Leaderboard

Updated September 2023, Version 1.5 Hi everyone. While it seems to be the economically "smart" thing to do to NOT talk about the shortcomings of your product (and then sometimes to just ignore the complaints after you cash in the money), we are trying to run things a bit differently here at IXEG. I would therefore like to share a list of things that will NOT be in version 1.5, and also give a little background of why, and wether we are planning to add it later. I will try to make this list as encompassing as possible, if I forget something, please don´t sue me! I will add/remove from this list as warranted. Aircraft visual 3D model Ancilliary vehicles (catering, fuel truck, loading crew) - this is now accomplished by using the XP11 native ground vehicles, the docking locations for those are correctly added in planemaker. Cockpit keypad entry mechanism Omitted due to security reasons. Deployable emergency slides.Omitted due to time constraints, planning to add later. Deploying oxygen masks. Omitted due to time constraints, planning to add later. Sound effects/visual model for passengers and their (assumed) behaviour. Too complex a simulation off it´s own, most likely won´t be added for fear of having something repetitive or cheesy. Cabin crew voice interaction. You can communicate via menues that are invoked by pressing the cabin call button, though. FMS Pilot entered HOLDS. While we have database-inherent holds (like at the end of a missed approach), we won´t feature the HOLD page where you could enter all sorts of HOLDS. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. RTA feature. Omitted due to time constraints, planning to add later, but low priority. OFFSET feature. Omitted due to time constraints,planning to add later, but low priority. ABEAM points (after shortcutting route, for example). Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. You CAN enter stuff in the FIX page, and "find" a PBD point that way (enter a fix, enter a radial and a distance to see the green radial and distance-circle) Entering descent wind forecast (normal wind entry on PERF INIT page possible). Display of "RTE DATA" on EHSI/map, i.e. showing ETA and restrictions next to waypoint. You can see that on the LEGS page, for now. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. Automatic entry of performance data (weight, etc.). We might include that for the "ready to fly" scenario, not decided yet. For now it must be entered manually, if FMS performance assistance is desired (not mandatory). Fully working PROGRESS page - we started to code it, but much of the things shown are placeholders. We expect this to be one of the first things we will add soon after release. Full VNAV functionality for descents with speed and/or altitude restrictions. The FMS gets confused by changing the cruising altitude while enroute and multiple descent restrictions and restrictions of a certain type. Basic unrestricted descents work, though. GUI Dedicated flight-planning software. We feel that this is not necessarily within the scope of our add-on. We model the plane like you get it after delivery from Seattle (+ free lifetime fuel!). There are plenty of flight-planning solutions out there, we include a basic "ballpark" fuel calculator. Complex and visually appealing load+trim software. We feel that clicking empty seats to fill them and pulling sliders to load cargo is fun for a few times - but really all you get is a weight and a center of gravity. And you might just as well set those directly in the gui. We have simple sliders and click-buttons for that (or you can use the default X-Plane menus). No way to output any CDU, EADI or EHSI onto an external device like iPad or such. Would like to have that (especially for cockpit builders), though. Exception: it is possible to use AirFMC, available at the Apple App Store. No pop-out 2D displays of flight instruments/CDU/EFIS to make reading or entering stuff easier, no hiding of yoke to not obscure view. We feel that the ergonomics (or lack of) an airliner cockpit is an important part of the experience, so we don´t want to "help" too much. We have "preview pop-ups" of the EHSI when making changes on the EFIS control panel to help you see if you have the right setup. Other systems Wxr radar returns can only be displayed on the left EHSI/map. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. Terrain colour display can only be shown on the left EHSI(map. Omitted due to time constraints, definitely planning to add later. Operating circuit breaker (CB). We decided that most CBs will never be moved in normal operation. We will add moveable CBs with the yellow collar later (to be used in abnormal situations), and possibly some others as well (standby altimeter vibrator!). Automatic startup/shutdown "macros". Won´t add that. This plane is about realistic operation (it´s not hard!). If not desired, just select "ready to fly" or "turnaround-state". IRS using "false" position. It is not possible to deliberately enter a "false" position and have the IRS align to that. The entry will be rejected unless reasonably close to the real position. In the real plane the GPS would also "correct" your wrong entry (if close enough) or warn you. A position far from the old "shutdown" position would be rejected once. A wrong latitude would be detected during the alignment process...It would be a lot of coding effort to maintain a "wrong" position with the corresponding effects (map-shift, etc.) A dedicated way to fly the same plane together in multiplayer. Note that SmartCopilot has made great progress in making our plane flyable with a crew of 2, and while not perfect yet, it is working very well, going by user reports: http://forums.x-pilot.com/forums/topic/9714-smartcopilot-first-attempt/?page=1 Volume control for radios/navaid ident checking. We have implemented a better volume (more loud), but it can not be adjusted yet. We are trying to be as upfront about the shortcomings of our model as possible. I have myself bought many aircraft for flight-simulations boasting great things, only to be disappointed. I want to avoid that for everyone, so if you find a "must have" feature on this list, I encourage you to hold off on purchase until we added your feature in a later patch. I could make a feature list of things we have that would take you hours to read, but instead you can assume that our plane can do everything that the real one does, except for the things noted above. Cheers, Jan

Received this email today from Tanguy. Awesome photo, so I thought I'd share it (with permission) I'm a B737 pilot with more than 1500h on B737/300/400/500W and wanna congrat IXEG for the amazing product you created. Im Very impresed with the fidelity. Still some minor bugs and fix but its awesome. Attached is a pic for you guys. Kind Regards! Tanguy

NOTE : sorry : posted my previous post with just images, here the text : Hi all, Following the answers from my previous post, I did a new test : reduce the x-plane settings to find the best settings : - x-plane settings to MINIMUM (using the provided button) and reboot (see settings screenshot in this topic) - DISABLING all custom sceneries (except SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Global Airports/) - setting nvidia driver options to default except Threaded optimisation to disabled - Lastest Driver version. - using FSGRW to reload the conditions with 5 clouds layers (see my previous posts) - same situation : CYVR, IXEG, taking off from 8R, and climbing straight - skymaxx pro and RWC to 'Auto' - my system : intel i7 2600K - 3.4Gz - NVIDIA GeForce GTX980 - 32Gb - windows 7 64b (note : removed the CPU overclocking few days ago) At takeoff FPS is good (above 30) and during climb it progessively decreases to 10FPS and then after a bigger freeze FPS is 3 => issue reproduced with LOW x-plane settings. X-plane is not able to correctly display a cloud area of 17000 with 5 layers (with an important coverage). There is a big bottleneck somewhere in x-plane and RWC/SMP notes : - When cloud area is set at 10000 or less no FPS issue. - With less cloud layers (for example 3 manually set with broken coverage), and then baron plane (same place, same x-plane settings to minimum), I still have a drop from 35 to 15FPS. I perfectly understand that drawing so many 3d clouds is cpu or gpu intensive, that we must lower our settings to get a good balance.... but here, the x-plane settings are set to MINIMUM (giving graphics from the 90s) and skymaxpro is not set to max. I respect the product and the RWC dev team (that listens community and try to improve things), but there is clearly something wrong, either a bug or things that SMP/RWC can do and allows to do (hight layers, area, ...) that x-plane can't do.

Thanks for the short movie, Michael. We are still trying to figure out what exactly one has to do to get it to act weird like that. I don´t get this reliably, only once in a while. Cheers, Jan

Aha.. So maybe its "bad sectors" when we have Gizmo Soft Crashes related to navadata.

Not yet available. If you've the dvd version of X-Plane you'll can obtain the beta running the upgraded installer in the 'update' mode while flagging the beta check box, else if you're a Steam user no beta will be provided until the Release Candidate version will be available.

I'd say the memory controler load could be a good indicator for exchange between vram and gpu, and the bus interface load for exchange between cpu and gpu. But a 980ti is capable of more than 300GB/s transfert with vram And 176 GigaTexels/second... Pixel fill rate is at 85 Gpixels/s

A picture. Evidence that I am actually doing something and that I have "invested" (ie stolen stuff from my parents' basement) in some hardware. Sorry for the weird location, I have my apartment desk torn apart for reorganization and cleaning in preparation for my bachelor's in elementary education. While to most this will be a "who cares" moment, to me it is a massive victory. I've been fighting a battle against Windows XP SP3 for two weeks to get this computer to acknowledge a local area connection. The machine is from early 2005, not 2007 as previously thought. It barely can anti-alias XHSI. As you can probably guess, I'll be splitting these (very much smaller than real life) displays into nine main sections with the MDF panel overlay when it's all carved up with the jigsaw and router: PFD, ND, EICAS, MFD (more on that later), Clock (intentionally in the wrong place, I have to make concessions), Master Caution/Warning, Annun., flaps, and gear indicators. The blank space on the right is where the anatomically incorrect gear lever will be. I hope to have a layer of plexiglass between the monitors and the idiot using them, but budget will dictate that. Now for the "more on that later" part of the post. Today's "Help Colin because he's confused:" The MFD in XHSI is brilliant, with the airport maps, flight surface monitoring, fuel, etc... but once I have my laptop locked in behind the panel and yoke for flight, I won't be able to switch what it's showing easily. The ND is lovely because it listens to X-Plane's opinion of what the ND should be showing, but the MFD has no in-sim equivalent, and thus has no in-sim switch or function to try to cling to for instructions. Here's the question in a nutshell: will it be possible for me to have a rotary selector switch (big words for Colin) switching what the MFD is displaying? If anyone has used XHSI in conjunction with a cockpit populated by physical switches, I'd love help with this. I have no programming knowledge and therefore not rip the program apart to try to establish a USB controller for this purpose. The Yoke I redesigned the yoke. I'll still be carving the "important" (handle) part of it out of MDF in two components to allow for wiring inside without damage to the exterior afterwards. That will be spray-painted black and will likely be the second most fun part of building this panel other than using it. However, I have changed the style of yoke from a true-to-reality floor-mounted pillar-and-yoke to a CH products style homebuilt yoke. Yes, I have a plan. No, I have no effin' clue if I can even get it close to working. I do, however, know that all the parts I need exist and that my concept is sound. The execution will just have to be pretty solid to make this fly (heh). I found a great website for the measurements of the yoke so that it will be as close to accurate as possible. The website may be from the 90s but the information is great and indispensable for cockpit builders: http://www.markuspilot.com/ Pedals You can throw tomatoes for this one. I'm using racing pedals for my rudder. I'm going to try to modify them to more closely resemble the 737 pedal layout (with the block in the middle), but sadly, there will be no way (yet) of having them move simultaneously in opposite directions. I've already taken them for a flight without modification, and they work quite well. It just doesn't quite click in the brain it does when you're using pedals that move opposite to one another. Maybe I'll come up with something for that. Conclusion This is a brief summary of what has changed or been added since my last post: Yoke redesigned from the ground up (and no longer comes up from the ground). Avionics now communicating with aircraft (makes them far more useful). I have a great relationship with the MFD but I fear that distance will make us come apart. Help. I have no idea what rudder pedals are. I need to make sure my avionics don't turn into the Star Field Win XP screensaver on short final (Just looked over and realized this). Thank you for reading, if you have. And thanks for any help in advance regarding XHSI. I am incapable of posting on X-Plane.org for support from the authors (where it's hosted) for reasons that belong in the rant section, not this one. And they are there. Just dig for them.

Ok so you want something constructive? Try this solution: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/33346-lua-default-cloud-enabler-with-sky-max-pro Then look at the frame-rate with the LUA script and without it, but adjust SMP cloud-viewing distance, of course not with a couple of clouds on the screen, but with a 30% (at least) cloud coverage, may be with more than one layer of clouds, switch to external view and look around. I managed to have decent (25/32 FPS) performances with 8000 visibility in SMP and with the script (in very complex sceneries), but there is no way to achieve same performances with a higher setting in SMP and without the script. I never said SMP is a bad looking plugin, it is the opposite, but for my hardware, and it is quite powerful, stable performances are achievable only with almost all options switched off (no shadow, no lensflare, no forced cirrus etc) and with visibility around 5000, that in overcast conditions is almost useless... And there is no way to enable the cloud shadows without cutting the frame-rate in a half, for example, and this sometimes strangely happens even with no clouds on the screen! My res is fullhd and not ridiculously high, my GPU is a 980Ti with 6GB of ram...what does it need SMP to work properly with no stutters and with no strong frame-rate hit? You are saying SMP is a solid plugin, and of course is stable, but I explained why i said SMP to me seems like a beta with some problems to be still solved. What i noticed is that nor CPU nor GPU are overloaded so i cannot explain why FPS drops dramatically with SMP enabled. The fact is the plugin works well till there are not many clouds on the screen, and the cloud visibility is strongly reduced, otherwise is a frame killer, and the sim starts to stutter. I think it is impossible to say the opposite. May be most of the people will not notice this, may be they are happy with a couple of good looking clouds around the plane (I saw tons of videos that demonstrates that the "expectations" of sim-pilots are different and many times quite low, considering the potential of X-Plane), but it's not my case. I always try to push the sim to it's limit, and I did when I built the (world-unique) glider-sim at my aeroclub, and looking at it maybe you'll understand what I mean for "performance friendly"...SMP for me it is not a solution to achieve good performances AND good appearance, even with powerful hardware.

Ze akzent iz not ze probleeem, only ze gittering trottlelz.... M

Right coiche...buy a 500€ piece of hardware to run a 30€ piece of software that promised to run even on low spec machines from the beginning. Nice idea! The fault is not your PC, but SMP that is still a "beta" from years now!!! And it promises results that are only achievable on non-existent machines! And now we have to wait for SMP 4...

In the joers182 screens the ground scenery is not black, ground receives softness light again. The clouds are located above the ground, to a top level. At this altitude the sunlight is better than ground, the clouds can not be black. Example. Please correct.

Vot? You dont laik mei accent?? I think once the dust settles a bit more and we are less busy with updates I might start the video business again for a bit - maybe even having something like a more specific flight-school with vids on "take-off", "Landings", "VOR approach", etc... Jan

My remarks were not aimed at the minutiae of your interchange with the customer in question. My impressions were based on reading your posts over time. I don't doubt you have a passion for making software and making it the best you can. That's not at issue. What I have noticed, over the years, is that you are prickly and defensive, even when you're right. About a million years ago, I got some customer-service training for a major retailer that was known for truly excellent service. The primary lesson was simple--It is always a bad idea to win an argument with your customers. Even if you're right. At worst, you lose them as customers. At best, you sow doubts such as "Gee, this guy spends so much time trying to win an argument; I wonder how much time he actually spends improving the product and my experience." Again, I have no doubt you're proud of what you do and make. I'm a major fan of RWC. I'm a MINOR fan of SkyMaxx. I'm a devoted fan of IXEG. That's not the issue. I just think the tone sometimes is off-putting--and it's something I never notice from Morten, or Jan or Frank and others. best, marshall

Uhhh. You're doing it now. 'nuff said on my end. I'll leave it to others to look at some of your past replies, and other threads, and judge for themselves. Maybe it's my sensibilities that need calibration. But in my experience, it's not how you think you act that matters, it's how others see it. Best, marshall

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

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

As a programmer myself, I have to take exception to the logic of this. There are MANY reasons there could still be a problem with the software in question. It could be an unusual condition the software does not cater for or other people might have the problem, but might not have reported it. Endless reasons. Many times I have have written software that fails on only ONE customer's machine. And the fault has been my software (actually, usually a library I am using). It is so common in my programming environment we take individual/unique bug reports like this very seriously. For example, customers running Server 2008 systems can be a real problem. Then again, it could be something specific to the hardware/computer in question, but it is not as simple as you seem to make it.

You're the only one reporting the problem. That makes the problem your hardware. Fun game huh?

Yes, it was obviously a gross simplification. If you look at error % rates there is only one fix. The user doesn't want to participate.

Define "most". No offense, but I suggest you choose your words a little wiser. I can guarantee you "most" of the community has not been criticizing this. Can you link me to even 10-15 unique peoples posts regarding this? Given our forum isn't even filled with such talk I don't agree with the assessment even a little. I'll leave the rest to Frank. As a certified meteorologist I would say his word will be the definitive one on this.

What are you even talking about here? I commented on one specific thing. "Most" of our customers do not complain about this. That was an invalid statement made by @poodster and he acknowledged that. No one has their back up at all, and Frank exemplified that fully in his response. Fine to say you have a problem with something. Fine if it's valid. Shortcomings are to be expected in any product, and it's how things are made better. But, don't go posting around that this shortcoming is something "most" customers complain about; it's surely not...not even close!

My posts in this topic have no relevancy to posts in others, and while I may be short and to the point much of the time, I certainly don't fear "shortcomings" or criticism. Sure, anyone can go look and make any assessment they want. I stand by my last post. The point here is someone researching SkyMaxx Pro may come around and find this post and go, "Oh no, most customers complain about this and they don't do anything about it!" Context is everything, and that was simply improper context. If anyone wants to follow anything, one thing we do is ALWAYS improve upon. Like it or not, @HamSammich, I'm definitely not out of line here.

If this is truly your take, I see no reason you felt it was appropriate to bring this up in this topic. You're only asking to derail topics at that point, and if that's what you feel is going to be appropriate, I'm going to ask you to please not do it. While I can appreciate your background, it has no bearing on the dynamics of the niche market we live in. There are many bigger corporations where people do not interact in the same fora as X-Plane type users would, and as such not all things will apply. Lastly, the tone you read is in your mind. If you want to have a negative outlook on someone or something, you can surely make something neutral (or even positive) read in your mind as negative. Be a little more open-minded and you may come to see that. Sometimes people will even perceive short, precise comments/answers as rude. Others will read the words for what they are and understand no desire to be upsetting was ever intended. Please, leave this topic ON topic. Further derailment will quickly lead to its closure. There was simply no necessity to you sparking this discussion in the way you did.

That's absolutely insane, with all the variations in hardware out there all x-plane users need to strike a balance with or without SMP.... You sir are trying to inflame something, not cool.......SMP is a solid plugin and your comment is completely false...

To you, but not to thousands of others. It's not a beta. You're just making a life decision to be an ass in this given moment. Not one thing constructive in your post, so don't bother defending that angle. Remember this moment the next time you're called out and act clueless about your history of responses. In other news, I'm at a flight sim conference right now. I've been approached countless times by people this weekend with people raving about SkyMaxx Pro 3 and IXEG.

Mat, if you want a constructive conversation, let us know what SMP reports for free VRAM and system memory while you are experiencing poor performance. I can assure you that it's not normal for cloud shadows to give you a 50% framerate hit, nor is it normal for SMP to have a negative impact on framerates unless you've cranked up all of its settings on a video card that can't handle it. Even on your GTX980Ti, it's very easy to consume all of your available VRAM if you've installed too much custom scenery or other add-ons. If you temporarily remove all custom scenery and third-party addons except SMP, I think you'll find that SMP 3.2 is not the root cause of your performance issues. Going around calling SMP a "framerate killer" because you've loaded up more add-ons than your system can handle really isn't fair.