Leaderboard

So this is my daily "I've been debugging/coding for 8 hours, I need a break, I'll type some brainless stuff in the forums". I thought I'd share what I'm working on....and why its relevant, and why we can't just 'release' it without this stuff done. So here's the situation....you enter a 'AT' or 'BELOW' altitude restriction at a waypoint not part of a departure or arrival procedure....and that waypoint happens to be in the enroute section of the route (Case 'A')....BUT?.....is it really in the enroute section? 'at' or 'below' restrictions generally propogate back towards their origin and affect T/C and T/D points.....but this is a case of asking, "what is the reference to apply it to"? Case B shows the VNAV if you assume the restriction to be part of the climb. Case C shows the restriction if you assume it to be part of the descent. Case D shows it as not part of either and finally, Case E shows it as totally clipping the whole route such that you never reach your cruise altitude. So how would you interpret this? I think that the more you think about it, the more you would say, "well it depends....IF X, then I'd do this...if Y, then I'd do this...if Z, then this....and I could demonstrate why in each case, there are more potential combinations of waypoints and instances that would create an entirely NEW set of rules....and the code to handle every possibility gets REAL long. So....why is this relevant? Well according to big-daddy Jan Vogel....its common enough to enter altitude restrictions at waypoints while you are flying...especially at the behest of ATC. And since we all want to fly on VATSIM and likely to get such a directive....the FMS really needs to handle it...or at least reject it if its crazy enough. You need to know, there isn't necessarily a right answer here...Jan has confirmed that these situations are very fringe cases....almost "pilot error" for entering it this way as procedures and flight regimes do reside in a well dedined box..and getting out of that box gets funky....BUT as long as folks have fingers to pry open the box, they'll find a way to explore....so we have to have something at the end of the tunnel.....back to debugging and coding. -tkyler

That's becuase you are flying for a wrong airline!

This doesn´t even happen in real life all too often, so don´t get your hopes up . Jan

Wooops..edited xD

This needs to be the definite statement by IXEG as to what is "close to release"....so spread the word far and wide when folks ask! When using the word "close", you really must clarify further the relative relationship of the items described to be close. In the case of our 737, there really are two contexts in which to think of "close". We could say that: 1.) We are close to having all the features in that we want in for V1.0 2.) We are close to the release date These are NOT the same. For example, If I put 1,000,000 needles in a haystack with 10,000,000 hay needles, you will find a lot very quickly. As you get "close" to finding the last one, the time to find said last one may drag out significantly.....but you are indeed "close" to finding them all. As soon as you find the last needle, you are done. If its sooner rather than later, then you are simply done earlier. IXEG is close to "having all the features in that we want for V1.0" We are bug chasing...and we are very good at it. We are ensuring we do not have bugs that have plagued other products...we are looking far, wide and very deep for bugs in our FMS to have the greatest possible reliability when releasing. That is what we all want...that is what we have all been waiting for...that is why our team is doing it! There is a generalization that if you are "close" to finishing the feature list, then you are close to releasing...but you cannot relate the two directly. We know that as soon as we are happy with these last few features stability, we will release. could be 3 weeks, could be another 5-7, could be more......what we can tell you is that we are working very aggressively to be satisfied with the completion of our V1.0 features list and we are close to having all those features implemented. I assure you, getting it right is much more paramount than getting it out 4 weeks sooner. We are after a feature list here, not a time-frame. Take solace in knowing that we are close to having the feature list complete and quit bitching about the time frame. Relatively speaking, we're in a good spot now and kudos to those who understand and awaiting patiently, you will be rewarded! -tkyler

The sad part is that she is absolutely right... Jan

BOO-YA! You've been told Jan!

Gütersloh Airport ETUO with grass View File Gütersloh Airport with insert Grass and Trees when you want to have realy look you must have and Need Photogrond Texture by: http://zonephoto.x-plane.fr/Cartes.php Submitter myair Submitted 04/27/2014 Category DSF Scenery Packages X-Plane Version(s)

I've got the Mike Ray Handbook too, good book. Remember it takes a vast amount of time and dedication to fly the 737 the way it's supposed to. As for the Chris Brady book (I only know the website), it will help in understanding the underlying systems and will be a good supplement and good read too. However, the website itself is informative and you will find a lot of free info on smartcockpit.com too. If you own an old Windows-XP PC, try finding a Boeing 737-300/500 CBT on the net.

I have not personally checked this one out for the moment, so can't say. My experience thus far has been airline operating manuals and the Mike Ray book.

But on a Mac it's a "natural" feeling. There are no labels on a trackpad. Arrows labeled down and up would play tricks on my brain as well if they did opposite of what my brain is trained an arrow means. I expect a down arrow to mean it moves the page DOWN...lower. Towards the bottom of the screen. Same concept goes for up!

The 737 code far outweighs it. By a lot.

I can think of a couple of other product releases from last year where a "sorry guys we screwed up" apology was definitely called for. People paid good money for bad products.

I for one, feel quite delighted.

If you look carefully and objectively, you'll see that no-one's really bitching about the time frame or having to wait for the product specifically. No-one's questioning your ability to bug chase or your skills in developing a fantastic product. No one's questioning the hard work and dedication that has been invested. If that was the case, there wouldn't be this much interest and buzz over what will obviously be a game changing product. But, whether you like it or not, the time frame questions (and they have only really been just polite questions) are evidence that you have probably mismanaged the expectations of your target market with the wording and timing of communications. How do you think your potential customers feel when you tell them to "stop bitching" as a result? It sounds like you are reprimanding users for not understanding your definition of the word "close". The thing is, you always know what you mean, and your way of expressing it seems clear to you, because you understand yourself perfectly. So when there's a breakdown, it always feels like the other guy's fault. Communication problems are only partially based on "bad communication skills" too. They are even more based on each participant having different starting information (with each being unaware that the other person doesn't share his information) and differing context or frameworks, e.g. one person thinks they're talking about "a few weeks" and the other thinks they're talking about all the component parts in the "needle and haystack" analogy. This is just feedback, not a debate. All the best with this product. I'm sure it will be a real success.

@kielsf4 I don't think that's what Tom is referring to. There's no wonder about why people are/have asked. The recent closed thread about a release timeline shows perfectly what Tom means. People will receive an answer they may not like (as in, no release time to announce) and go nutty in following posts trying to tell how it should be. It's the sense of entitlement from that point forward where "bitching" comes in. In the end, IXEG and X-Aviation are in a business. Money comes from that, and that results in two things that should be obvious to folks that somehow isn't: 1. We want this out more than you guys do. 5 years is a long time of devotion, and we want to see the reward. 2. We owe it to our customers to put out a product that does not fail, and to earn thier trust by doing so. Exchanging money is a funny thing, and taking it for something not yet finished is really unacceptable. Rushing it out the door is going to do us more harm than good. From OUR side of the fence, it's frustrating to see folks react in the manner which some have. Definitely not all (or near it), but enough to flare some frustration.

Thx wiloghby, your words are encouraging. Indeed, a thorough FMS is a challenging beast. I have to admit, I was quite intimidated by it, but here towards the end, finally have a good feel for it. A friend of mind has a great saying that true success is a combination of 3 things: 1.) Passion 2.) Ability and 3.) Opportunity....and furthermore, you only have access to 2 at a time and have to expend time to get the 3rd to align. We've taken a decent amount of flak by 'trolls' over time, but I can tell you I lose no sleep at night knowing those guys certainly aren't going to get us a solid FMS/airliner for x-plane....so we keep going no matter the flak. We stick with the goal, keep eyes on the prize and get it done right....and a year or 2 after its done right, nobody will care about the release time-frame. I'm totally committed to ensuring we have a 5 year viability minimum. We will keep pushing! Thanks for the support. -tkyler