Leaderboard

I'm just now reading this and as a IXEG member and mod here, I have permissions to respond and will. Especially since I'm the one who programmed much of the features Shobhan is lamenting and also the one who has not worked on it in some time. First off, Shobhan complaints seem to be 100% focused on the FMC and indeed that is plausible enough as it it centric to airline operations and a big appeal for airliner sim enthusiasts. But there are also other aspects of a airliner simulation to consider that others find equally important as well and worthy of value. Other products, while having a more complete FMC implementation, might not have as good of visual or aural fidelity....and who's to say that "immersion of FMC accuracy" is more important to simmer A or B than "immersion of visual accuracy", or "immersion of aural accuracy", i.e. I myself enjoy the cockpit immersion, visual and aural more than the FMC usage. I know this is not the case for you here Shobahn. In the end, we want it all to be accurate no doubt. A thorough FMC with a cartoony or disproportionate 3D looking airplane is very disappointing to myself......BUT....I also know the FMC is the centerpiece for most customers and worth the discussion. At the end of the day, Shobahn is entitled to his opinion and I fully respect that....what I don't respect is his calling us lazy. Shobahn doesn't know me, Jan, Nils and Morten from Adam. He doesn't know my wife, my daughters, their trials and tribulations, my brothers, parents and all the things in our worlds that will be important and relevant long after X-Plane is gone from our worlds and sometimes there are things that need tending to at critical times in life that have no other options. Its just the way things can be in life. Now I certainly would not call Shobahn lazy because I don't know him, nor will I call him ignorant....I will say he's made some ignorant statements here in this forum though. IXEG is made up of very very good and talented individuals....so good that each is in demand and always candidates for promotions in their own professions and they honor those committments they made there before IXEG. I also realize there are committments to customers, especially when money changes hands, and I will continue to honor those over time as best I can. The whole team have a long history of longevity and committment to X-Plane. I myself am disappointed at the timing of updates too, but things are what they are for the moment. The alternative was to what? say, "well we won't make the 733 100% accurate for some years and some folks will be upset one day....so lets just not do it at all?" I do not subscribe to that strategy as i've learned that any good thing takes time and you have to start somewhere and always keep moving.... and listening to folks like Shobahn voice their criticisms and opinions along the way come with the territory. If things don't move at a pace to satisfy all, then thats just the way it is. In the meantime, Shobahns comments are very much noted and understood... I even agree with about 85% of them.... and myself, being the prime author behind the FMC....will return to working on it and improving it further quite soon enough. My situation is well documented elsewhere. If nothing else, IXEG have demonstrated tenacity and committment to this project over many years and it will not languish as is. If there's one group I trust to keep moving and improving the 733, even in the midst of the occasional update draughts, its Jan, Nils and Morten! -tkyler

And with those words, we close this topic and wish everyone a nice weekend. The aircraft will get further updates, we apologize for the delay which is mainly a result of us doing this a as a hobby besides our "real" jobs.

JohnMAXX,,, I agree with the self importance part I'll try to resolve that issue by being more considerate in future posts, it's just when a study simulation doesn't abide to the official book it kind of drives me insane. marpilot, I'll take your suggestion and fly more but it won't be this aircraft until the basic stuff is resolved. Thank you for your consideration and replies, hopefully we will have updates in the future which will unleash the full potential of the aircraft.

It's obvious you feel above anyone else in this post, may i remind you that we all put one leg on at a time. Unfortunally for you, anything written at this point is framed in the fact that you have an extremely warped sense of self importance. I think it's been clearly articulated,from multiple people involved with ixeg, the full scope of the project, yet here you are beating a dead horse.

@Shobhan Nandy Sorry dude, but the vast majority of customers don't agree with you. If this product doesn't fit your goals, I'm sorry. We get endless comments daily in e-mails and support tickets praising this product and the immersion. I'm not claiming perfection, nor is the rest of the team (though it's desired), but you're in a pretty small pool right now with these comments. You're sitting here saying you'll "ask a 733 pilot do do an FMC and navigation challenge and will submit a report." This is ridiculous. Truly. @Litjan was a rated captain up till retirement of the aircraft at a major airline. I'm quite certain we have all the pilot validation we need (never mind the fact more were involved in the actual testing of it), and where any shortcomings may be; all of which the team has been open and public of in a single topic. The rest of your reply is really hard to read without producing a headache. The words could be articulated a lot better, and the tone of you being the almighty payware God speaking to the days of half baked goods being done and asserting such an accusation here could be done without. Another example of you having no clue what you're talking about and throwing accusations. No, "the easy way out" was never taken. The simulation was based off the fleet of a particular airline who contributed the most help to the project. If you feel they had some form of simple systems then that's pure coincidence and nothing more. I have never heard a customer say something like this in all the time this product has been out. Hahahaha. Remind me. How many employees does Airbus have? You have no grasp on simulation content production if you're using an analogy like this. Consider the facts and budget of such a company before you try and compare it to an X-Plane project. ...for YOU. And so many already do. There's improvements that can be made in this project. This much is certain, and the team is very acknowledging of such. That said, I maintain what I said from the beginning. You have some very wrong perceptions. The bolded word in this quote is important. It's how I feel about quite a number of things in your post, including this very sentence quoted.

Shutting off wingtip vortices fixed it

Well the procedure according to the FCOM is High Altitude Airport Engine Start (above 8400 feet) For airplanes certified for operation at high altitude airports, accomplish the following: Ignition select switch ........................................................................Both Engine start ........................................................................... Accomplish The minimum start pressure is 30 psi minus .5 psi for each 1000 feet above sea level. An indication of N1 rotation plus a minimum of 20% N2 are required prior to introducing fuel to the engine. Engine acceleration will be much slower than during starts at lower altitudes. The engine start switch must be held to the GRD position until N2 RPM reaches 50%. CAUTION: Do not attempt to re-engage the starter above 20% N2 if it is inadvertently allowed to cut out at 46% N2. Note: Fuel fogging from the engine exhaust may occur during a normal high altitude airport start. It also mentions the following limits With APU bleed + electrical load, maximum altitude is 10,000 ft. With APU bleed, maximum altitude is 17,000 ft. With APU electrical load, maximum altitude is 35,000 At SPJJ on ground power I get about 33psi giving me a maximum 21.4% N2 (and 0.4%N1), which should allow an engine start. It might be possible that aircrafts certified for operation at high airports use different N2 thresholds for fuel injection, although when moving the lever to idle a minimal FF is indicated. The IXEG 737 seems to inject fuel at 22.4% N2 (doing cross engine bleed start).