tkyler

Not yet. Some of the team are currently traveling home today. For those wondering why they're out of town on a release weekend, please see the follow....and accept our apologies while we work to correct this asap.

@rafalec I'm responding since you've singled out IXEG in this case. As Cameron pointed out through my previous posting, there were extenuating circumstances here that were not the norm......and we ourselves join you in the frustration. We will work diligently to restore your disposition towards us and hopefuly get you back simming in the IXEG as rapidly as possible. -TomK

So....good example of why this port to XP12 is a pain. ..and this is just one of a lot. Went over this for a long while yesterday and just had trouble trying to code around it. Took it directly to Laminar and sure enough, the acceleration ramp between lightoff and idle is simply inaccurate. The acceleration curve shape between lightoff and idle is hard coded and not tweakable via PM. Below is the N2 ramp for the default 738 (which has the same problem). This is Laminar's own data of N2 vs. time (but my overlay comments). You can see the very rapid rise of N2 after lightoff...getting to within 80% of idle in a few seconds. So you may ask, "well why don't you custom code it"...and we do to some extent, but there is a limit. Some parameters, if we decide to override, means its all or nothing. So if we "override the engines" for example..then we have to write the entire engine model for all regimes and that is almost a product in and of itself. Besides, Laminar's model is mature and pretty good...no need to reinvent the wheel.....to me this is simply a "plane-maker design issue" oversight. A 'coefficient' should have been provided (and is what I'm lobbying for) to shape this curve...like a lot of curves in PM can be shaped. The good news is its official, we're filing a ticket to Austin. Also good news (but not perfect) is I've coded a workaround for the next patch to get us through.....because I'm sure it'll be some time before the next update to XP comes out with this fix. The limitation on my patch will be "don't mess with a running engine while the other one is starting". If you do, then the starting engine will exhibit this "rapid rise" behavior somewhat. ...but many folks may not notice it. and these kinds of sweeping modeling changes are all over the place, and have really wreaked havoc with the accuracy of our performance. BUT....we're working on that too now. TK

Given evernthing else no...but I've added it to my list of things to look at. We'll be migrating to a documentation format similar to my MU2. In that, I keep a section of bugs, todos, wanted things and such. Some items stay on that list a long time, but at least you'll know whats in our heads. It will look like so (see MU2 example link below)...and when deployed, you'll see your request reflected on that list. http://www.togasim.com/mu2docs/supplements/bug_tracker_201.html

I can not WAIT to get there! Me and the wife used to live in a seaside town with lots of "snowbirds", folks who'd come down for the winter and drive horribly slow. I said then, " I can't wait till I can do that and enjoy it" TK

You're welcome. we wanted to have this up and running prior....but in the heat of battle, it slipped through. Hopefully when this 'infrastructure remodel" thing is done, information will be more cohesive and intuitive to find. Eventually we'll have a more comprehensive docs section for the IXEG similar to the MU2 (example below) http://www.togasim.com/mu2docs/ -TomK

Yes it will, though we will probably continue to provide the one avail now in parallel. So you'd have two ACF files...where the only difference will be the exterior objects. I expect we'll paint up the same liveries we do now, in high rez form, but of course new ones will have to be created for other liveries. This is probably annoying for "livery consumers" and great news for "livery painters" -Tom

Thx for posting. Sorry that happend to you! I've logged this. These errors get the highest priority so I'll be looking at it quick. We're going to be working towards a quick first patch. TomK

Indeed! Thx for sharing. Tom

This really does pain all of us and we are anxious to get you and everyone else going. I hope you can take heart that we plan to keep working on the classic for a long while. -TK

if cut/paste is the way you and Osamah you see it...then I think you guys may need some glasses...or better ones (see screenshot....if you can ) Seriously..just some good natured ribbing. What's really going on here is, "ok, yes you clearly did a LOT of work on that cabin Tom, but I don't care about the cabin at all..so it might as well be the same thing..what about the stuff I want?...holds, a virtual FBO...animated passengers". .....and that perspective @Splash is OK with me. I get it, I really do. We know what will get said before it gets said. ..this isn't our first rodeo. Osamah isn't telling us anything we don't know...he's basically telling us he wished there was something new, but we were quite clear this "port" wouldn't have much new that you could see. Oh there's a ton of new stuff for sure...but its under the hood where you can't see it and indeed you guys may not see the benfits of that for a time yet. But there are a lot of customers who can and do still enjoy it while we improve it. ..and that's why we do this. But therein lies our path, to leverage this work we know is important and start working towards those things we know you want. Things we knew you'd want long before Osamah or flightdeck2sim said it. Jan said it well...we hope you join in when you finally do see what you like. Tom

This isnt' the kind of thing I'd normally throw out there....I don't like excuses, but there is some behind the scenes info on whats going on time wise. ...and I know how hard the team is working despite the circumstances. We had planned the release earlier, when everyone was avail to support, but my elderly mother had a AAA (Aortic aneurism) a short while ago and I had to bolt out of town for the emergency, and this delayed the release. I don't want sympathies or well wishes here or in PMs, please keep those to yourself.....that's not what this post is for. This delay pushed the release back a bit.....to this weekend where some of our team are out of town (one out of country) for events with their families they scheduled months ago...and unable to work efficiently as they'd like. They're trying the best they can..and we're trying to get back together as fast as possible so we can get on with the business of improving the IXEG. We'll be hitting this hard tomorrow as well. We are fully committed to getting everyone up and running. This post is simply to let folks know that "life happened" to us these past few weeks and we're not just ignoring folks or don't care, or have lowered our standards. With all that said, I'll be hammering away all week on the things I can control. The other team members will continue as well and we'll be running on all cylinders again very shortly. TomK

FYI @Pils....this release really is 'foundational' with an eye on moving forward. Indeed we've had to strip out a few things to make way for more remodeling. Part of our roadmap is to not only focus on the aircraft proper, but also develop more informational resources, i.e. a web-based documentation system to augment the written stuff, similar to the MU2....so there will be an 'IXEG website' where we can put out this kind of information, documentation and other value added content for users to access. NOW...will folks read the stuff we provide then? who knows but we're going to be putting it out there anyhow. TomK

A link for those who many not have seen it. http://togasim.com/ixeg_15_whatsnew/

Your post is noted @daemotron Welcome to the world of Austin and (X-Plane evolution) For the longest time, the electrical system on XP was pretty vanilla, minimal busses, no switching. SO us develoeprs wrote ALL this code to customize our electrical code. Then Austin starts ALIA...an electric vehicle. NOW the electrical system in XPlane gets ALL this attention and next thing you know he's changing everything...our code starts having issues, new datarefs, new switching, etc. So we now have to re-evaluate the entire X-Plane system because we never know how far Austin's simulation goes.....and this just takes time. There was two real challenges with the Mu2 electrical setup. 1) The two radio busses...because Austin only had 1 Avionics bus and all radio functions were tied to that one switch....and 2) The emergency bus, which kills very specific functions. I had lots of code to handle all this before XP had more than 2 electrical busses....and so to just start using more of XP and less of my code, I have to audit a whole lot of code and do a whole lot of testing and experimenting with XP and even then...I may find something with Austin's model that doesn't work. For example, for the longest time (and still may not be implemented), you could not have a simple 3 bus setup (left - Main - right) and isolate the left/right busses. In that little example, (imagine the dashes being bus ties)...but XP only has ONE bus tie...and when activated, it connects ALL the busses in X-Plane. This is a HUGE headache working around and I know Jim with Laminar (replaced me back in 2012) just recently begged the systems team to fix this...as he's working on the Airbus stuff for Laminar and can't even isolate busses. Simulating busses and switching is easy...the problem is all the downstream things X-Plane drives off of default XP bus values. Things we can't code...like the radio functions, or GPS, or generators...which feed even more functions downstream. So we have this "line" where we have to stop, which is basically "bus is powered". but with headaches like the bus ties...well...*sigh. Its not uncommon to be approaching the work .... "well...lets try it this way"....nope...."how about this way".....nope...."A...U..S...T...I...N"! SO....this is what we deal with and its just a very long process to assess. Throw in "other developers who NEVER respond to your contact"....yea I'm talking to you Jean-Luc from RealityXP.....then it makes it tougher in cases like this. ANYWAY...enough blabbering. as usual.....I'll come across this at some point and poke around and try an improvement. My whole philosophy now with XP development is "steady as she goes". XPlane is quite the niche market and hobby.....can't support big teams full time, so I'll just try my best to be that tortoise and keep going thx for your poking around though @daemotron I do log these posts and when I address them I go back over them thoroughly. Thx again! Tom

Closing this topic. Starting to spend too much time reading the same reports. We have a good idea what the issue is. thank you all for your reports. -Tom

Yes....there are plans to do the air stairs. The IXEG roadmap includes a new 3D exterior and when doing that, I'll put in the air stairs. Heads up...it'll probably be mid-fall 2024! before that part of the roadmap is getting implemented. -Tom

Can definitely tweak. Night lighting level been a thorn in my side for a while. My idea of how bright these should appear, given a photometric value setting...vs. Laminar's idea....is not quite the same and I always end up having to code isolated use cases to attenutate these things. BUT.....I'm in agreement. added to the list! Thx!

What we have so far......or the 'clues' we have so far rather......suggest that in each of these cases, something is blocking our plugin from getting on the network and communicating with XA servers. This could be another plugin (as in the case of @haraldh above) ...or a firewall config....an ad-blocker, etc. If we can isolate further and code around it, we certainly will....but not all plugins play nice in the X-Plane sandbox. We're trying to isolate some commonalities between cases and still collecting datapoints from some users helping out, so we're sorting through it. Everybody helping out is spread all over the world though but we'll get through this quickly. -TK

without a doubt the focus has been covering a broad ranges of areas to get to this point.......so everything got looked out in a cursory level, including the performance. We will naturally turn towards "realism" here shortly, in as many areas as we can. I do hope we don't end up fighting X-Plane too much. Thanks for the support, we're very much looking forward to sinking more effort into getting this optimal. -TomK

Jan's looking into that Bulva. He's the VR 'guy' Certainly an oversight. we have it on our list to go over after this week. -TK

This is a long-standing conversation that is difficult to have resolution on IMO...i.e. "feel". When you talk about the 'feel' of an aircraft relative to your inputs...that is subjective. and when you start messing with sensitivities and response curves of the hardware, you're entering the realm of "infinite possiblilities", I mean just randomly dragging curves "about right there"?....that's a tough unit of measure to capture data on. Its difficult for sure. I mean...Jan's also flown 733s... about 5000 hours worth...and he thought it felt as he remembered. SO...??? Cpt.Blackbox perspective? or Jans? You can see why this is such a subjective topic? BUT........this is XP12 and things ARE different for sure. Last time we did the flight model (xp10/11), we had oh...several years of dev on a pretty stable flight model. Austin made a bunch of changes since then with his foray into ALIA, so its not out of the realm of possibility...and we don't want to work on this several years. So...here's the way this will probably go down. ....I've made a note of this in our log BTW Given the number of IXEG customers, it was important for us to get this going in XP12 at a workable level..not a small job to even get to this point. Many customers do enjoy casual "airlining", rather than the really hardcore stuff, so lots of folks are happy to get airborne. So next...after we get through the obvious release bugaboos first...then we hit all the low-hanging fruit (wipers / knob...etc).....after that....then we revisit the performance! and FMS. This will be a long phase probably. Lots of coding...lots of flight testing. We'll certainly focus on it in its course. -TomK

We couldn't say exactly at the moment Uwe. Folk's failures are presenting slightly differing. We're gathering data from 4 folks now for debugging. The fact that everyone gets one successful activation that then fails is a bit curious and exactly what we're looking into at the moment. There is no doubt we'll get this, we just have to work through the process. Of course we're bummed for all you who are suffering from it at a time when you least want it to happen. Whether it takes an hour, a day I don't know. The big challenge is the weekend. We have all programmers involved currently on a call, but we're spread out all over the world and the time zones will come into play soon. All I can tell you is this is priority #1 for all of us ....and any amount of time that our wives say we can have to work on this....this is what we're working on. -Tom

ATTENTION: Level-2 FAIL users. If you are having a Level-2 FAIL error...basically the plane won't work at startup. Please contact me via PM if you are willing to work with us to conduct some tests towards a fix. We want to verify if a fix will work in multiple cases. this does NOT mean we have a fix ready for you now, we are only wanting to collect some folks who we can communicate with via PMs. We are working on assessing the issue now. Statistically, its a large enough group to be significant, but still a minority...and so we need to figure out what all you have in common. Thx. -Tom

Thx fopr reporting @Obo, indeed this is the highest priority item. We are collecting data from all who've experienced this. If I may ask, would you please delete your log.txt file from the root X-Plane folder, and then start X-plane and load up the IXEG? ...then shut down X-Plane....and finally post your log.txt file here. This will give us a clean log.txt file to use as a data point with others. I am confident we will get this worked out and I'm sorry you're dealing with this at the onset...I know anticipating is high atm. We will continue to work through all these isses and get to those IXEG improvements so you can use it for a long time to come. -TomK