Leaderboard

This is a copy+paste of my reply to the request for some news at the .org: Development continues at a steady pace. Programing systems is a long, tedious and sometimes very boring job. Our design paradigm calls for every button and knob in the cockpit to not only be functional, but also to have a realistic effect. If you look at this from the designer perspective in a cost/benefit relation, it is a not a very smart decision. Why? I give you an example: We are currently working on the IRSs (don´t fret, my american friends, we are not after your money! . Well, we are, but we can´t throw you in jail if you don´t pay). The IRS (intertial reference system) is basically a black box that does "it´s thing" in the background. A very expensive black box.The pilot turns it on, enters the position in the FMC and when the day is done he turns it off again. If you feel bored you can run a quick or full alignment after a couple hours when on the ground to improve accuracy. This is 95.0% of the interaction that will happen in the real plane, and probably 99.0% of the interaction that users will do in X-Plane. BUT the IRS´s can do sooo much more! You can input position manually on the CDUs. They display a lot of information on their CDUs. They have an ATTITUDE backup mode (complete with manual input of heading that will drift). Their position drifts over time. They measure latitude during alignment. They need time to align and shut down. They display certain lights, warnings, error codes and sound for certain conditions, failures and omissions. They have a test mode with effect on EADI, IVSI, etc. Other developers claim to have "custom realistic systems" but really only program for 99% of the users - they are smart! We spend the time to get another 0.9% of the users satisfied. The ones that have some background knowledge or the time to read the real operating manual. The ones that like to push some buttons and see what happens. The ones that will try the ATTITUDE backup mode and monitor IF heading drifts over time with an accurate rate according to the current latitude... the system geeks... like me . Other developers get away with their way - if someone shows up on the forums to complain about omissions like that it is easy to dismiss that as being not important (and 99% of the users will agree!). We draw the line a little further. We omit a feature only if it is definitely to our knowledge not possible to achieve with the current technology available in X-Plane. We have to deal with the background framework of that. We can work around, expand upon and really stretch the limits - and do as far as we can. This costs us dearly. Developing this last 0.9% bloats development time (my estimate) somewhere between 2 and 4 fold. If we had to feed our kids with development work for X-Plane we couldn´t do that. The user base for X-Plane is not large and not wealthy enough to pay us an adequate amount for that kind of work. Think about the numbers behind this. What is the average pay per hour for a very talented programmer in your country? And a rough estimate of time necessary to make this kind of airplane? Maybe around 10,000 man-hours. Multiply this with the pay per hour. Divide by estimated copies sold. Add another 20% or so for distribution overhead. Result is the cost per copy we´d have to charge if we wanted to do this full time as a job. Obviously this wouldn´t sell many copies... This is also the answer to why PMDG can do this full time and make money. The very different variable in their equation is "estimated copies sold". So why do we do it? Several answers to that one. First we are determined to make the best and complete airliner available for X-Plane. Many cool planes have been done for X-Plane, but we want to not only push but shatter that boundary. We want to build a name for us, so IXEG will be synonimous with ultimate accuracy and fidelity. Second we all have real life jobs that feed us. Yes, we want to make money with this plane. Yes, we want our time spent reimbursed. But we can afford to be economically unsound about it. This will not benefit most of you... just about 0.9% . Third we are X-Plane enthusiasts. We love tinkering with this kind of stuff. If you love what you do, you are willing to do it for less money than someone who hates his job. (This is, by the way, the root cause of many pilots being not paid very well around the world. But that is another story ). Forth the team was dumb enough to ask me to be their technical advisor. I get to test every system that gets into this plane. I not only test for correct functionality, but also for correct feel and look. I don´t get any money for it, but this is easily offset for me by the satisfaction of bossing them around . This light is fading too quick! This needle moves too slow! The plane isn´t floating enough during landing! I have flown this plane for 9 years now, and sometimes I get this weird feeling that something isn´t quite right, even before I can quantify and pinpoint the cause. I will put up another demonstration movie for you guys within the next few weeks. Yes, it will be as boring as the last one. We will save the ones where I do inverted low-passes at 5 feet over the runway at 338kts chasing Austin´s deer for later . Before the question of "release date" comes up again - I can´t say anything official, but we are not close to it. You might want to look for another christmas present for your wife or mother if you had the IXEG 737 in mind for her... Jan

2x, 3x, I like the trend I am seeing here... Jan

Allright, here is my decision about the liveries: There will be a - Cargo version -> HA-LAR - Farnair: no seats but boxes, etc: visibility of each box depends on payload - Passenger version -> OK-UBA - manx2.com: seats and passengers. Passengers visibility depends on payload And here is a shot a half-painted manx2.com livery