Leaderboard

The short answer... nonsense. If he is taking X-Plane/Planemaker "out of the box, as is" - which it might seem he is - there are limitations, simplifications and bugs, this is true. But it is in no way "bad". However, serious design teams "bend" the flight model in some areas to fit their aircraft using plugins, so in theory you can do almost anything by reverse engineering and programming like we do on the 737. So it is in no way impossible, but you off course need to know what you are doing. About "fake pitching" moment and CG, I'm not sure I understand what he is talking about, but X-Plane uses Radii of Gyration for momentum calculations. He might have missed that. It is just not practical or realistic for any normal XP aircraft designer to know how much each aircraft part weighs, it's distribution/density etc. Only the manufacturer of the aircraft will know that, and all aircraft are different. Should he have documentation for what he believes is off, the great thing about XP is that we can always discuss this with Austin (we do it often) and have it corrected fairly soon if we can prove it. X-Plane' flight model has been in development for some 20+ years, during this time hundreds of engineers have been working on improving it, and we will continue to do so

Well, I guess we have proven it IS possible (we can document it off course), although parts of ours is also "external" like the engine model and some other parts that are "modified". We spent about 6 years on our flight model, so it has not been a trivial task - but worth it. They choosing a different route is off course up to them, but just because they did not succeed does not mean that others can't! Not sure what they did, but I suspect it is highly table based since from what I understand it is ported from some other sim, and table based flight models have their share of weaknesses. In a way you could say we (IXEG) takes the best from both worlds. Also, on an A320 - that uses FBW (artificial stability and augmentation) - that you hardly ever fly in direct law, the dynamics are not as important from pilot or engineering perspective anyway as it is on a classic Boeing without FBW where you fly hands-on in "direct law" a lot of the time. But I wish them good luck, a great A320 finally would benefit XP a lot and attract more users from the other sim's M

Thanks this worked. I first assigned keyboard commands not being used in the 737 keyboard assignments and then I was able to assign the joystick buttons I wanted. Thanks!

That is correct!

In addition to what Jan said, I'd suggest with the current version to always follow this sequence on selecting Arrivals: STAR - TRANSITION (left side) - APP - TRANSITION (right side) this should work fine, and that is in fact the "classic" way (US) to fill arrival procedures. Now I recall it's been said (Jan please correct me if I'm wrong) that the next release of the FMC will allow for more flexible SID/STAR selection and to get a number of acknowledged bugs fixed.

Hi, while I haven´t checked explicitly for ENGM, a lot of times STARs and TRANSitions nowadays live "side by side". It is not like in the old times (or in the US) where you have a STAR TRANSITION - then - STAR - then - TRANSITION - then - APPROACH - then - RUNWAY. IF you look at EDDF, for example, you have many PSA STARs (starting at PSA), but also many PSA TRANSITIONs (starting at PSA). If you choose a PSA STAR and then a PSA transition, the STAR will be erazed again. Cheers, Jan

The ixeg 737 is clearly one of the best aircraft ever made for any flight sim so i really value your opinion, thank you so much for answering!