Leaderboard

Blender - for 3D modeling Photoshop / GIMP - for making textures Inkscape / Vectorworks (Tom only) / Illustrator for 2D artwork, sketching diagrams and helpful visualizations Plane-Maker of course Gizmo/Lua plugin as our code base BBEdit (Tom on Mac) for coding (unsure about the windows guys....Notepad++?). Once in a blue moon "Brackets" Git for version control (differing clients) (SVN for a lot of years though) Open Office / Word for Documentation Google Spreadsheets for various temporary uses, calculations and bug tracking

Not ready yet. But it IS looking particularly sweet. If I do say so myself.

Celebrating 2 months since "Release is getting close"

Woah that Hansa livery looks sharp! Makes me kind of have to post this one.. The still flying brother of the one in the cockpit picture.

Might work for Jan

So how about a nice and small SAAB Safir as a side project? Something entirely different from the big jets.

Aside from the fact that Jan doesn't seem to be a big fan of Airbuses (understatement of the year?), they have mentioned that developing an Airbus to the degree of realism IXEG strives for is likely close to impossible or simply not feasible. If you're looking for a good A320 or A380, your best bet is probably waiting for QPAC to get their update out. I could also see Flight Factor doing an A380, considering it's somewhat closer to the A350 than other aircraft. Neither of these will probably be as deep of a simulation as the 737C though. QPAC's A320 might get close some day

I'd hope for the auxiliary fuel tanks as well.

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

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.

Well lets say the overall route was 1500 miles...and the last enroute waypoint was 150 miles from the arrival runway...just before the T/D with enough time to get down. ...and you put a restriction of 11000B on that point (before takeoff, while on the ground, so you're clearly under it at the time of calculation). It doesn't make much sense to fly 11000B for @ 1300 miles, quite inefficient, especially if you had a cruise alt at 35k or so. It IS logical in such a case to think that kind of restriction should be applied to the descent, it would certainly be the cheapest and we know the airlines like that ....if said enroute waypoint was closer to the climb regime, then it might make sense to apply it to the climb. From an optimization point of view, you'd apply it to the regime that is the cheapest...i.e. keeps you at altitude the longest. If there ever was a "most right" answer, it'd probably be 'B' in the given example. -tkyler

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...

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

BOO-YA! You've been told Jan!

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