Litjan

Hi everybody, We totally understand where you are all coming from. I have been a navigraph user myself for many years, and never had a problem AS A CUSTOMER. Right at this point - where we are crunching hard to get this plane out of the door - we are going to stick with what we have running, and what we are comfortable with. Navigraph fumbled that ball a few years ago, when we inquired into getting our own format on their site, just like Cameron said. Without going into details (we even wrote them in Swedish!), the response wasn´t courteous or professional, and we decided to look somewhere else. That being said, a lot of years have gone by, and I think that we would very likely get a different response nowadays, both with the way navigraph evolved since then, AND with the impetus that our 737 will hopefully have. We are going to ship with aerosoft AIRAC, and if you want to upgrade that dataset, it will set you back a few Euros. Alternatively you can run with the supplied dataset (it´s not like it becomes unusable when the next cycle gets published), or just wait with your purchase until we also support navigraph data (no promises to when that will be!) As we have said repeatedly elsewhere - we listen to our customers very much, but can´t cater to every wish instantly or always. We do put all wishes on our feature request list, though, so hopefully eventually... Cheers, Jan

Amen!

Performance in our 737 is very close to the real thing. I can´t speak for other addons, but X-Plane is using a very poor large bypass turbofan model that neglects many of the highly dynamic effects of a real jet-engine. That´s why most developers will have a very hard time tuning their model, it will either behave well in the lower atmosphere/lower mach numbers, or at higher levels/speeds. We have found a way to overcome this problem, therefore the climbrates we see are realistic. Jan

No - we have a custom "taxiing sound", but default wind sound, iirc. Jan

The engine sound doesn´t change with airspeed or altitude. The wind sounds get louder, but those are default X-Plane. So in a nutshell the ratio of windsounds to engine sounds changes - just like in the real aircraft, but the absolute engine sound stays more or less the same. Jan

With all my personal dislike for Airbus aside, making one is fairly unattractive for study-sim developers. The logic in the systems is so complicated that often even Airbus has to do some serious research into why the airplanes do what they do in certain unusual situations. To code that is a nightmare, and with our level of determination to make things work realistically we would only set ourselves up for frustration and disappointment. The Airbus family is attractive to make from a sales perspective, it´s a very succesful aircraft that is present in many flightsim users minds. And certainly a viable product, if you are not hellbent on pushing realistic system simulation into the high 90s, percentage-wise. As a disclaimer, I have never flown any of the Airbus-offerings for X-Plane or FSX, and I have heard some great things about those products. I DO wonder how they would hold up to the scrutiny and true and honest review of a type-rated and experienced Airbus pilot. Cheers, Jan

Very nice, thank you!

No, not yet. The real winglet´s benefit is fairly small, around 2% in cruise. On a typical 2 hour flight this would amount to less than 100kgs saved. I am not sure the real FMS distinguishes between "winglet" and "non-winglet", usually every aircraft has a "performance modifier" in the INIT page, which incurs a penalty against the manufacturer´s performance numbers. We might implement that sort of thing, and tying it into the "winglet" option wouldn´t be hard. But not for V1.0, I think.

The sooner, the better. Application is in the system...

Hi Steffen, you should get a pretty good idea if you watch the many videos we have out on youtube. There is of course the dilemma of wanting to have correct dimensions in the 3D rendition of the cockpit, but being limited to a 2D computerscreen that can´t move. Try driving your car and working the radio, looking at a map, finding sunglasses in the glove compartment etc. without turning your head ever so slightly. I bet in most cases you can´t even see the speedometer, because the steering wheel is in the way and you need to move slightly to glance past one of its spokes... We choose realism > convenience, so you need to look around the cockpit with the mouseview, a headtracker, pre-setup views or use a very large field-of-view if you want to access all controls and equipment. It´s not all cluttered in front of the pilot, just like in real life or on a 2D cockpit. It is entirely possible to set up your view in a way that lets you take in the window and primary flight instruments, so for really "flying" the aircraft you don´t need to move your view. Cheers, Jan

This would be akin to an inmate making a scale model of his prison... no.

This has been on our list of want-to-have for a very long time. So far we haven´t been able to put any effort into making this work, but we certainly plan to do so after release of V1.0 . It´s not easy, as both machines must stay synchronized and we have a lot of datarefs that need to be sent back and forth... It has been discussed before, it IS possible to operate this plane safely with just one pilot (and judicious use of the autoflight system plus some proper pre-planning for high-density workload phases), but for a realistic and redundant operation of an aircraft of this complexity and speed really two pilots are needed in the cockpit. Jan

Well, we couldn´t seriously charge full price for an airplane that is just a modification of another one, or could we? Of course in that case the -400 wouldn´t work without the -300, it would be an add-on, not a stand-alone. Or there could be a discount to existing customers... Countless possibilities...

No. IF we ever do a -400, it would likely have the 22K Thrust engines, so thats 10% more... Cheers, Jan

Correct, we need to concentrate on this one first. Easiest would of course be the -500, just very minute changes. The -400 has a little more system difference, like a zone-controlled airconditioning system, for example. The -NG is a whole step up and would require extensive work. Also keep in mind that we do get tired of working on one aircraft (-family) all the time, so I am not sure we would want to jump right into another 737, even though we could reuse a lot of our code. This is not only about making money, it should also be fun from time to time. I do expect us to spend almost another year or more on this one after release (updates, additions, etc.), so a new one is REALLY far off... Jan

Dev update: I am currently taping movies for the tutorials that will be included in the documentation (most likely on youtube in our channel). So when you can´t figure out what we ment to say in those tutorials, there is now a video to watch alongside, so you know what we would like you to do! Cheers, Jan

Sorry, no. Unless you leave your computer running while you are away, the plane should be in the state you left it in (unless you ran out of fuel/battery juice)

Yes, the tutorials will be free, both written and video. But they will cater to the average simulator pilot, starting with a very simple flight-pattern all the way to more complex flights with full use of FMS and autopilot system. I am pondering the idea to make more in-depth and detailed videos, covering special aspects like approaches, abnormals, etc. at a later stage, possibly as payware for a small price. But the basic documentation and tutorials for this plane to get you up and flying from quick-flight to serious LNAV and VNAV are always free!

During our initial beta testing all the testers went through our tutorials, which were in "written" form. While we will have those, all testers said that a video would go a long way in making everything even more comprehensible. So I am likely going to start on the tutorial videos soon, and there is a chance that we will release those before the actual plane on our youtube channel. Not decided yet, however. Cheers, Jan

Not yet, and quite likely not for version 1.0, due to time constraints. But it´s entirely possible to fly from the FO´s seat and have the weather displayed on the CPTs EHSI. You just have to glance over. It´s not ideal, but possible. Aside from that, in the real airplane the crews will often pick ND settings that complement each other, it´s not like a strict "this is mine, that is yours". For example you can have the expanded rose with a radial on your side during a VOR approach, while the other crewmember has the map displayed with weather or terrain superimposed for situational awareness... Jan

The NG is a possibility, although so far we are not even thinking of the next airplane as all of our braincells are busy working on this one! Cheers, Jan

Take a look at the KPHX-KLAX video part 1 - at 09:40 I am entering the V speeds... Cheers, Jan

I would like to point out to anyone who hasn´t received word about this move yet, that all information and discussion about the IXEG 737 has moved over here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/forum/169-ixeg/ All video´s can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/user/IXEG1 We are looking forward to your questions and contributions in the new forum - we are still excited about our aircraft, and it is slowly getting time for you to get excited, too! Cheers, Jan

No, the version of the FMS we are modeling does not support this. Later versions of the FMS (as found on 747-400s, for example) do that. You can just enter airways, and the FMS figures out the intersecting waypoints. But the one on the 737 Classics couldn´t.

Yes, the CWS mode is almost never used. It would - for example - not stop the climb at the MCP ALT. But if you just engage CMD A then the default mode is CWS P and CWS R. In this mode the autopilot WOULD actually level off at the MCP ALT (changing to ALT ACQ and ALT HOLD).