Litjan

Yes, it is not really worth arguing about I think one reason I came about this a bit tense at first was the developers dilemma we face. We are modeling one airplane a lot of people are very excited and emotional about. Call it even "in love with" (speaking for myself ). So everyone wants the IXEG 737 to be exactly like the one they know, have flown with or worked on. Yet there are a myriad of choices to make when building THE 737 Classic. And while we certainly like to discuss different features and options we do NOT want to get into a big slugfest of "oh, they are SO wrong! Look at this airliner.net photo I found!" Please continue to point out any inconsistencies you think you are seeing - and yes, there will probably be even some bugs in our V1.0 (haven´t seen any entertainment software being released without them for the last....er, I think, never ever). But DO also give us the benefit of the doubt and the chance to clarify things before calling fault on us. We are really into nerdy detail (just modeled the duct temperature in the mix manifold adjusting up or down dependent on recirculation fan use and cabin temperature), so assuming that we got ALL the switches backwards by accident was really a blow to the gut for us geeks! Jan

...and to alleviate worries about he switches some more: I have also used some other products for some other simulators where the switches were portrayed the "Boeing way", and I didn´t feel it was too much of a problem. It does make you look a bit closer (which isn´t a bad thing, as anyone who ever wanted to turn of the engine-anti-ice and accidentially put his fingers on the hydraulic pump switches can tell you ). Jan

Hi Andrey, sorry if I came over a bit rough on this. The solution to the riddle of the reversed switches is actually an airline preference. When Lufthansa planned to buy a large amount of 737´s in the 80s, they asked Boeing to reverse the switch direction. I think it was due to a perceived "human factor" preference of moving switches "intuitively". I you want something, you "pull" it towards yourself. Hence the on position = aft. At least thats what I heard. So when the topic of switch direction came up in an internal discussion we decided to go with the "Lufthansa" way. Just a preference (and me begging and crying like a little girl). And we MIGHT offer a "Boeing direction version" with a later patch, but that is not a promise. Most 737´s flying around today are customized in this way or that. Different equipment at different spots and so on. So the IXEG 737 will try to strike a medium ground. If it is any consolence, it will not be 100% Lufthansa, either. Interesting fact - when other airlines train in our simulators in Frankfurt, the simulator technicians actually switch out the overhead panel for the Boeing version. And when I rode jumpseat on a Southwest Boeing 737 a couple years ago I almost had a heartattack when looking up and seeing ALL the switches being off!! Hope this clarifies things, Jan

Thanks, Salton. I will immediately inform my technical pilot that each and every 737-300 and -500 I fly has all the switches reversed! How could that have happened? Maybe someone at our maintenance department held the plans upside down? Or maybe Boeing just sold us a bad batch at a cheaper price? ;D Be careful when using words as "always", unless you have seen everything that is in this world... Jan

The visual model is still under construction - so nothing much to see there, yet. Giving details of hardware specs to compare framerates is futile, in my opinion. To really make a valid comparison you need to only the hardware, but also the hardware settings, the rendering options, environmental conditions, the very EXACT same position and view angle (plus zoom, field of view, etc) Probably also moon-phase, local gravity constant and astrological sign of user and some other factors, too Just as an example - without changing any rendering options I get between 45 and 120 fps in our cockpit, depending on where I fly and where I point the view. Jan

Hi everyone, just a quick update on our project. Work continues as planned on multiple fronts. The 3D cockpit shell is in place, and the instrument panel, control stand with center pedestal and overhead panel have settled into their final position. We have fine-tuned the default camera position to match what I am seeing in the real cockpit, and it is just so cool to see how things line up just the way I am used to! The EADI is shaping up very nicely, we did a lot of work on it recently. Expect to see correct speed tapes and bands for placard speeds, maneuvering speeds,high-altitude buffet limit, trend vectors, "green dot", stickshaker band, "eyebrows", everything moving correctly according to weight, AOA, altitude and so on. The prototype is already a joy to fly manually with this accurate instrument that gives me all the functionality I am used to. Check the weight, set the correct N1, fly the correct pitch and watch her settle into the desired profile. The overhead panel´s shape is complete, with special care taken to have accurate switch-sockets, too. The sockets are actually quite different, dependent on functionality of the corresponding switch. Some are simple "two-position" switches, like the inboard landing lights. Outboard landing lights have three positions (off, extend, on). Generator breakers are also three-position, but toggle-type, springloaded to off. Others are also three-position, but have to be pulled out a bit before they can be moved... Well, you get the idea . Texturing on the overhead panel continues, with the same artistic care that can already be seen on the preview shots, I think we will have another preview showing the overhead for you, soon. So lots going on behind the scenes, but I can tell you that I never fully realized before how much thought and attention to detail has gone into the construction of this aircraft! Jan

Usually hot brakes can be a problem when planning for a rejected take-off. The brakes can hold only a "maximum energy" before melting. The energy in a rejected-takeoff scenario must be smaller than the ability of the brakes to take it. So if your brakes will get really hot during landing you might have to observe some additional ground-time to allow cooling before taking off again. There are tables that will allow you to determine the brake-energy soaked up during landing. Also fast taxiing, high temperatures and little wind will worsen the situation. When taxiing it is not recommended to use reverse-thrust on the 737 (because engines are low to ground/FOD-risk). That might be different for the CRJ with it´s high engines. Some aircraft have brake temperature indicators and/or -cooling fans to help. Another option is to fly with gear down for a few minutes before landing to cool them additionally if doing multiple short flights. Reverse-thrust after landing is limited to idle on most airports nowadays, unless needed for safety reasons (be ready to be challenged if you rip ´em open, they monitor the noise!). Still it is good practice to open them to the "idle reverse" position where they don´t use more fuel or make more noise, but still help in slowing down the aircraft (especially in high-bypass engines). The only airport where I have used reverse thrust to the max pretty much all of the time is Mexico City. Usually some tailwind, high weight due to big distance of alternate airport, 7000+ feet elevation and sometimes a wet runway. Reverser time! ;D

Congratulation on the release, this sounds like a very well done aircraft! Saw it on Philipp´s computer a while ago and was VERY impressed! All the best, take a good rest now, Javier Jan

Well, that´s where all the fun is, right? And to tell you the truth, it is one thing to learn the systems enough to use them proficiently. It is a whole other ballgame to understand them deeply enough to model them correctly! I am learning lots more about the bird I love to fly during the process of "putting it into X-Plane", and it really makes you appreciate all the experience, thought and work that went into making a complex machinery like this. The team is asking me countless questions that I am simply not able to answer without checking in the real aircraft. Imagine yourself sitting at the dinner table and someone asks you in which order and position are the indicator and warning lights in your car? When does the battery symbol light up? When does it extinguish? After how many seconds does the "not buckled up" chime start? A lot of things we take for granted, but don´t really think about them until we have to. Of course I have my manuals to check in, but lot´s of details are not in there. How many "clicks" is one full revolution of the course selector? Anyway, the 733 is a very complex piece of machinery. It might be old and lacks the computer flight-law logic of modern Airbus designs (thank god ), but even just understanding the electric system fully WILL get your head smoking plenty. Yes, we have set our date of completion tentatively for end of 2011 - but don´t worry, quality > deadline. I agree with Cameron, if you are thinking about getting XP10, you might as well check out XP9 at the current low price, quite a bargain for the months of fun to be had with it before XP10 ships. If at all unsure, go and download the demo at no cost and no risk. Yes, some things are different from MSFS, but some things are still the same (push -> big houses, pull -> small houses)

Yes, that was it! 2:40 loading time on the good old 1541 drive... Then hours of fun flying down to Champaign, Il (headquarters of Sublogic, iirc) with a stop at Greater Kankakee. It mostly happened inside your head Great times. When flying to KORD the first time in real life (744) it felt like "coming home". The next morning I jogged on the bank of lake Michigan to Meigs field (then still operational). I felt like crying :'(

Hi everyone, I would just like to introduce myself, I am Jan, consultant to the IXEG team and fly the 737-300/500 for Lufthansa (for a total of about 9 years). My interest and obsession with flying and flight-simulation goes way back to the 80´s, when I started out with Sublogics FSII on the trusty C64. I have owned and flown for countless hours pretty much every flightsimulator ever published, both civil and military. My job with the team is to make sure that the finished product will be as close to the real thing as possible within the confines of X-Plane. The flight-model was tuned by Morten and me during the course of the winter. I can only judge flight-models and theire accuracy for aircraft I have actually flown, but this one is the best one I have ever experienced so far. That goes for both adherence to real-world performance and feel (within the possibilities of present-day input devices). You will be flying this 733 with real-world performance values. You will have accurate pitch rates, roll rates, engine-out performance, flap effects, speedbrake effects, accurate climb and descent rates, pitch and power values, and so on. Work continues on 3D modeling (you have all seen the shots and videos), but we also seek to implement every system behaviour possible. Just the other day we had a very lenghty discussion about getting the autobrake disengagement logic right Yes, it will be a while. Good things come to those who wait. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them as best as I can.

Hehehe, if "Descent" makes the flight-simulator list, then I would definitely want to at "Fort Apocalypse" and "Blue Max" from the C64 days - oh, the flight model! Oh, the damage model! ;D Jan

Wow, this is really an excellent surprise! Way to keep this hidden, Cameron. That must have been really hard, to keep quit about it like this. ;D Really looking forward to flying this neat airplane! Jan