Leaderboard

Hi guys, thanks for the nice words and feeback - I think we are getting to the point where the plane works reliably and satisfactory within the limits of what we set out to do. Next will be adding the "missing features" as outlined in my initial post about that. We will spot/introduce some bugs during this process for sure, and I envision us doing the odd hotfix until 1.1 - but they will not be coming at a weekly basis, but rather "when having enough to warrant one". Please continue to report all findings, it is easy to get accustomed to little peculiarities, but we want the plane to work as the real one does, without having to "work around" or "avoid" certain things! Happy flying everyone, Jan

Should be a case of "works as designed":

I believe that normally, it would be set to "rise". This system monitors the oil temperature of the generator drive units on each engine. The "generators" on a 737 are actually "alternators", which produce 3-phase AC voltage at approximately 118 volts. The problem with an alternator is that the frequency of the AC voltage it produces will vary with the speed that the engine is turning, but the systems on the aircraft depend on the frequency of the AC being precisely 400 Hz. The generator drive unit sits between the engine accessory gearbox, and the generator. It works somewhat like an automatic transmission on an automobile, and will turn the generator at a constant speed, no matter what speed the engine is rotating. The drive unit has its own dedicated oil supply, oil pump and oil cooler. When the switch is set to "IN", the lower scale of the gauge is measuring the temperature of the oil that is entering the drive unit, after passing through the oil cooler. In "RISE" position, the associated gauge is showing the relative increase (rise) in the oil temperature after it has passed through the drive. (Read on the upper scale). If the temperature rise of the oil, after passing through the drive unit, exceeds 20 degrees C, it could indicate the the generator load is too high. If the temperature gauge reads in the yellow zone with the switch in the "IN" position, it would likely mean there is a problem in the oil cooler If the drive oil temps remain high, and cannot be corrected by reducing generator load, it could indicate an impending failure of the drive unit itself, in which case it may be necessary to activate the guarded "disconnect" switch. This will mechanically disconnect the generator drive input shaft from the engine, and will result in the loss of the generator voltage on that side. Once the disconnect system is activated, it can only be reconnected on the ground, by a maintenance engineer.

I also agree with you both; however, we are in a bit of a unique spot. Established companies like PMDG and such, having a reputation and sizable user base to interact with, already had a basis for a good beta program based on previous products and customer base. Being this is our first product, and not having any type of "team" or customers we had relationships with made it a bit more difficult to get participants on the scale needed for proper QA work IMO. I could pick about 30 people from these forums now that would make superb beta testers for a next product, etc. Also, we are using some new tech that is a bit different...and on the one hand, allows us to further the state of the art is some areas because it allows us to do more faster...but when you do more, you also have more areas you can trip up, which also means even more areas to test, etc. Finally, as Nils mentioned, we are seeing issues that are not ubiquitous...and so our internal team is still only a few people and none of us may see an issue and only when it gets out on a larger scale do these come to light. We are strategizing ways to deal with it though.....without a doubt the ONLY way to battle-test any fix is by volume testing....and volume testing requires some adminsitration and willing participants. I have no doubt we have enough willing participants now....all you guys are great, its more a matter of administration and implementation on our part. We are still getting our legs as a study level simulation 'company' and we really do appreciate your patience and support. I think the hotfixes will slow down a bit as things have settled down a bit....and we begin to work in earnest on the 1.1 release and indeed, be a bit more comprehensive in our testing. -tkyler

Hi from the Cockpit 3D guy. If you mean you can see through the yokes from behind, that is not really a bug but a measure to optimize the 3D mesh by not modelling a surface I did not deem to be visible in normal use of the model. Not a big deal to add and certainly not a big performance hit in the scale of things, we've tried to economize where we thought it would not matter.

Thank you for the response. I understand that performance is key in this scenerio. I do have another thing that most of the community has been criticizing. As you can see above, there is a cell that is creating a local thunderstorm. The problem most of us have is that it doesn't represent a thunderstorm. The shape is well done. Wide-ish base, and then towering to spread out at the top, but these are out of place. The base of a thunderstorm is not supposed to be 100 feet above the ground most of the time. and the top of a thunderstorm is not supposed to be only about 8000ft. Like i said, the shape is perfect, but the placing is wrong. Is it possible for the base to start higher up and the top to be over 15000 ft. It would make flying at cruise more realisitc as we can see that we are approaching a thunderstorm and would need to divert around it. Thank you for taking your time, and I'm only sending a lot of these posts to help improve skymaxx. Thanks, Chris

Expanded 737 Classic Checklist Replacement View File Hey everyone, I found the stock checklist to be a little basic, so I made this expanded checklist in a style that I believe fits the aircraft. Checklist is based on real airline checklist for the 737-300. Big thanks to P3ROn for the help. (Please note that the preview image compression makes the checklist harder to read than it is in sim.) Installation instructions: 1. Go to your X-Plane 10\Aircraft\X-Aviation\IXEG 737 Classic folder 2. Make a backup of the current IXEG_checklist.png file (e.g. by renaming it to "IXEG_checklist.png.old") 3. Copy this downloaded IXEG_checklist.png to the IXEG 737 Classic folder 4. Enjoy. Please note that this checklist is not an official IXEG checklist. If you have any comments or gripes, they belong here or to me via PM. I can also be contacted at doctornerdrage@gmail.com. Safe flying! Submitter dr_nerdrage Submitted 04/25/2016 Category Plugins and Utilities

Great answers, no doubt it has true character. Just wanted to be wiser(: cheers!

Thanks for your explanation and time Jan. Guess you can move this to solved. Have a nice day.

No, if the autopilot and flight-director are off, the A/T will only kick in when it´s reversion modes are triggered. But if either AP OR FD (or both) are on, it will engage in MCP SPD on any pitch mode change - except for a FL CHG descent, in that case it will engage in RETARD. Jan

Just checked and that seems to have been the cause; I forgot that I had one point enabled flaps using an axis on my yolk; it was pushed slightly out of position creating the conflict.

Thanks for the report and the detailed info! We will try to reproduce this error and fix it! Thanks, Jan

Ah okay, thanks for the info, i'll wait until it gets in xplane 10.50 if that's correct

Thanks Jan appreciated. Cheers, André

Ahh that makes sense nils. Yea, this missing texture doesn't bother me at all since i never go behind the yoke. Just thought I'd report it

It really comes down to tradeoffs between visual quality and performance. These particular cloud types are especially demanding on today's GPU's. Remember our clouds are truly 3D and volumetric, so you can't really compare them to the flatter representations other sims use for these clouds. You're right that these clouds don't really get quite that close to the ground in nature (usually); the intent is to approximate the "virga" you see underneath a heavy thunderstorm which does reach the ground and obscures visibility beneath the cloud. The cloud size, although not as huge as I'd like in a perfect world, is still realistic - they range from 5000 to 7000 meters tall when created by RWC (16,000 - 22,000 feet.) A big challenge for us is that there are many different kinds of cumulonimbus clouds that can be in a wide range of development, and METAR data doesn't really give us any insight into which one is "correct" for a given location. Our thunderstorms may look great to someone in Florida who sees fully-developed monsters every day, but not so much to someone in Europe where the conditions are different. Anyhow I agree it's something we can keep iterating on and making better in future versions, especially as video cards keep getting faster over time.

I'm waiting to discuss this with other team members. We've seen the bug a couple of times before and I'm not sure what the solution was. While you wait, try re-installing the product.

Ok thanks everyone for the confirmation. Expect this fix to go out soon. As far as Vatsim is concerned, I was never able to reproduce any light issues with XSquawkbox and so I can only hope that, to the extent the issues exists there too for some users, this fix takes care of the same. If not, let us hear it.

VNAV issues are well known and have the attention of the devs. There are numerous troubling reports on VNAV in this forum. They will be addressed ...

Thanks Jan. And yea, I understand you guys can't fix these in hotfixes. Hotfixes can only do fixes related to gizmo. (The texturing is obviously not )

Yes Cameron. I also see the problem. I do see that you are working hard and the app has been steadily improving. However all you have to do is take a look at another small shop, the one that makes Active Sky. Say what you like, their product looks a lot more like real-life. And they have the added bonus of not having a prickly and defensive guy leaning on his customers when they point out legitimate shortcomings. One of the virtues of X-Plane and this community, is the wide and deep pool of thoughtful users and developers. Your own IXEG as an example. They listen, respond, and don't get their backs up when someone says their product needs work, here and there. Hope you take this in the spirit it's intended. Best, Marshall

I'm form Italy and i liked the joke!!! :-):-):-)... I wouldn't like to be your shoes flying to LIRF !! Bye the way this plane is AWESOME!! Thanks!

If someone confirms that picture I posted looks right, this should be out in the next hotfix.

IT LOOKS SO GOOD

What a difference between initial release and 1.05. I'm so pleased that I invested in this aircraft and I look forward to its continued growth in the future. I'm guessing the team have burnt a few candles by now! Congratulations - well done.

Wow ! Tony

Colin, As you suggested, on my subsequent flight test,I set my Texture Resolution to Extreme High to see the results. I've attached three screen shots to show the results. All were taken flying along the North coast and South East end of Molokai. On the one shot you can see Lanai in the distance. Your HP scenery of the islands makes a world of difference in the simulator experience. Mahalo (Thank you), Paul

Back pressure is always needed as you will need to acquire the right pitch and hold it. As airspeed drops, a bit more pressure will be needed to maintain your pitch angle until the plane stops flying and you touch down. Ideally at or below 100fpm giving you a nice touchdown. Practice practice practice.