Leaderboard

Well, I think the most important asset is that you have to be exceptionally good-looking! Jan

Hello Guys, maybe I can bring in some more light to this topic? I found this in "Bill Buffer/FMC User's Guide B737". It covers the "Smith FMC" version U0 - U10, used in B737s (300-800). Michael

This is a very loaded question. Skill, technical understanding, some pretty gross math and algorithms, 3D modeling, texturing...all of this comes together to play into it. The easiest way to answer 'What does it take?'... 5 years and a team of four dedicated artists.

I am working on that... just about 800 guys ahead of me. Give me a few years... Jan

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

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

IL-62 somewhere North of Madrid Carenado C90B South of Bella Coola, British Columbia

A320 gets my vote. It's such a popular airliner and we don't have a good one for X-Plane. However, I'd also love to see the A380, so far there isn't a good one on any platform. It's been flying in the real world for so long now it's about time somebody tackled it!

So much so that you'll be included as a 3D model visible from the outside view? That might actually be a source of revenue, professional 3D pilot model for virtual aircraft

Sorry for very BAD timing! I had to dig thru very dusty boxes, but now I know were the book is ;-) Michael p.s.: We're all praying for sane pilots!

Oh, NOW you are telling us... We actually came up with a solution quite similiar - we will allow entry at all enroute waypoints, but based on total distance along the route we will assume they are "climb" or "descent" restrictions. There is the chance that you ment a restriction to be a "climb" one, and we interpret it as a "descent" one (based on proximity to T/D), but then there is only so much mind-reading that the FMS is able to do. Some pilot sanity is required ;-) Jan

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

Would you guys ever consider making a Concorde? I know it is SUPER different, but X-Plane doesn't have it, and it is truly an amazing aircraft.

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 think Tom meant that he won over me - speedy answer. You are right - usually ATC wouldn´t add a restriction that far out of their jurisdiction. But what if the pilot thought "oh, I know these guys, they always want me to be at FL240 at KERAX already (this is a real-world situation!), I will just put that in right now, so the FMS gives me some warning on when to descend AND an accurate fuel prediction for EDDF...

foggy day at CYVR

Continuing the Star Alliance theme

BOO-YA! You've been told Jan!

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

And if we split the difference (couper la poire en deux mais je sais pas si ca se traduit vraiment en anglais ) An 300 with (strange) FMS & an EFIS in center and classical gauges. Question: what is the light in the VS gauge in 1.43?

Single acting (plain), frise and differential... All depends on what you're flying [emoji41] And those are just common simple roll controls, not even taking into account roll spoilers, drooping ailerons, wing warping... The list goes on!

Did you mean to title this Pilot Exam instead of Plot Exam?

You should talk with Ben Weston, from Airline2sim.com, they have 2 series of training videos, based on the Majestic Dash Q400 (FSX...). They are just superb!!!! Very good quality in all aspects, video, contents, design, all of them recorded with a real Q400 pilot in the cockpit. Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando mis deditos

This has been done with UFMC and X-FMC. And anyone who relies on using these implementations instead of the appropriate, specific flight management system for whatever plane they are flying knows how unsatisfying it is. At the end of the day, someone has to put in the work to model the automation in each plane accurately if they want to charge $50 or $60 for a plane. BUT, if you are a developer, your best bet to cash in is to pick a plane that is so old it doesn't have an FMS in the first place so you don't have to bother, and then claim a perfect systems simulation just 1 or 2 years later and release it. AND charge the same $50 or $60 that fools who picked the "hard planes" to develop happen to be charging. Developers who don't have the capacity or desire to do the FMS work that IXEG is doing at this time will just keep releasing old school models without any modern FMS. It's not a coincidence that the 727 and 737-200 were modeled pretty accurately, but that FJS has stated "no intention" of doing an aircraft with an FMS anytime soon. He saves a lot of time and money, and certainly it's his prerogative to develop whatever planes he wants or doesn't want to. He's one guy. He can only do so much. It's not a coincidence that PMDG's first product for X-Plane is the DC-6 either. All the modern planes with GOOD implementations of FMS involve the work of the *SAME* 1 or 2 people at this time... one cracked it for Airbus, one cracked it for non-Airbus. Think about how difficult and valuable a good FMS must be if only 1 or 2 people in our community TOTAL thusfar have cracked the code. Instead, for the benefit of the most accurate models and for an incentive to develop the deepest systems, I think there should be a much bigger retail price gap between the devs who go the extra mile to simulate a fully working, airplane-specific FMS and those who don't. Say, $80 vs $40. Or $30 vs $60. The FMS programming is the part of the project with the potential to add the most value. It's no coincidence that, up until this IXEG 737 is released, only 2 other people have coded what even resembles an accurate FMS for a modern plane. We should all be thankful IXEG is going the path less traveled, and we should be thrilled to pay a premium for that on this and future projects of similar scope and ambition.

Hehe, I love these arguments. I think it´s perfectly acceptable to have different priorities in a product, and ideally they would all be fulfilled 100%. It is also fair to argue in favour of a feature you value very much - and we do bow to the "mass market pressure" in some way, too (3D-Pilots,...) Now clearly every potential customer vies to get his favourite aspects furthered. Some want a nice cabin, some want a step-climb functionality, some want a different coloured frame of the CRT´s. All these items would count towards the "100%", and everytime we have to say: "Sorry, not in V1.0", there is negativity. But if we´d say :"Sure, we will put it in, but it´s going to push release another 3 weeks" there is also a lot of negativity. So we can´t win In the end it´s going to be like Cameron said: We will build the airplane that we want to build, we release it when we want to relase - and you buy it if you want to. Jan

Celebrating 2 months since "Release is getting close"