The B737 Classic Project

[79carboy]

Wow, that movie and picture are amazing, keep up the great work

[FloB]

Whew!

[meshboy]

Great work Tom and Jan!

 

Haha i laughed when the "Whew" text came up, it was my though exactly! hahaha

 

Nice to see some more interior 3d, looking very good!

[RojanTrojan]

Superb texturing Tom. I'm glad that the extraordinary attention to detail is continuing in the rest of the cockpit. IXEG team are doing a great job here.

@Jan, really enjoyed that video. They certainly serve as a good reference for training on such a complex aircraft, maybe the links to these youtube video should find themselves in the manual also?

What I am trying to get my head around is when you would use the 2 Flight control computers (FCC) in flight. I have used the CMD A coupled with CMD B for a dual channel approach (autoland) (in the PMDG 737NG in FS) with success. But what I have never understood is when to alternate A and B in regular flight. Would CMD B be linked to the FO's side of the aircraft? Is that how it works? That would probably explain why I would only fly with CMD A, as on every occasion in any flight simulator I am the only pilot flying the plane. How about that to make my virtual passengers nervous!

Looking great IXEG.

Rhydian

[Litjan]

Yes, Rhydian, the two flight-control computers are totally redundant during regular flight. It is important to know, however, that FCC A (left side autopilot and flight-director) are hardwired to the left side instruments like altimeter and VOR/LOC receiver. So if you set the ILS frequency on NAV1 - the autopilot B will never fly it!

 

Thats why the captain will always use autopilot A and the copilot will always use autopilot B. The one exception is a malfunction, for example A hydraulic system down - in this case autopilot A won´t work, and the captain - even as pilot flying - could use autopilot B.

 

During a dual-channel-autoland ILS approach, both autopilots work the flight-controls at the same time. This has the added benefit of a "fail passive" system setup, meaning that if one autopilot freaks out and wants to roll the plane inverted, the other one is strong enough to stop it from doing that .

There are several parameters that must be met before being able to engage both autopilots - so it can´t be done for regular flight. Even though you can engage both as soon as these parameters are met, the second autopilot will only actually start working when well established on the ILS.

 

Jan

[RojanTrojan]

Thanks Jan that makes perfect sense. I read somewhere that they tripled the critical systems on the 777! 'A back-up of a back-up of a back-up'!

 

Rhydian

[meshboy]

Looks like you have really good FPS in this video, can´t imagine that the finished product will be lets say 50-60% more hard on FPS than in the Video. Hope it stays the same! =)

[Litjan]

Thanks Jan that makes perfect sense. I read somewhere that they tripled the critical systems on the 777! 'A back-up of a back-up of a back-up'!

 

Rhydian

 

Most bigger airliners have 3 autopilot systems. This is called a "fail operational" system - even if one autopilot freaks out, the other two can continue to do the job of landing the airplane, as they can simply overpower it.

 

Boeing has a system of grading the landing capability on more modern aircraft - they usually asess their own landing capability and announce it on the FMA. The 737-300 can not do this - the pilot is expected to asess and apply the correct minimum.

 

"Land 2" would be a fail-passive system that allows autoland, but with a certain decision height that allows the pilot to take over if one of the two autopilots fails just before touchdown.

"Land 3" would be the fail-operational system, where the two remaining autopilots could land the aircraft if the other autopilot fails. These system can actually have no decision height, meaning the plane will land even if the pilot sees nada.

 

Don´t confuse Land 2 and 3 with the Category II or Category III approach, though. While related, it is still different. For example, the 737-300 would technically have a "Land 2" capability (fail passive) if doing an automatic approach with two autopilots. This would enable it to fly a Category IIIa approach, though (50´DH - 200m RVR).

 

Jan

[tkyler]

Superb texturing Tom

I can't claim that one Rhydian, that's Nils Danielsson's work,  easily at the top of class IMO.

 

TomK

[RojanTrojan]

Ahh I see Tom. Credit to Nils for some outstanding work.

[mike10]

I can't wait for this plane.   Love the videos,  and the pic of the cockpit progress is amazing.    

[Litjan]

Alright, since there were few questions regarding the content of the previous installments I assume that everyone knows the autopilot insideout and you guys are ready for the 3rd installment of this little series. Exam coming up next week! .

 

 

Enjoy.

 

Jan

[mike10]

Hi Jan,  

 

It looks to me like the autopilot functions are the exact same as the NG..  I am really interested in seeing how your plane compares to the PMDG NGX ( my current favorite sim plane)..   I know it's different sims and I think your Plane might be a even deeper sim than the NGX from what you and the others at IXEG  describe.  

 

Either way this looks to FINALLY be the plane X-plane really needs to pull the systems junkies like me from FSX to X-plane full time.  

 

 

Ohh I have one question for you as well.  

 

I like to use a program called topcat that is the closest thing simmers have to a performance calculator. There is no profile for the 737-300 so my question is would the performance profile of a 737-700 with 22k 7b engines be close to the 300 with it's 3b 22k engine.  I like to use this tool to figure out flap settings for takeoff and derate. 

 

  I

Edited April 7, 2013 by mike10

[ONDR4.cz]

Exam coming up next week!   .

Fair enough, I hope it will be followed by a base training, too! 

[Morten]

I like to use a program called topcat that is the closest thing simmers have to a performance calculator. There is no profile for the 737-300 so my question is would the performance profile of a 737-700 with 22k 7b engines be close to the 300 with it's 3b 22k engine.  I like to use this tool to figure out flap settings for takeoff and derate. 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I'm not familiar with that program, but had a look at their site and it seems to be a great planning tool.  

You probably will get ballpark numbers but obviously not accurate.  We are currently simulating the 20k (CFM56-3-b1) engine, also the fan speeds (N1)

and limits will be different, also Vspeeds and runway required etc since the NG has a totally different wing.

Jan can maybe fill you in on how they plan takeoff configuration and thrust in real.

 

We already have a simple planning tool and we might expand this or make an Excel sheet or something.  We will also provide tables with most of what you need for normal operation.

Not sure how topcat works, but if their config file for each aircraft is open, we can maybe make our own file for this aircraft - or help them make it.

You can offcourse use real data/manuals as this aircraft is extremely close to real world performance inside the envelope (outside we don't know for obvious reasons)

 

M

Edited April 7, 2013 by Morten IXEG

[mike10]

Hi Mike,

 

I'm not familiar with that program, but had a look at their site and it seems to be a great planning tool.  

You probably will get ballpark numbers but obviously not accurate.  We are currently simulating the 20k (CFM56-3-b1) engine, also the fan speeds (N1)

and limits will be different, also Vspeeds and runway required etc since the NG has a totally different wing.

Jan can maybe fill you in on how they plan takeoff configuration and thrust in real.

 

We already have a simple planning tool and we might expand this or make an Excel sheet or something.  We will also provide tables with most of what you need for normal operation.

Not sure how topcat works, but if their config file for each aircraft is open, we can maybe make our own file for this aircraft - or help them make it.

You can offcourse use real data/manuals as this aircraft is extremely close to real world performance inside the envelope (outside we don't know for obvious reasons)

 

M

 

 

 

Hi Morten,  

 

The developer of topcat is working on a flight planning tool right now but once they finish that product they plan on adding profiles for topcat,  Maybe they will add a profile for the 300, I would imagine you have all the data they need to add it.    If they don't add it then the tool included with the plane would work a lot better than using the 700's profile. 

 

One more question.   

 

What documentation are you planning on shipping with the plane? 

 

 

Thanks, Mike

[tkyler]

What documentation are you planning on shipping with the plane?

 

Hey Mike, I'll jump in on this one.  We have all discussed internally "theories" regarding documentation for the flight sim market.  One approach is to basically copy the AOM.   For us, this implies that if it's in the AOM, it must be in the sim and despite marketing claims of many companies,   very rarely will everything in the AOM be in the simulation, probably barely half in most cases.  Most developers are willing to take the risk that customers won't go in so deep as to discover where they come up short and would rather have the marketing value of saying, "our stuff is so real you can use the real AOM".   Going this route means either copying a whole lot of info or licensing the information, which is usually quite overwhelming in its breadth.

 

We have  good perspective with Jan's consultation because I believe even he will tell you he doesn't read all of the AOM that close and indeed MANY times, we had to read it together to find out how to simulate something exactly.  So we asked ourselves, "what satisfies best all levels of simmers" and here is where we are now.

 

We will be writing our own documentation that is a slimmed down paraphrasing of the AOM but not necessarily light.  It will follow the AOM roughly but it will also contain product specific stuff of course for installation mumbo jumbo and the like.  We'll have a quick start so users interested in instant gratification can get some satisfaction.  We will back off somewhat on explaining in depth how systems work and focus more on how to work the systems from the pilot perspective.  We believe this will satisfy the majority of the simmers out there.  We might include less information initially on backup and standby systems which most simmers won't get into.

 

Now for the hard core junkies, we feel that being hardcore junkies, they either have the AOM or know where to go get it as they're not too hard to find.   So the question we asked ourselves in this situation was "what if a hardcore guy gets the manual and puts on thick glasses and goes over it line by line".   In that case, we said, "well our sim should try and handle it".   So we use the AOM to develop the sim as best we are able with our resources but we will not ship the same volume of information as the real one. 

 

So what you will find shipping with the sim is more basic descriptions, typical operating procedures with paraphrasing of the AOM; however, becasue we simulated it according to the AOM, we have some overhead to grow and expand and  I think over time, after release, we will certainly consider adding a supplement to the documentation based on feedback or include more specialized stuff, but even for us we have to ask, if it follows the AOM exactly, why not just include it?   Our final response to that is that most simmers, ourselves included, don't want that volume of information to have to wade through to find info.  This is a entertainment market and not a high risk liability market and therefore the documentation needs are different.  We want documentation that caters to what customers will be doing most often BUT if one desires more info, then yea, grab the AOM somewhere and knock yourself out because if it's in the AOM and our sim doesn't work as described there, then that is fair game for questioning.  We may tell you that we voluntarily chose not to simulate a feature, but we may have missed something also.  We use the  AOM to guide our programming so we are game to look at it all. 

 

All that said, it market demands dictate, we may eaily change our minds after some feedback and it's not like adding the AOM to the download package is a big deal, only a big licensing cost

 

TomK

Edited April 7, 2013 by tkyler

[aviatop]

Hello guys! 

And what about cockpit builders? 

Do you plan to share custom datarefs used in the project?

 

Thx, Maksim.

[tkyler]

Cockpit building is a big deal to me, probably moreso than the rest of the team.  Though not currently active building one, I certainly want to get around to it as soon as possible.  I'll be attending the AVSIM Fancon in a month and talking to cockpit builders to get their experiences and feedback.  We have very much structured our simulation design to be "cockpit builder" friendly though and providing / sharing datarefs is very easy, indeed creating new ones just for cockpit builders is probably not too heavy a task.  Expect us to get the product out and have to wait for a bit so we can work out any bugs.... maybe a few months and when customers are getting solid reliability in their installations and operarations, then I will most definitely turn my attention to cockpit builders to see what their needs are.

 

TomK

[MTR1994]

When you plan to finish texturing cockpit?

 

Matthew

[tkyler]

cockpit texturing is currently underway, that's the best we can say for now.

 

Tom K

[mike10]

Hey Mike, I'll jump in on this one.  We have all discussed internally "theories" regarding documentation for the flight sim market.  One approach is to basically copy the AOM.   For us, this implies that if it's in the AOM, it must be in the sim and despite marketing claims of many companies,   very rarely will everything in the AOM be in the simulation, probably barely half in most cases.  Most developers are willing to take the risk that customers won't go in so deep as to discover where they come up short and would rather have the marketing value of saying, "our stuff is so real you can use the real AOM".   Going this route means either copying a whole lot of info or licensing the information, which is usually quite overwhelming in its breadth.

 

We have  good perspective with Jan's consultation because I believe even he will tell you he doesn't read all of the AOM that close and indeed MANY times, we had to read it together to find out how to simulate something exactly.  So we asked ourselves, "what satisfies best all levels of simmers" and here is where we are now.

 

We will be writing our own documentation that is a slimmed down paraphrasing of the AOM but not necessarily light.  It will follow the AOM roughly but it will also contain product specific stuff of course for installation mumbo jumbo and the like.  We'll have a quick start so users interested in instant gratification can get some satisfaction.  We will back off somewhat on explaining in depth how systems work and focus more on how to work the systems from the pilot perspective.  We believe this will satisfy the majority of the simmers out there.  We might include less information initially on backup and standby systems which most simmers won't get into.

 

Now for the hard core junkies, we feel that being hardcore junkies, they either have the AOM or know where to go get it as they're not too hard to find.   So the question we asked ourselves in this situation was "what if a hardcore guy gets the manual and puts on thick glasses and goes over it line by line".   In that case, we said, "well our sim should try and handle it".   So we use the AOM to develop the sim as best we are able with our resources but we will not ship the same volume of information as the real one. 

 

So what you will find shipping with the sim is more basic descriptions, typical operating procedures with paraphrasing of the AOM; however, becasue we simulated it according to the AOM, we have some overhead to grow and expand and  I think over time, after release, we will certainly consider adding a supplement to the documentation based on feedback or include more specialized stuff, but even for us we have to ask, if it follows the AOM exactly, why not just include it?   Our final response to that is that most simmers, ourselves included, don't want that volume of information to have to wade through to find info.  This is a entertainment market and not a high risk liability market and therefore the documentation needs are different.  We want documentation that caters to what customers will be doing most often BUT if one desires more info, then yea, grab the AOM somewhere and knock yourself out because if it's in the AOM and our sim doesn't work as described there, then that is fair game for questioning.  We may tell you that we voluntarily chose not to simulate a feature, but we may have missed something also.  We use the  AOM to guide our programming so we are game to look at it all. 

 

All that said, it market demands dictate, we may eaily change our minds after some feedback and it's not like adding the AOM to the download package is a big deal, only a big licensing cost

 

TomK

 

 

Sounds good Tom.   

 

 As long as I have the performance charts I am happy.   a QRH is nice too but I can probably find one if it's not included.  

[pryoski]

Hey Mike, I'll jump in on this one.  ... We want documentation that caters to what customers will be doing most often BUT if one desires more info, then yea, grab the AOM somewhere and knock yourself out because if it's in the AOM and our sim doesn't work as described there, then that is fair game for questioning.  We may tell you that we voluntarily chose not to simulate a feature, but we may have missed something also.  We use the  AOM to guide our programming so we are game to look at it all. 

 

All that said, it market demands dictate, we may eaily change our minds after some feedback and it's not like adding the AOM to the download package is a big deal, only a big licensing cost

 

TomK

 

Execllent news Tom, Cheers

 

[ktomais]

Hello, another animation related question! One of the things that always vexed me in sims is that planes land or move (on the ground) like pieces of lumber, something that’s really annoying, and to my eyes, hurts the illusion of experiencing something real. So on that basis, will the IXEG 737 feature realistic suspension? 

Edited April 11, 2013 by ktomais

[Morten]

Yes, we have realistic spring constants and dampers.

 

M