Litjan

We will have something for you guys to scrutinize soon... First I have to cut that *?%*§% hedge in my garden, though... Jan

I think the instruments are perfectly readable and good enough for accurate manual flying. It all depends on the view, of course. If you "sit" yourself by the cockpit door to view the whole cockpit, then no, they are not readable enough for accurate flying. If you use a sensible view with all of the necessary instruments and the whole window in view, then yes, they are very clear. It does depend on your resolutions setting, of course and the distance from the monitor you sit at and so on. We will likely provide pop-ups of some things that are hard to manipulate accurately while using TrackIR, for example. One would be the CDU for the FMC. Jan

Absolutely right. The best the 737-300 can do is a Cat3a approach to a limit of 200m RVR and a decision height of 50ft radar altitude. This is with both autopilots engaged. The pilots need to determine at 50ft if the lights are visible - if they are the autopilots will flare the aircraft to touchdown. Speedbrakes will autodeploy (if they are armed), the autobrake will start working (if armed). There is no "rollout" function, so the pilot needs to steer the airplane manually to stay on the centerline. This is the reason why there is a RVR of 200m required - you need to be able to see enough to stay on centerline after touchdown... Jan

Yes, there will be an extensive menu for preflight options. I don´t want to give too much away, but you will be able to customize your flight to your hearts content with the ease of pushing some buttons and sliders. Jan

0 Jan

Yes, the TO/GA buttons on the thrust levers will be simulated. Of course you can also program a joystick button with that function - easier to find that one than to swivel the view to the throttle quadrant and hunt for those little buttons when deciding to go-around just before touching down on an approach-gone-bad. Wouldn´t want to take my eyes of the runway/EADI in that second.. And I am 99.5% percent sure we will have a version for XP9 - of course it might lack some of the more advanced lighting features that XP10 will supposedly bring. But we are developing on XP9, and it would be foolish not to offer that version as well. Jan

I think it is almost 100% certain that we will add a passenger cabin as well as a first rate outside 3D model, of course. Jan

Here is a little teaser movie to show you the test for the fuel quantity guages: We do this every morning to test the displays. You need to hold down the test button until the "error 4" appears. Then it will run through this little cycle to test all segments of the LCD display and also check for the integrity of fuel quantity indication. http://www.xplanefre...n/IXEG/fuel.mov (lower than original quality to reduce size) Jan

Yes, the goal is to make every switch in the aircraft´s cockpit usable. So if a system has a test button, pushing it will run the right test. The goal for the first iteration is not to provide detailed failure scenarios (i.e. IRS failure or PMC failure etc.). Various X-Plane failures will work, one example is an engine failure, or flameout, etc. Others might not work, as we have to use plug-ins quite heavily to make everything work. So failing a "default" x-plane component MIGHT have no effect on our aircraft. Of course we model every systems powersupply and failure conditions - so you could "emulate" a lot of failures yourself. Want to see the pressurizations "auto fail"? Well, there are 5 conditions to trigger that, and they are all modeled. Turn off bleeds for a few seconds, and the excessive cabin climb-rate will trigger that. Or unpower the respective transfer bus for more than 15 seconds. Or... We will provide checklists for "normal" use - we might provide some for non-normal conditions. But it will be perfectly viable to use the real checklists and procedures (look at post # 158) Jan

Good point ;D We will add a totally random fuel consumption option so fuel flow will change with the phases of the moon, or something. On a more serious note - real aircraft seldom perform according to published numbers, and we have a "factor" for every airplane that will adjust fuel flow accordingly for planning purposes. And of course the environment and actual flight path rarely match what is planned, so actual fuel use will vary widely. It is up to you to fly a bit more imprecise than me on my trial runs Jan

It will have one. It is planned to be like one of the real ones (there are many options and versions). It will integrate with the systems (autoflight, IRS, etc.) like in the real aircraft. All map modes will be featured. Work on it has started, but it is too early to show any pictures that would do the finished look justice. Interesting but unrelated tidbit: When testing fuel consumption for the simple fuel planner we are going to integrate into the GUI I did a flight of about 300NMs. We are putting in the values off the real flight manual. Those called for a fuel consumption of 1655kgs. Our model consumed 1631kgs. I did take-off from a 1500´airport (EDDM) and terminated my flight at 1000´ altitude. I think that´s where the discrepancy comes from. Jan

Of course operating an airliner is not something you do by yourself (not unless EVERYONE on board had the funny smelling fish, except for you ;D ). We are still pondering if there should be certain interaction between the user and some "virtual" crew members. Nothing has been decided yet. We do cling to the intent of making this as realistic as possible, so instead of adding something that feels artificial and half-baked we would rather not add it at all. Simulating operating in a crew-coordination-concept in a realistic way is still beyond present-day AI and doing it right is a matter of long training and hard to get perfect. So nothing is set in stone - but we are still not at that point of development by a long shot. Jan

Could you please rephrase the question? I am not exactly sure what you are asking and would like to give you a concise answer. Jan

If you buy 60+ aircraft Boeing will mount the wings upside down, if you insist ;D Jan

By all means, please keep posting and asking about any questions or observations you have. The reason we all jumped a bit was because the words (I looked up the posts to get this right) "wrong" and "incorrect" were used in. These are keywords we will be very sensitive to, because we strive for so much accuracy. Tom is right, one has to word things very carefully when discussing things over the internet, a lot of message content gets lost when not talking face to face. Then we also need to consider that english is not everyone´s native language and misunderstandings happen. Stay tuned to this channel, Jan

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 :'(