Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/30/2016 in all areas
-
Vantskruv put it nicely, and I want to put my above post a bit into perspective. We at IXEG welcome our future customers voicing their wishes and opinions, this is what makes us strive to get as good as we can and also helps to steer our development (a little). What we don´t like is people turning our words around in our mouths, with thinly veiled attempt at slandering us or our product. Things like "You promised to release in 2015! You didn´t, so obviously you are henchmen from hell!" or "You said it would be a realistic simulation, but now you say the wheels don´t wear after many landings! You *=$§% liars!". If you don´t communicate along commonly accepted customs and protocols, don´t expect the communication to work well. If you are married, you know what I mean . I try to stay professional and just take into account that not everyone is bringing the same assets and social skills to the table - but I think you are still accountable for the things you say - and need to weigh your words a bit, even on the internet. It is really easy to make a fool out of yourself, been there, done that! Jan6 points
-
Fair enough, for me it will, because I don't care to study manual holds. Is manual holding required for 'study level sim' status? I know that the NGX was called study level without having weather radar and without proper manually extending gear and with a faulty brake accumulator model.....But maybe those items are not required to get the study level sim merit badge. I'm still looking for the official governing body who bequeaths study level sim certification status so we have something to go by. Being serious, I get it, what study level means to you....we don't qualify yet given your personal definition, but you can't put your interpretation on everybody else because as illustrated above, there are areas of ambiguity and relevance based on what one wants to study....so when I used the term in the video, given what I know we've put into the FMS and systems, its pretty darn 'study level' to me. We fully understand that we have your support, indeed most everybody's and we are extremely grateful for that and we will keep plodding along and hopefully get those things in for you. -tkyler5 points
-
I need to fill in a little. I think this discussion is overblown and overreacted (as humankind does naturally and subconsciously). From where the discussion blew up like a balloon filled with fart, a user stated that he felt the simulation may not comfort his requirements for a fully blown replica of the systems. His statement should be respected as for his personal requirements, and text on a screen may not fully mirror exactly what is meant; rant, personal statement or discrepancy from thought to text; this may be differently absorbed by different people, hence as wavelengths may not be aligned which each other just because they both start at wrong points, but the wavelengths are still the same. There is no need, or rather, it is not possible to judge, only preconceive (which is a bad nature of human kind). As for IXEG, they may want to make a simulation they dream about and give with the exchange of cheese to other people. They may decide to keep it for them selfes, but they don't. Also, making a fully 100% blown simulation, is not very easy. If we require something that is 100%, we either get something like that if we are lucky, or not. I guess IXEG try their best to deliver as close of 100% with their resources, but as stated in the first post, this is not possible because of time and funds. Either they cancel everything, or they release it to i.e. 95%. If we want to have fully blown 100% simulation of this aircraft, either we look elsewhere (good luck with that), or we buy IXEG:s 95% simulation, and with this action of ours, IXEG may continue and be able to create a 99% simulation, or if we are very lucky, 100%. To conclude: Either: - No simulation 737-300 at all Or: - 95% simulation of 737-300, and later on maybe 99.5% simulation (if IXEG is supported well enough). NOTE: the percent values given in the above text is just examples, so please no preconceptions here.5 points
-
Please, please, please, please, please: READ my post again. Slowly. A third time. Ask if you don´t understand a word. I know English might not be your first language (it´s not mine either, so maybe I used a wrong word?), so please don´t jump to any assumption on a casual glance of what I wrote. Entertain the possibility that for the first time in your life you might be wrong or have made a mistake. I refrain from quoting my own post, because if you can´t comprehend what I wrote the first time, you will most likely not be able to if I just post it again. I never said we "drop" anything because it is not important or not used. I only said it won´t be in 1.0, and stated reasons why we picked feature X over Y to omit FOR THIS INITIAL RELEASE ONLY! So all your posts and bickering about this are just meaninlgless hot air and I refer back to Tom Knudsens initial commentary that still holds true: If you NEED a feature that we omit for 1.0, don´t buy it yet. Otherwise please don´t make me feel sorry for you and your lack of reading comprehension ability, every day I am mad or sad or sorry I can´t help Tom to finish the FMS and next thing we know we just might drop LNAV for 1.0. How about that? Jan5 points
-
Not even in the same league. Sorry to those who made the aircraft, and also sorry (kind of) for even saying it when I probably shouldn't...but I just did. Uncalled for, Tom. SkyMaxx is easily the most successful and used add on in the X-Plane payware market to date. The fact they gave version 1 to 2 free of charge , and version 3 two years later at 50% discount was more than generous. Don't even bother replying to this in here. You're on an edge that will eventually lead to suspension if you keep it up, and I'm very serious about that. This is your one and only warning. Behave.4 points
-
The thing is, people try to argue semantics using their own, subjective dictionaries. It's silly. It's a colloquial term, created by us, the simming community, to distinguish between very complex and those less complex addons. More or less, the general consensus can be made between the simmers of what is and what isn't a "study sim", but there will be obviously some differences here and there. What I find crazy though, is that looking at some posts in this thread, NOTHING is a study sim, and nothing EVER will be. If you are looking for 1:1 simulation, then go ahead and pay $550/hr for a Boeing simulator and then you will have an actual experience. PMGD is regarded as study sim by the majoriy of the community, and yet it's missing quite a lot of features of the real thing. Maybe some people should just accept it's a game, and that "study sim" means something different in PC simulation games than they think it means. So tl;dr (as some people seem to get lost in posts): "Study sim" is a term colloquially used by specific community, which isn't to be taken literally. It has its own meaning given by that community. While everyone has right to their own opinion, arguing with semantics widely spread in the community is rather silly. Cheers.4 points
-
I promised myself I will stay out of it, but oh god. IXEG isn't builiding an actual, real aircaft. They are creating an addon to a game. Lack of some feature on release that you would normally never even use (or wasn't even aware of it's existence) doesn't mean something is "unfinished", especially if the features that will be present from the start already put that, again, addon to a game in the top category in terms of complexity. A lot of unnecessary jabs.4 points
-
It is Jan modeled in one of the seats. I have to say he's a lot uglier in real life though.3 points
-
We all know you're just itching for IXEG to start work on the A320. Don't try and hide it any longer.3 points
-
Sometimes I wish I could agree with this statement, but I cannot. There have now been numerous releases across several platforms which have somehow convinced people products are "study sim" and majority of people are none the wiser. They will literally fight to the death to defend their purchase after the fact too if anyone dare point out deficiencies. One man's study level sim is another man's piece of garbage. In other words, Tom is absolutely right in saying the term is subjective, and as someone who deals with customers on and off these forums more than anyone, I say such with great certainty and confidence. In the end this aircraft is summed up simply for me: Even as a version 1.0 release it is the most immersive, fun, detailed, and truthfully simulated product ever put out for X-Plane. It would remain that way for quite a while if IXEG chose to never touch it again after release. Luckily, the drive is there to continue forward beyond 1.0.3 points
-
Actually I didn't want to get into this discussion as I'm seeing it like you guys at IXEG do. But I just couldn't resist for this one : Not that long ago ... I don't want to offend you, I just kinda smiled while reading your post with the video still in my mind Regards, BaBene3 points
-
A great quote by author Cory Doctorow, which is why we type in these infernal forums incessantly, so need to question why people have to sound off on every little thing, its in our nature to just gab. ..and another great quote: The community coined the term "study sim" somewhere along the line, I'm quite sure we've never used it in our official jargon at IXEG. I'm also pretty sure there is no written down definition of just what a study sim is so each person's expectation is up for grabs no?.....furthermore, our simulation is only what we target it to be and Morrigan hit the nail on the head there. Our primary goal was/is an airliner that is an accurate simulation of a normal and typical 737-300 flight, so that we can get busy flying ops on vatsim and using the FMS to conduct normal flights because its just fun....NOT a 'study sim' as I define it in my head. If ol' Bob the customer's goal is to engage in mental masturbation while looking at fold out technical diagrams in the center of the manual....ol' Bob will just have to wait or build his own simulation.....while the rest of us will be 'flying' Now nearly every thing we have put into the sim thus far has a physical manifestation that can be observed by the pilot in some capacity and is the reason why our 'behind the scenes' stuff is as detailed as it is...its not just for the sake of the detail or so some A&P can practice his diagnostics. We have simulated electrical relays because it affects how things appear and get powered in the cockpit, VERY visible when simulating normal flight. We have simulated hydraulic systems in depth because it affects the controls and gauges....VERY visible during normal flight. We have simualted the LNAV and VNAV as best we can because when you don't level off at the right altitude...VERY visible during normal flight. Manually entered holds....NOT very visible during normal flight....is everybody getting this? note our goal above if not.....and read it as many times as you need to until you do....think of this post as a study level post. ...I wasn't going to type anymore but I know that some folks will miss the fact that the word 'primary' insinuates 'secondary', i.e. a follow-on goal. Our secondary goal is to get the simulation as accurate as we can in the infrequent/abnormal areas, just for the satisfaction of completeness and bragging rights....and no other reason....I have ZERO desire to use a manual hold in sim, don't even care to read about it. BUT....those that do want it all can rest assured that the pursuit of our own satisfaction in this regard will ensure that we keep going well after V1.0 hits the shelves. -tkyler3 points
-
Edited first post to reflect current state of development a bit more accurately. Jan3 points
-
2 points
-
F/O is first officer, the right seat, it has nothing to do with the EFIS or non-EFIS. Usually the -300 to -500 have EFIS, but it's a different formatcompared to the NG (-600 to -900). I believe only some -300 still have them steam gauges.2 points
-
2 points
-
All I wanna say is....Thanks to people like you...There is people like me who loves this sim-world. And in the past five years I´ve been learning so much about it that I won´t even consider not to buy it... I´m looking looking forward to watch all Jan´s videos...And fly this beauty addon. Thanks guys. Great work IXEG!!2 points
-
I'll just jump in the cockpit, take my Mike Ray's book along with the IXEG documentation and start switching buttons and levers from cold & dark and try to make a some short flight from LEMD to LEMG2 points
-
2 points
-
Thank you A quick status: The plane finally getting into the state where all the functionality are there for a proper flight on any network and for any procedure. Now, I have to finish the remaining texturing - mostly on the side panels and add some UX features (hiding yokes, manipulators for gear and flaps handle, etc) So, overall it's really getting into a shape where it's really a fun to fly Sadly the next couple of weeks will be busy, so can't really work what I've planned. Hope it's not going to last too long and I can get back to business ASAP. A long delayed UV mapping for the Garmin and the WX radar - finally finished2 points
-
Hi there, I agree with you - the goal is a fully functional FMS, and no feature is so "unimportant" that we will simply leave it out "forever". But - as I said before - we need to omit some stuff for 1.0, or delay release even further. We opted to omit things that you can probably do without the easiest. Custom Holds: I have never, ever flown a custom hold AFTER I got away from that pesky instructor in the glaring Arizona sun in1993. Maybe a "hold at present position" (can´t remember, though), but if ATC asks an airline pilot to "hold at the R-155 at 35DME to LBE with 267 deg inbound, right turns" I would LOVE to hear the reply on the radio. Regular holds :I fly about every two months or less. Of course that depends on the destination/weather/time of day. If I had to fly a holding and my FMS couldn´t fly it, it wouldn´t even raise my heartbeat - I probably wouldn´t even have to put down my coffee! Just push HDG SEL as you come up on the fix, turn the heading bug in the direction of the hold to the outbound bearing (you can use a calculator, if you have to), push the stopwatch as you complete the turn. Maybe adjust a bit for wind. ATC won´t berate you if your inbound timing is 0:55 instead of one minute, they have other problems to worry about if they stick you in the hold... Offset: I think I said that before, only really used on Oceanic/African Ops. If you really have to, you can also do that with HDG SEL as a substitute. User created points in flightplan: This is something I do about once a year in real flying. If I am bored. Display of RTE data on EHSI: This is one I actually miss, as it greatly enhances situational awareness. Restrictions to meet, speeds to fly. I think we will have that fairly quick. Of course you can just look at the LEGS page to see the data... If you let 90% of your flight be completed by the FMS, you are either lazy, a bad pilot, or need to get an Airbus! Jan2 points
-
Tom, V1.0 won't be a "public beta", it will be a addon with specific areas that are worked on at a later stage. Even though it won't be 100% bug free, what we can expect is a fully working addon in the areas that are simulated. I do too prefer a "complete" addon over one with things that are done later, but lets face it - the development has taken much longer than anticipated and I believe with V1.0 95% of the customers will be satisfied. For the other 5% you've got the list of items. Since you seem to belong to the 5%, it's perfectly okay not to jump in at the first release. But what disturbes me here is that it seems like you are trying to spoil it to other people. IXEG is playing with open cards, there is no need to badmouth their work. I deeply respect them for their dedication. As for ABS, navigation system, cruise control - it's all in. Okay, no offset and no pilot entered holds (thats the rain sensors). Would you notice, unless someone told you about it? You can do normal VFR flying, radio navigation and LNAV/VNAV and explore lots of other features around. Try mastering that, unless you have a professional license and a rating, it'll keep you busy for a long time.2 points
-
Updated September 2023, Version 1.5 Hi everyone. While it seems to be the economically "smart" thing to do to NOT talk about the shortcomings of your product (and then sometimes to just ignore the complaints after you cash in the money), we are trying to run things a bit differently here at IXEG. I would therefore like to share a list of things that will NOT be in version 1.5, and also give a little background of why, and wether we are planning to add it later. I will try to make this list as encompassing as possible, if I forget something, please don´t sue me! I will add/remove from this list as warranted. Aircraft visual 3D model Ancilliary vehicles (catering, fuel truck, loading crew) - this is now accomplished by using the XP11 native ground vehicles, the docking locations for those are correctly added in planemaker. Cockpit keypad entry mechanism Omitted due to security reasons. Deployable emergency slides.Omitted due to time constraints, planning to add later. Deploying oxygen masks. Omitted due to time constraints, planning to add later. Sound effects/visual model for passengers and their (assumed) behaviour. Too complex a simulation off it´s own, most likely won´t be added for fear of having something repetitive or cheesy. Cabin crew voice interaction. You can communicate via menues that are invoked by pressing the cabin call button, though. FMS Pilot entered HOLDS. While we have database-inherent holds (like at the end of a missed approach), we won´t feature the HOLD page where you could enter all sorts of HOLDS. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. RTA feature. Omitted due to time constraints, planning to add later, but low priority. OFFSET feature. Omitted due to time constraints,planning to add later, but low priority. ABEAM points (after shortcutting route, for example). Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. You CAN enter stuff in the FIX page, and "find" a PBD point that way (enter a fix, enter a radial and a distance to see the green radial and distance-circle) Entering descent wind forecast (normal wind entry on PERF INIT page possible). Display of "RTE DATA" on EHSI/map, i.e. showing ETA and restrictions next to waypoint. You can see that on the LEGS page, for now. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. Automatic entry of performance data (weight, etc.). We might include that for the "ready to fly" scenario, not decided yet. For now it must be entered manually, if FMS performance assistance is desired (not mandatory). Fully working PROGRESS page - we started to code it, but much of the things shown are placeholders. We expect this to be one of the first things we will add soon after release. Full VNAV functionality for descents with speed and/or altitude restrictions. The FMS gets confused by changing the cruising altitude while enroute and multiple descent restrictions and restrictions of a certain type. Basic unrestricted descents work, though. GUI Dedicated flight-planning software. We feel that this is not necessarily within the scope of our add-on. We model the plane like you get it after delivery from Seattle (+ free lifetime fuel!). There are plenty of flight-planning solutions out there, we include a basic "ballpark" fuel calculator. Complex and visually appealing load+trim software. We feel that clicking empty seats to fill them and pulling sliders to load cargo is fun for a few times - but really all you get is a weight and a center of gravity. And you might just as well set those directly in the gui. We have simple sliders and click-buttons for that (or you can use the default X-Plane menus). No way to output any CDU, EADI or EHSI onto an external device like iPad or such. Would like to have that (especially for cockpit builders), though. Exception: it is possible to use AirFMC, available at the Apple App Store. No pop-out 2D displays of flight instruments/CDU/EFIS to make reading or entering stuff easier, no hiding of yoke to not obscure view. We feel that the ergonomics (or lack of) an airliner cockpit is an important part of the experience, so we don´t want to "help" too much. We have "preview pop-ups" of the EHSI when making changes on the EFIS control panel to help you see if you have the right setup. Other systems Wxr radar returns can only be displayed on the left EHSI/map. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. Terrain colour display can only be shown on the left EHSI(map. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. Operating circuit breaker (CB). We decided that most CBs will never be moved in normal operation. We will add moveable CBs with the yellow collar later (to be used in abnormal situations), and possibly some others as well (standby altimeter vibrator!). Automatic startup/shutdown "macros". Won´t add that. This plane is about realistic operation (it´s not hard!). If not desired, just select "ready to fly" or "turnaround-state". IRS using "false" position. It is not possible to deliberately enter a "false" position and have the IRS align to that. The entry will be rejected unless reasonably close to the real position. In the real plane the GPS would also "correct" your wrong entry (if close enough) or warn you. A position far from the old "shutdown" position would be rejected once. A wrong latitude would be detected during the alignment process...It would be a lot of coding effort to maintain a "wrong" position with the corresponding effects (map-shift, etc.) A dedicated way to fly the same plane together in multiplayer. Note that SmartCopilot has made great progress in making our plane flyable with a crew of 2, and while not perfect yet, it is working very well, going by user reports: http://forums.x-pilot.com/forums/topic/9714-smartcopilot-first-attempt/?page=1 Volume control for radios/navaid ident checking. We have implemented a better volume (more loud), but it can not be adjusted yet. We are trying to be as upfront about the shortcomings of our model as possible. I have myself bought many aircraft for flight-simulations boasting great things, only to be disappointed. I want to avoid that for everyone, so if you find a "must have" feature on this list, I encourage you to hold off on purchase until we added your feature in a later patch. I could make a feature list of things we have that would take you hours to read, but instead you can assume that our plane can do everything that the real one does, except for the things noted above. Cheers, Jan1 point
-
So here's a small example of what we're doing and where our time is going. As we chip away on the last part of the FMS, that is the descent phase of the VNAV, we try and capture every scenario and represent it, but then when you begin flight testing as we are now, some sneak by you....like this one that took me half a day to find and fix because I noticed speed and altitude values for this cheeky little waypoint (DF644) didn't match up with common sense...so I knew I was on a bug hunt. Now when you cross the speed restriction altitude during descent and have to level off and slow down, this usually happens between waypoints....so most of the time, as you approach and pass a waypoint, you are either descending at a constant rate and speed, OR you level off and decelerate before the waypoint if a speed restriction is in effect at that waypoint. But what happens if you are decelerating at the speed restriction altitude and you just happen to cross a waypoint at that exact time? The speed at that waypoint (which you can see on the CDU) should reflect that deceleration and whose value should be somewhere south of the previous waypoints speed and somewhere north of the next waypoints speed. Well I just happen to come across such a situation....so lucky for you guys and gals ...as that's one less bug you have to find. -tkyler1 point
-
The FMS will do as its told (through key entry only), so in this case, it will still slow down if you don't make a change. So...If you get a 'free pass' from ATC below the speed restriction altitude, then on the descent page, you simply delete the speed restriction entry per ATC's permission and a new route with new speeds are calculated. EXEC and be on your way speeding below 10000' like a kid in a Ferrari -tkyler1 point
-
Not sure I understand the question.. You mean like if you exit VNAV mode and use some other vertical AP mode that violates the speed restriction set in the box? My guess is this is one of the reasons real pilots don't use VNAV alot since ATC will mess up your plans sooner or later anyway1 point
-
Let's call this day "Devil in the details" day Did you spot the difference?1 point
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
Thanks, Jan! I see the 3D pilots item was stricken. Does that mean someone modeled and textured an accurate version of yourself? You know we'll be disappointed if it's not you in that seat...1 point
-
I would personally say I do not like the 737 MAX cockpit, as well as the 757 and 767. To much computers, that is why. I would rather IXEG concentrated on more old-school aircrafts without too much advanced systems (though FMS is preferably to have in the aircraft). I.e: MD-80 - though already a version is released by a developer, and there is another one on its way, so even if I would prefer it, it is not realistic to concentrate on this aircraft. BAE ATP - as they been flying locally in Sweden, and I don't think this aircraft is too hard to simulate. At this time is that what I want, though the needs may change in the future discovering other aircrafts.1 point
-
1 point
-
That's amazing! I actually forgot you are still planning to release the 3D cockpit, this plane is already really fun, even with only 2D. I'm excited, kudos!1 point
-
1 point
-
short·com·ing: a fault or failure to meet a certain standard It's not hard to see what @frumpy found to be badmouth-like language. If you fail to see how your post could have ever felt that way then I too am confused. Truth be told, most everything Jan has listed is non-consequential. He went out of his way to list items that in all reality have zero bearing on daily flying life of a 737-300. As a captain with thousands of hours experience, I would trust his word. Your post was indeed a slight. One that came about a LONG time after this thread had been made, on a forum you visit practically daily, and only after you were found in a spat in another topic. Let it go, man. Quit arguing, acting like you have no idea what other people are talking about, and move on.1 point
-
Again, I can totally understand your stance and it is the reason why I made the post in the first place. I try to not be an "early adopter" on many things myself - especially in software development these days most software will get better and get cheaper - so it´s win win...if you can muster the patience and stand the fact that everyone else is already playing that cool new game, and you are still on Battlefield 2 . Your choice is perfectly valid and I am not going to convince anyone to buy this unless you believe that you are getting your money´s worth. Of course you can already play with 1.0 while we work on 1.1 - or you wait until 1.1. The money spent is the same, but you gain a few weeks of fun. Then again, we might bail to Mexico or the Carribean with the first week´s income and never fix this, that is your risk with a day one purchase! We will still be here when you finally cave in . Cheers, Jan1 point
-
It is not the plugin that crashes the plane. The plugin itself works great. It is the Saab_340_Xsaitekpanels.lua file that is a problem. Or to be exact a few lines in it. I wrote that code but never had time to fix the bugs.1 point
-
Excellent, then my post served it´s purpose. Thank you for not berating us on missing feature "X", but to do what you feel is right for you and to wait until the project has reached a level of completeness that you feel appropriate. All the best, Jan1 point
-
Very well done !! Nevertheless a question. Why working ( I alsmost say waisting) superb paintwork on models with such terrible cropped textures ? All sharp lines and details get fuzzy the moment the texture gets stretched on the aircraft. Thats the reason why I personally never touch textures wich are cropped, the result on the plane always make me cry. Leen de Jager1 point
-
1 point
-
Boeing 737-236/Adv, reg. G-BGDJ, above Swiss Alps during British Airways' advertisement photo shoot in 1993.1 point
-
First of all thank you for being up front about this , none of these shortcomings really bother me, but i do hope you're being honest when you say you plan to add stuff later. Secondly i'm in the minority probably but thank you for not adding scrollwheel support , planes with scrollwheel support are a pain in the ass to fly since you always mess a knob up when looking around , and dragging the mouse works just as well. If you do end up adding it i really hope there will be an option to choose to disable it. Cannot wait for this , day-1 buy. I don't think i'll ever need to buy another airliner after this. Well , atleast not untill the next IXEG plane comes out Counting the days ( weeks , months ? :S) untill release! Good luck.1 point
-
I think every native FSX guy who is missing the scroll wheel support should try out a X-Plane addon with a good grab 'n drag mouse interface. Dreamfoils Bell 407 is a good example and I personally never use their implemented scroll wheel interface. Why? Firstly, it interferes with the zoom function of X-Plane if your are not precisely point the mouse over the appropriate clickspot or the viewing direction moves during maneuvers. And secondly, I found it to be more "realistic", since the dragging movement is detentless when dialing up analogue instruments (barometer setting for example). I grew up with MS Flightsim and really don't miss the scroll wheel for that matter. However, the interface of most default planes in X-Plane is a PITA. On a side note, wing flex is obsolete for my taste...1 point
-
I don't think that I'm missing the point of this thread. I just wanted to throw that video in and at the same time wrap it in a kind of humorous fashion. I'm not the only one that has a good memory and there are certainly people here who would have taken the opportunity to put you and your post into a bad light. Your post made me think that you (or IXEG) are kind of backpedaling from your past statement(s). I don't think you need to ... I think most people will agree that a study level sim should enable the humble sim enthusiast to take a FCOM and apply it to his or her "study level" sim. This includes most things concerning the operation in flight (not the typical flight). For me this includes a complete simulation of the FMS for example, even if most of the missing features have no relevance for a real pilot in everyday operation. Truth be told, I was quite disappointed that those features concerning the FMS won't be implemented in the initial release (because I was expecting a study level sim) In conclusion: For me this aircraft won't be a study level sim at release. However it eventually will be when the missing features are implemented after the release. I can only give you my perspective as a consumer. And I'm confident that some consumers will see it like I do. For me this is not a criterion to not buy the plane. It is my believe that this aircraft will still be the most accurately modeled airplane for X-Plane even on initial release. You did an incredible job (judging by the videos, screenshots and statements you and your colleagues at IXEG made). Once again I'm confident that most of the consumer are thinking the same. No one is able to look into your head or in the heads of the other IXEG developers to get insights of your definition of "study level" sim. If you still believe that the meaning of "study level sim" is so ambiguous you should've refrained from using it in an interview in which you are representing IXEG. That's why your post is primarily and sadly going to feed the trolls. Cheer up! Best regards, BaBene0 points
-
I think the last post by Jan and Vantskruv was kinda a wast of time reading on any level of the english language, but thats just me. I can only speak for my self and share my honest opinion to my fellow debaters in hope they would care to read it or not. But I am truly a fan of Jan and his 1. dedication to IXEG and X-Plane community by his population of airports and teaching about the 737, I welcome that with all my heart and mind. I have also followed Tom since he first launched MU-2 back in 2008 and I have known Mortens work since his earlier days in X-Plane 8, heck I even remember all the heated discussions with him on the norwegian forums back in the day.. That said I did not fully start to use X-Plane since it become XP10 but used periodicly XP all the way during v8 and 9.. Lack of 3D cockpits was one of the main reasons for me using FS which had been the flavour since FS98 back in the earlier days. And I do belive my obsession for the system simulation was born on the ACE Combat Simulator when pcs was running at DX2-100Mhz and the arcitechture was only 386.. Seems so far away now, but then again so does my youth.. Anyway I digress, my humble request for a "close to real" seems to be take right out of context and made the developers question their own product and what to include or not to include in version 1.0. Its always hard decide what you want to deliver and what you feel is safe to deliver to the public, on one hand you want to provide the best product to meet the expectation builded over several years, through selveral videos and tons of text, and on the other hand you want to make sure the aircraft is working as it should. So in that sense I truly understand what the developers are coming from, not saying I want to buy verison 1.0, but then again I am in no hurry either. I know and look forward to this airplane as 99% of the majority of X-Plane users are shortcomings or not. Heck I would go as far as state that whilst 95% may be buying the version 1.0, the rest will soon follow making this bird the best developed airplane for any flight simulator. I would concure with Tom, this is what I vision the airplane would be, a fully working model that you can use to fly, enjoy and play with either you use it to train procedures or not I belive PMDG started this "false" and "perculiar" statement, as it did become an airplane "real life pilots" did use to train before taking their "re-test" in this excellent place of knowledge And I persume most of the "study sim" was contributed by places like http://www.b737.org.uk/book.htm and wonderful and dedicated books by Captain Mike Ray http://utem.com/ So yea, I do belive there is a basis in the word "study sim", just quite sure it has never been used to describe IXEG just yet, mearly a wishful thinking. Its because of this we now are being reverted back to my initial saying "we want to bird to be close to real" and of course we know IXEG does not build a real airplane, but hopefully it can be used as a base for "cockpit builders" down the line too hook up to equipments and thirdparty programs like the genious PROSIM http://prosim-ar.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=40&sid=17fe3158cb2df8a54ef7f4447833b127 So in a sense, we hope it can be a study sim down the line, a place where "geeks" like us can train on procedures, failours, emergencies, navigation, known and unknown routes and or just have an excellent time whilst study for the ATPL exam like many do. At least if anybody is like my, study the 737NG for the past 8 years you will now have a hardcore follower to this plane down the road. So please get back on track, do not give into all of us that say or mention that we will not persue the first official release of this plane, will be customers one day anyway. PS.. To Jan !! Whilst I hold you dear to my heart with your dedication, it does not matter to me if IXEG remove LNAV or RNAV or even the entire FMS system. But you might shake the willingness of other core dedicated customers for version 1.0 - Perhaps more will wait for bugs and features are added or fixed. To sum up my feelings on the pervious mentioned "shortcomings" or features not included in version 1.0 There are many things I would like to have such as a working HOLD function in the FMS system, LEGS page etc. Simulation that touches the basic navigation of the system and how it flies, others might not be important as it is just eyecandy. Like eyebrows (which by the way got removed from most airplanes - at least Norwegian if I do not rembember wrong anyway), wing flex and cabin detail, heck opening doors and windows is a new feature to x-plane as it is LOL.. Even JARDesign Ground Handling Deluxe do package delivery to default x-plane aircraft without having doors opening he he.. So what I am saying, continue with your development in the timeframe you need or want regardless of what our wishes are for the release, better serv a working product without important shotcomings than a pre and under developed aircraft just to please the market. If you need money, I would recommed to use websites like https://www.kickstarter.com/ or something like it! A nice way to support and invest in this lovely bird.0 points
-
Can only speak for my self, but at least I "want all the features to be close to real, at least functional to some extend" Shotcomings or not, things not simulatated is just shit in the cockpit that has no real value to the overall flight simulation experience and PMDG is a good example of such. Flying around with their "in op" buttons and gadgets. I suggest we drop this debate and move on to rooting for IXEG, because in the end it must be up to the individuals if they want to buy a unfinished aircraft or not.0 points
-
Please stop trying to make a bunch of nothing, Eddie. You're being ridiculous. You're not oblivious as to the intentions of this project in the future. Don't blow this out of proportion more than Mr. Knudsen already has. Thank you.0 points
-
Thanks for warning us to buy version 1. I for one will wait and see what the next versions will bring to the table, especially regarding the system simulation shortcomings...-1 points
-
Cropped means in this case horizontally cormpressed. You can recognise that when you look at the abnormal narrow windows and doors. The texture has to stretched to cover the model in the sim. In other words , if you want to have a circle on the model, you need to draw a n oval on the texture.-1 points
-
Cropping tuexture to take advantage of high resolution is a wrong way of thinking. High resolution is great, but only with undistorted textures.. Going into distortion just to use high resolution is totally going the wrong way. Better have high quality at low resolution then bad qualty on high resolution. I rest my case here. Leen-1 points