have flown sims since they first appeared on the sinclair spectrum 48k computer back in the bad old days and have never seen an aircraft as good as this. to ixeg all i would say is why not release now? you are trying to make something imperfect be perfect, do 737s never have issues with FMCs? i would imagine that they do so by releasing this now you are giving us something perfect! well thanks my idea to try and persuade you anyway! also i do not wish to buy this aircraft from you.... i NEED to buy it! please, please hurry, thanks for reading this and keep up the great work

[cessnarox]

50 minutes ago, martinjprocter said:

hi guys, i have been a member of this forum for about 'no time whatsoever' certainly in comparison to some of you folk out there. i really don't know how you've managed to hang in there for so long. i have flown sims since they first appeared on the sinclair spectrum 48k computer back in the bad old days and have never seen an aircraft as good as this. to ixeg all i would say is why not release now? you are trying to make something imperfect be perfect, do 737s never have issues with FMCs? i would imagine that they do so by releasing this now you are giving us something perfect! well thanks my idea to try and persuade you anyway! also i do not wish to buy this aircraft from you.... i NEED to buy it! please, please hurry, thanks for reading this and keep up the great work

I think us not in the developing part of the process do not know the full extent of the issues that are keeping them from release. They have real life 737 pilots working on this aircraft. They will know what a realistic simulation is much better than we will. They will release it when they are happy with it, which will make it more likely that the customers will be happy with it. Any debating this is pointless and counterproductive. They have said it will be coming soon, and once we have it we will be able to fly it for many years. A few more weeks isn't long to wait.

[tkyler]

Indeed, there is quite a bit you can't see from the videos and screenshots...and also, its not just one or two folks, but 1000s that will trying all differing things, making for 100,000s of possible combinations that might be entered into the FMC.   So while we are definitely not striving for perfection, as evidenced by our "whats not in V1.0" list, we do have to ensure that the basics desired are in.   To elaborate further, the "desired basics" are those FMS functions that We ourselves as simmers have always said with other products, "I wish the FMS did X....or Y, etc.  It turns out the X and Y is a pretty long list of stuff and you take for granted just how many things, as a coder, you have to account for.

For example, I'm going to throw Jan under the bus here a bit to illustrate.   Jan tells me once,  "cruise phase is always in mach".   Ok...cool...I made that happen.   THEN...a good while later, Jan flies a flight with a cruise altitude under 10,000...where the speed restriction altitude is 250 kias.   Jan comes back...."hey Tom...these cruise value should be in KIAS"........"OH...so you mean cruise phase is always in mach, except  for condition A.........um....is there a condition B I should know about too?  A C perhaps?"   Sorry Jan!    So things from a coding perspective are not as simple as they may seem on the surface.  While maybe 95 out of 100 flights will probably never use cruise altitude below 10,000', some will..and we have to anticipate that before hand and handle it.  It turns out there is a whole lot of these situations.  The good news is that we believe our V1.0 FMS feature set is complete and we are "testing/calibrating" the performance while we simultaneously clean up textures, loose ends and docs.  

-tkyler

Edited April 5, 2016 by tkyler

[Celis]

52 minutes ago, tkyler said:

 The good news is that we believe our V1.0 FMS feature set is complete and we are "testing/calibrating" the performance while we simultaneously clean up textures, loose ends and docs.  

-tkyler

That sounds great. 

thanks.

[chadryan]

I personally appreciate the amount of time the IXEG team is putting in to ensure the release is as bug-free as possible. Unfortunately I've had to stop visiting this forum as often as the amount of whining about the release date is irritating to read. Please grow up people, it will be released when it's released.

[StevenM]

If a simulated FMC already has a lot of edge cases then the real thing probably has exponentially more situations to handle. And that in 1980's (?) embedded system tech instead of desktop systems with load of Ghz's en Mb's. 

Btw. I wonder if those FMC's can be ever deterministic implemented. 

[tkyler]

6 hours ago, StevenM said:

Btw. I wonder if those FMC's can be ever deterministic implemented. 

WARNING...Geek talk.

The LNAV and VNAV calculations are deterministic, the 'performance database', is of course stochastic.  The only way to get a fully deterministic implementation is to have air density and vector info predicted at every point surrounding the plane during the flight.....quite the CFD problem (and then some).   For the given database input states to the routing algorithms, the output will be the same every time for the same inputs (numerical round-off notwithstanding).....as the calculations are fully based on Newton's laws.  

-tkyler

[Yidahoo]

38 minutes ago, tkyler said:

WARNING...Geek talk.

The LNAV and VNAV calculations are deterministic, the 'performance database', is of course stochastic.  The only way to get a fully deterministic implementation is to have air density and vector info predicted at every point surrounding the plane during the flight.....quite the CFD problem (and then some).   For the given database input states to the routing algorithms, the output will be the same every time for the same inputs (numerical round-off notwithstanding).....as the calculations are fully based on Newton's laws.

I have liked this despite not understanding a word you said.

[StevenM]

2 hours ago, tkyler said:

WARNING...Geek talk.

The LNAV and VNAV calculations are deterministic, the 'performance database', is of course stochastic.  The only way to get a fully deterministic implementation is to have air density and vector info predicted at every point surrounding the plane during the flight.....quite the CFD problem (and then some).   For the given database input states to the routing algorithms, the output will be the same every time for the same inputs (numerical round-off notwithstanding).....as the calculations are fully based on Newton's laws.  

-tkyler

Clear. Thanks for the answer.

From a physics standpoint LNAV and VNAV are indeed reasonable straight forward. Of course when you go outside the envelope everything becomes very very random. We see this in the real world also, with occasionally desastreus results. 

I was more thinking about the messy "human" side. The legal/company/pilot thingie rules as "when i do this, i want to see that". In my line of work (healthcare systems) they rarely add up nice together. 

[tkyler]

1 hour ago, StevenM said:

In my line of work (healthcare systems) they rarely add up nice together. 

Indeed in most I agree.

So I know some folks are curious just what takes our time...and Jan found yet another interesting bug that resulted in what we call a 'soft crash'....enough to cause the FMS to be useless in this scenario.  

So when you input route data (procedures), the FMS does all its 'calculating bizness' as you press the buttons, but when you enter a procedure for the first time in a new route, some variables like "true course to next waypoint" don't exist until the calculation has run at least once.   Well the legs page shows these values and if you happen to have had the copilot CDU on the legs page while you enter say, a arrival procedure, then the copilot CDU tries to access these values so it can display it....and being they didn't exists yet, would cause a soft crash.  The solution was as simple as testing if the values exist of course, standard stuff .... but unless you happen to have the copilot CDU on the legs page WHILE entering the first procedure of the route and WHILE doing so only in the air...you (me actually) would never see this bug because I rarely use both CDUs, except during ground testing and never try to enter data while in the air (need to be coding, not flying).  Such is Jan's existence and thoroughness though, I am impressed what this guy finds.  It will bode well for all of us I think!

-tkyler

[StevenM]

51 minutes ago, tkyler said:

I Such is Jan's existence and thoroughness though, I am impressed what this guy finds.  It will bode well for all of us I think!

Count your blessings when you've a tester with deep systems knowledge and a large stamina.  Happy bug hunting

[cmbaviator]

I was wondering that if we go outside the flight envelope, is the behavior of the IXEG 733 realistic xD:

*Below stall speed, buffetting will appear

*After Vmo, flutter of the wing,aileron,horizontal stabilizer and the elevator

*Reversal control after the divergence speed.

CMB

Sent from Tapatalk

[Litjan]

25 minutes ago, cmbaviator said:

 

I was wondering that if we go outside the flight envelope, is the behavior of the IXEG 733 realistic xD:

 

*Below stall speed, buffetting will appear

 

*After Vmo, flutter of the wing,aileron,horizontal stabilizer and the elevator

 

*Reversal control after the divergence speed.

 

CMB

 

Sent from Tapatalk

There is no special tweaking of the flightmodel outside of the normal envelope by us. So what you will get will depend on X-Plane´s flight model. This is - by the way - the same as in the big Level D simulators. Certified flightmodel only within the envelope, outside its just extrapolation and guesswork.

Jan

 

[StevenM]

Jan, maybe a stupid question, but I was wondering if a professional pilot still can be immersed in a desktop flightsim. Or to rephrase my question, with your hands-on experience on the 737 how do you perceive the model you made? As a "mini-me" of the real thing?

[Morten]

I'll just add that at the edge of the envelope and *slightly* beyond we have implemented Level D simulator behavior.  So e.g. in a stall you will get a similar behavior.  Same with extreme controls deflections (rollrates, pitchrates, beta angles on engine out etc.)  We also model drag rise and loss of engine efficiency at overspeed.

M

[crisk73]

Will single engine taxi be possible with this aircraft? It seems none of the most accurate XP planes is capable of steering with one engine off: FF, JAR and even the S340. Thank you.

[sizziano]

35 minutes ago, crisk73 said:

Will single engine taxi be possible with this aircraft? It seems none of the most accurate XP planes is capable of steering with one engine off: FF, JAR and even the S340. Thank you.

 

Good point, single engine taxi is becoming SOP for a lot of operators these days.

[Tom Stian]

2 hours ago, crisk73 said:

Will single engine taxi be possible with this aircraft? It seems none of the most accurate XP planes is capable of steering with one engine off: FF, JAR and even the S340. Thank you.

 

I guess so.