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

foggy day at CYVR

Lufthansa's first A320 NEO Flight

Continuing the Star Alliance theme

At XPFW we considered it once, but after studying the fuel system with it's 18 or whatever fueltanks it uses to balance, we found something else to build

we're not saying it doesn't. I already let the cat out of the bag with my "rookie move" easter egg message caught on video, DOH There'll be more -tkyler

I get that situation for sure... I cannot confirm nor deny that I have ever assumed an instruction from ATC and been wrong. I can also not confirm nor deny that I have flown flights online while drinking the fanciest of extra anejo tequilas. On a slightly ore serious note, maybe say if the "At Or Below" restriction is within X nautical miles from the T/C then hold the climb at the restriction. If it is beyond X then climb to the set cruise altitude and later descend for the restriction. X can be calculated the difference between the set cruise altitude and restriction and the time/distance it takes to meet the restriction... Plus a little buffer. But I do stand behind my idea of having the CDU display "Go home pilot, you're drunk!" because it is probably true in my case.

Yes... I guess I was taking the scenario of ATC adding a restriction that is not published... I was assuming (which isn't a good thing to do in software development) that a Clearance/Tower/Departure controller wouldn't assign a restriction on the "arrival" portion of the flight. We will see if you win after release... I would assume that if the controller/pilot enters a restriction that the plane cannot perform it will display a remark like "Go home pilot, you're drunk!" Call it an easter egg for idiots.

Very much looking forward to this! Stop posting screenshots and get back to work! And post more screenshots! Haha!

I have never flown to Innsbruck - sadly - but usually visual approaches or "circling with prescribed tracks" are also allowed at night - unless the AIP says otherwise. Then you´d find something on the chart like "daylight only". You need to have the airport in sight and be familiar with the terrain. And you also need to display some common sense and good airmanship if you want to live long enough to reap in your pension one day, so a visual approach on a moonless night in a tight-quarters valley is something that I wouldn´t do (outside X-Plane ;-) ). The landings lights only shine ahead far enough that you will be able to see if you crash into trees or barren rock... Jan

Hehe, that is our problem - we don´t know! I have never done that in 10 years of flying it - as there would be no reason to have a restriction at an enroute waypoint. But I know some of you guys will do so, so we need to cover it. Jan

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

EPWR-EDDF

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

Beechcraft Duke flying in Himalaya (Aircraft by RWDesigns)

Yes that is the main focus of this product, to put it simply......It reads the METAR and places clouds according to the data, weather fronts will be properly displayed in the distance...

As said, there really isn't a right answer because the proximity of the waypoint to either the T/D or T/C will make it "feel" different depending on it location. It is a rookie move for the most part but we have seen how differing versions of FMS software might refine behavior after some sort of rule or heuristic seems to stand out...and that is what we have chosen to do. This is fringe case...and we have applied a rule that reduces that fringe case to further fringe, thereby isolating it in about 99% of the cases to be "logical". If one were to set out to really test every enroute waypoint by putting altitudes on every one, the results might get a little funky, but would, most likely, end up like CASE C -tkyler

Isn't there anyone around that has access to a real 733 and can just test it for us ? :-) Just kidding... But what about that LEVEL-D Simulator you already used Jan? If it is good enough for real pilots, it should be good enough for us as well :-p best regards, Sebastian

I guess it comes down to the question: How would the real thing handle this? Do it the same :-) Sorry Glad for being pragmatical, I am a Bass Player... ,-) Bassy regards Benjamin

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

departing CYYJ - Embraer E-175

Flew Pedro's awesome Twin out of Molokai on a short hop to Lanai. Not too short when you're on such a slow plane in bumpy weather.

We are waiting for ...)

I cant think of any other plane I want except a real good representation of an L10-11 would be fantastic.. Or a 747-200 or a DC-8 xD .. I am a sucker for classic airliners and freighters.. Once I get my hands on this 737 I think I'll be okay for quite some time and probably invest in some smaller aircraft, definitely gonna get the Jetstream 32 by Jrollon and then I might get my mits on a Caranado GA plane or another Helo for scenic flying around areas where I have Photo real scenery. I dont fly heavies often but any of the above mentioned would be a welcome addition to my hanger in the future if at all any of them get developed..

Let's call this day "Devil in the details" day Did you spot the difference?

Hello again! During developing of our O'Hare airport, we working slowly on DC-9! "the DC-9 external modeling phase"

It is really, very inappropriate to judge people in this way, Tom. Please keep it away from here.

Thank you all guys! We like to upload more pictures of the rear landing gear with the complete brake unit system!

Some more renders of the pilots' panel. Click on the pictures to see them in hugeeeee size! Do you like them? Enjoy!

So you are a serious pilot when you spend 100% of your time in the sim? I would say you are more fck up than serious if so..

They don't work if they're not complete. What is your point? The final say and bottom line here is we are going to be asking people for their money. In return we are going to offer them an experience worth their money. Selling people a half baked systems product is not acceptable and has been done too many times already in the marketplace. We get one shot at giving an initial impression and it won't be for you to decide the scope of version 1.0. Sorry, but that's just how it is. Being too anxious and jumpy to get a product out the door like you're going for is exactly what has diminished trust for some other developers in the market.

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!

For the record I am a Mac user and hate the natural way Apple feels it should be. Because of this I tick that preference box off and go back to the old style. I can totally see your point. It's just hard to accept such change when you've been trained to think the opposite for so many years.