Eddie

What would you use plan fuel for, then?

I'm inclined to agree about the loudness, but I'm definitely experiencing a bug (along with other users, apparently), even without XPUIPC and Ground Handling - the engines just aren't audible at all, but when I go back and watch the replay from the cockpit view I can definitely hear them spooling up and down with the thrust I command.

The engine's quite a bit smaller than later CFM56 models, and it doesn't have the wide-chord fan blades that engines with the distinctive growl like the RB.211 have (those were added to the -7 on the NG) While there are bugs with the engine sounds (from my own experience) in the current model, this doesn't seem like one.

I flew into a busy VATSIM event last night fully non-RNAV (due to an RNAV failure where the FMS refused to track the route after a Gizmo soft crash) without any issues. The only major issue (not with the model, just the plane itself) vs. the 737-200Adv is that there's no standby radio frequencies, but it's nothing gamebreaking.

I know ANA didn't operate -300s, but they operated the -200Adv (launch customer) and operate the NGs nowadays, so I'd appreciate if someone with more skill than mine (read: more than no skill whatsoever) could whip up a livery (preferably Inspiration of Japan, but any ANA livery will do for me) for the IXEG.

Does anyone actually think a buggy product on release is more desirable just because "everyone does it"? The only reason "everyone" does so is to make a quick buck.

I believe that's merely for tailstrike clearance on the much longer -400, however performance data does exist for the -300 and other 737 models.

I believe that's merely for tailstrike clearance on the much longer -400, however performance data does exist for the -300 and other 737 models.

I've been accustomed to using a Flaps 1 takeoff in both FlyJSim's 737-200 and PMDG's 737-800 (among other aircraft) to get a greater initial climb rate and save fuel. However, it seems that many real-world 737 operators do not use a setting below 5, even where runway length is not a restriction. Can someone explain why this is the case?

Would you mind sharing your HeadShake settings, Jan?

The 737 (moreso Classic than NG, but even the NG has an edge) is a pilot's aircraft and the A320 is not, based on their respective design philosophies. It's as simple as that.

You're all wrong. They've been building a real 737-300 and convincing us it's inside the sim with clever video editing and use of Photoshop.

Which programs and hardware do the IXEG team use to develop and test the aircraft?

I'd hope for the auxiliary fuel tanks as well.

So what you're saying is that people will purchase a $60+ airliner simulation and then not even bother to properly fly it, preferring instead to hand-fly traffic patterns around their local airport like a Cessna while admiring the cabin? Look, I appreciate a great 3D cabin and exterior as much as the next person, but let's not pretend that an accurate simulation of the primary flight systems will go horribly underutilized.

Yes, because we clearly look at the virtual cabin more than we use VNAV during a typical flight.

Along the lines of these sorts of cosmetic features, are there any plans to add engine condensation (you can see it on humid days, usually early in the morning and usually when the engines are throttled up to takeoff power), either before or after v1?

You could use one basic FMS in its entirety for the 757 and 767 and that's about it. 747 and 777 share an FMC with those two (with the 777 having upgrades, but it's still the same manufacturer and works pretty much the same), but the 737 series has a different autopilot and FMC entirely. And this is discounting the different performance data for the various engine types and airframes (IXEG models one engine type and one model, and I don't think FMC performance calculations for even that were easy...now try doing that for 5-6 models with 3 different engines each) The only real way to do this is to abstract it like UFMC or X-FMC do. Making something more specialized like IXEG's will never work in this scenario.

I'm probably going to sound like an idiot here, but how would you perform a step climb enroute without those buttons? I've always either used ALT INTV or "pressing in the knob", depending on the aircraft in question, and I'm unsure how to do so with the Honeywell MCP without the buttons.

Another developer (ATS) is working on a far more intricate version that's coming along quite nicely. You may want to check that out.

We all know you're just itching for IXEG to start work on the A320. Don't try and hide it any longer.

And I think this is the point - it's not like these features are never going to be added in, the constraint is for initial release and not "this isn't important" or "we're not going to be simulating this, it's useless", which I respect.

...you do realize that the 757 and 767 are of identical vintage to the 737-300, right?

I'm not making a "bunch of nothing", nor is it being blown out of proportion. I'm giving my honest views on the subject and your mere disagreement is not enough to warrant my silence. In fact, this is IXEG's own philosophy - "we'll simulate even the things you don't see at first to add depth to the simulation". You seem to have the wrong idea as to their intentions, honestly. I can understand wanting to defend the product, but just because the features aren't in v1.0 doesn't mean that IXEG themselves don't think they're important or worth adding. They're useful to several users, including myself, and I don't appreciate being brushed off like that.

Honestly, whether something has "zero bearing on daily flying life" has nothing to do with whether or not it should be in a full study sim. Look at Aerosoft's Airbus X - they only model what the pilot would use on a daily basis, and it's an incredibly shallow, superficial simulation. Obviously that's not what IXEG's going for (as mentioned, they'll be added in later), but to claim that these features are completely unnecessary in a study simulator is absurd.