Leaderboard

Ok, here's a real report. In the last few days, we have seen very, very few gizmo crashes (from my bad programming) with regards to FMS work. There are a few fringe cases, but they are getting very tough to reproduce and usually come about when you start punching buttons like that kid in the movie, Airplane 2. ...stuff most of you would not do. In prep for the final steps before letting beta folks test it, I have refactored (programmer speak for "cleaned up") the code to be more user friendly towards VNAV predictions and debugging VNAV performance values......and that is what we are currently working on. If you don't plan to use VNAV, well I'm sorry, the FMS was ready for you a long time ago....but once you do learn it, and it actually works as expected, its quite satisfying and fun to experience....hence our efforts to really make it work. So tomorrow I'll be flying some test routes to fine tune the descent code....and if all goes well, we want to let the beta testing folks have a hand at it asap. I think Jan is planning a "full flight" preview, but no promises, I can't speak for him, he may not have plans for that. (no micro-management here). Now I know most folks automatically assume that once a closed 'beta' begins, that will uncover a slew of other bugs, which adds to the development time, but I have to tell you now...that I have NEVER seen a tester like Captain Jan Vogel! (He IS that kid from Airplane 2), except with 100x the knowledge (very dangerous). This guy finds stuff that nobody will EVER try. and when this guy says, "its good for V1.0", then I will challenge the beta guys to find something we don't already know about. Now note I said, "know about". We know there's holes in the FMS, but feel its getting to the point to handle a good 90+% (or better) of use cases. If you are that super hard-core simmer that likes to explore the fringes of FMS usage....well...I'd say, "fly some normal routes first or wait". Work continues daily! -tkyler

Hard date estimates are too tough...but as an eternally optimistic kind of guy, what I can give you is a "hey, it would be awesome if we could have something in X weeks". Then when we get to that day and we're not there, I'll say it again, "it would be awesome if we could have something in X weeks"....and if we don't make it then, we'll do it again and again and if we're steadily moving closer to our goal, then one day, the estimate will converge with reality. I don't care if I have a moving target as long as the delta between me and the target is always closing....that math adds up to convergence at some point if you go far enough....the trick is to get there. This is the way I find my motivation to push on, I always have to believe I'm close enough to keep moving...and if thats what it takes to get this done so we can all have this sim experience, then it is what it is. I understand other folks would do it differently, but hey, they're not doing it now are they . It would be awesome if we could have something in 5-6 weeks wouldn't it? -tkyler

In my opinion the VNAV is the soul of the fmc, it has so many calculations, variants, considerations. No aircraft available on xplane as of today has a working, solid predictable and realistic VNAV featured FMC. All them fall short on predictions, last minute flight plan changes, etc. I am not blaming developers, we are talking here about an extremely complex piece of software that takes boeing lot of people full time to improve and develop for decades and they never stop.

Just a quick comparison of pre-HD Mesh and post-HD Mesh... you guess which is which.

Well I guess you know the answer.. No one really knows that.. Yes developers have a internal time frame when testing is started (already said in this form as well) but is only a estimate.. I know as both tester and developer of given things, how that can changes and gets updated as it´s important for you as tester to know some kind of time frame as you might work for other developers as well.. But it is a estimate that is subject to changes, the best example is (CRJ700 / 900) where things have not followed the plan as the publisher wants, and keep updating stuff to get it to the latest standards.. else you might end by a Fokker project by a new VC and the old product from 2008 just to take a ex. I know it would be the other way around in that case.. but that was a side step to get a complete understanding about the many complex things you have to take in to consideration. But you have to understand the final part is hard work and where the smallest thing can be a show stopper until corrected and sometimes that’s by going far back and re do things, sometimes as close as to the start, I have tried that and it is so frustrating. Another factor is depending on the company size and such things, you would know 1 delay cause problems further down the line. We sometimes have seen when testing is good and nearly done and ready, they need a installer but since the person that should do that does not have time as he works by other projects.. If you start count all those things, that you do not have much control about. You would realise how difficult it is to estimate to the public, as you do not know the facts about what would happen you can try but you never know what´s behind the next corner. How is it in the gaming industry do they always keep promise ? NO.. What does it cause? More negativity and bad reputation around the world.. That´s why some developers do no show what they work on, and just out of a sudden a new product ends in the store. But a EST of beta or release is never easy or a good way in the public, as it often cause more negativity when it is not going to happen, then when you get to the store and find it´s out.. Not only does it lower the pressure of the developers but also the system that should handle forum and shop in the final end.. That was a long one, I just feel it does not make any sense to keep asking as its like some just try push on to get information, but it has the opposite effect.. Would you give info if some one keeps asking the same thing ? as when they give a release date another might start arguing that it takes long time and there we go again.. We have seen it so often sadly..

You can't save flights in the Saab, in fact you can't really save flights properly in any X-Plane aircraft.

Hello Captains!, Today we're excited to announce what's coming forward for SkyMaxx Pro v3.1. This will be a free update for all current SkyMaxx Pro v3 owners! We anticipate release for this to be sometime within the next 2-3 weeks. At this time we are in the 12th beta with our internal group of testers. With this free update you can look forward to the following: - Landing lights now illuminate clouds as you fly through them! - Performance enhancements to reduce "stutters" when new cloud conditions are loaded - Many overall performance enhancements - More variation in cloud shapes - More accurate cloud altitudes - Visual improvements to solid and broken stratiform clouds - Numerical setting values now displayed in the config screen - New ability to save and load named configuration sets - More tuning of cloud lighting, visibility, and shadow effects - Ready for the upcoming Real Weather Connector product Hope you like what's coming your way!

a.) Not for 1.0 This is something that real airline pilots use very rarely, well, except for adding the fix "HOME" so they can input the coordinates of their house. Complex missed-approaches are part of the database, or can be made with conditional waypoints (PBD). But for 1.0 we won´t have conditional waypoints, but you can use the FIX page to "visualize" maneuvers that are off the normal FIXES. b.) not sure what exactly you mean - the acceleration altitude is the altitude at wich the plane should start to accelerate, this has nothing to do with the thrust rating. Thrust is reduced (usually from TO or R-TO to CLB) at the thrust-reduction altitude. This altitude can be set on the TAKEOFF REF page (it defaults to 1500AGL). If you push the N1 button below this altitude, then the autothrust will set the current thrust limit (which will be R-TO or TO). You can change the thrust limit manually on the N1 LIMIT page, though. c.) Yes, of course. But - as in the real plane - you must be at a different altitude than the one set in the altitude window. So you can´t be at 3000 feet, have the altitude window set to 3000 and then expect to engage V/S. It is not allowed (technically the aircraft intercepts the 3000´ again before you even start to gain any vertical speed). To start a final approach descent in V/S just put the MCP ALT to something suffiicently "high", then dial it down to missed approach altitude when you have safely descended from it. Jan

Exactly right. While technically reading forums and posting stuff takes time (that could be used for development) it doesn´t work like that. Even coders are human beings that have other needs and desires besides coding . And if you neglect those other needs (like breathing, eating, OR partaking in forum discussions), productivity suffers. Here is my favourite example: I know the whole team enjoys the discussions (mostly) and even getting annoyed is sometimes helpful as it masks the pain of coding an FMS... Jan

please stop playing big brother for the IXEG team... They might actually be willing to shed some light on it (as tkyler did a few posts later) I notice that I'm getting more and more irritated by the attitude you are showing from time to time... Most of the time questions like 'is it ready yet, when will it be released, how much will it cost' will sort out themselves. just save your moderator powers for when discussions really get out of hand. and for the IXEG Team: Keep it up guys, nearly there... I'll be cheering at the finish for you ! just my 2 cents

Thank you for your report. Good news. Do you need to final testing some "normal" users? For testing VNAV etc.

Please stop asking. You've already been told no.