tkyler

No offense taken, I knew someone would bring that up so for the record.....I don't consider that video IXEG 'official jargon', but rather an impromptu interview, hence my usage of the term (didn't work though). I think your post misses the point of my post (but not my quote #1) and this thread; however....your keen memory is noted by all. -tkyler

A great quote by author Cory Doctorow, which is why we type in these infernal forums incessantly, so need to question why people have to sound off on every little thing, its in our nature to just gab. ..and another great quote: The community coined the term "study sim" somewhere along the line, I'm quite sure we've never used it in our official jargon at IXEG. I'm also pretty sure there is no written down definition of just what a study sim is so each person's expectation is up for grabs no?.....furthermore, our simulation is only what we target it to be and Morrigan hit the nail on the head there. Our primary goal was/is an airliner that is an accurate simulation of a normal and typical 737-300 flight, so that we can get busy flying ops on vatsim and using the FMS to conduct normal flights because its just fun....NOT a 'study sim' as I define it in my head. If ol' Bob the customer's goal is to engage in mental masturbation while looking at fold out technical diagrams in the center of the manual....ol' Bob will just have to wait or build his own simulation.....while the rest of us will be 'flying' Now nearly every thing we have put into the sim thus far has a physical manifestation that can be observed by the pilot in some capacity and is the reason why our 'behind the scenes' stuff is as detailed as it is...its not just for the sake of the detail or so some A&P can practice his diagnostics. We have simulated electrical relays because it affects how things appear and get powered in the cockpit, VERY visible when simulating normal flight. We have simulated hydraulic systems in depth because it affects the controls and gauges....VERY visible during normal flight. We have simualted the LNAV and VNAV as best we can because when you don't level off at the right altitude...VERY visible during normal flight. Manually entered holds....NOT very visible during normal flight....is everybody getting this? note our goal above if not.....and read it as many times as you need to until you do....think of this post as a study level post. ...I wasn't going to type anymore but I know that some folks will miss the fact that the word 'primary' insinuates 'secondary', i.e. a follow-on goal. Our secondary goal is to get the simulation as accurate as we can in the infrequent/abnormal areas, just for the satisfaction of completeness and bragging rights....and no other reason....I have ZERO desire to use a manual hold in sim, don't even care to read about it. BUT....those that do want it all can rest assured that the pursuit of our own satisfaction in this regard will ensure that we keep going well after V1.0 hits the shelves. -tkyler

I'd like to add that, even though I'm one of the developers, I am by no means a "airliner guy". I barely know how to operate the thing on many levels, certainly do not have proficiency. I have not nailed one flight yet beginning to end but I am driven by the challenge to do so. One of the things I am looking forward to as a relative "newbie" is learning how to operate the thing. BUT in order to do so, I need guidance and mentorship and a good training program, not just a FCOM. Of course we have just the man for the job in Jan and we will be including several training videos with the 737 purchase to go with tutorials we are providing with the product. Also, we have a longer term vision to craft a more comprehensive 'training program', the details of which still have to be pondered upon and thought through.....but my point is that we understand that the learning process can be as rewarding as the actual operational process and we want to cater to both thereby serving both newbies and experts alike. -tkyler

Nah, you just have to not let it get to you....find other stuff to do than read the drivel. Who knew that trolls really existed till the internet came around?....besides the Norwegian government of course On another note...can you believe this crap? What kind of insanity is this!!! http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/20/media/star-wars-episode-viii-date-moved/index.html

Works for me I have no problem with folks blowing steam. I get it, but neither am I affected by it. I've been around the block a few times and involved in project based businesses for some time. One of my biggest life lessons is "don't stop moving" I also have another saying that I like, 'targets are a way to stay focused'....my own virtual carrot dangled in front of my own face. There is no way you can undertake a project like this and not have to find ways to keep moving after 5 years. Once its out and running smoothly, all this will be forgotten. So.....I'm finally over my cold, back on the FMS and rushing to get this to market asap! Want to know what i'm doing right now? I'm working on setting AP speeds during the descent phase. Easy? Are we already in VNAV? just engaging? Are we in the mach or IAS regime? Are we bound by a current speed limitation? which one (maybe we engaged VNAV midway between two restrictions) Are we above or below the speed restriction altitude? Are the flaps out? Are we in speed or path mode? Is the descent speed manually overriden? etc. etc. -tkyler

That's not the plan anymore. "Soon" is a reference relative to the whole and still applies. Of course it is subjective....but I think we'll beat the vernal equinox. -tkyler

when its ready

I assure you I am fine, but thank you for the thoughts though. No, the best thing is for us to just keep working on the remaining details until our target release feature set is implemented. Yes, I do have a limit, no its not quite here yet but we are working every day on the remaining details (when I'm not sick). Given an anticipated product life span of several years, we do not fret a few more weeks to make sure the product is as solid as we can get in our window of time. -tkyler

Considering the lead programmer on the FMS has been taken with a severe cold, no. Reality slapping me around pretty bad atm. -tkyler

I'll venture a bit of a guess Radek...... Of course this is "entertainment" and what entertains one is certainly diversified amongst simmers. Given the fact that we are generally limited to a chair and a screen, I think it reasonable that the more cognitive stimulation one can get, the better. Further, given that the stimulation is manifested through "on screen interaction", then the more actions one can do in the sim, the more entertaining it CAN be for some. Flight simmers seem to be in a class of people my wife likes to calls, "button pushers". We like gadgets and complexity and flashing light thingys. By adding these other tasks, i.e. "loadmaster or flight dispatcher, to the sim, we essentially increase the amount of cognitive challenges you can engage in. (conveniently through button pushing ) The problem is the aforementioned diversification of simmers...where what is good enough to stimulate one person given the whole of the product isn't good enough to stimulate another. The solution is to "have it all", but in doing so, we run the risk of over complication and when you get cognitive saturation due to complexity.....then that is akin to a stall. So where is the balance? Well...its currently in the IXEG team members comfort zone . We hope enough folks share it to enjoy it. BUT for those wanting more....I will say that the team's comfort zone (and feature set) will expand with time....but we will still ask the question for any given feature, "does Feature X belong in our realm of responsibility to simulate given our target goals with the simulation?" Only time will tell what our answers will be. Though there are many aspects to the simulation of flight and flight operations (a valid hobby X-Plane has the capacity to fill)....OUR product squarely targets 737-300 aircraft operations from the captains perspective at the moment. A more generic "loadmaster / flight dispatch" type of plug-in might be a good product in its own right. -tkyler

Implemented in the future. We have a strong engineering model for implementing an incredibly diverse array of failures and realistic management of such will require a fair amount of effort to be at the level we want. -tkyler

I'm a big fan of providing all of those conveniences Eddie, in their proper order and time. We just want folks to understand that we are drawing a line as to what goes in at the onset due to time constraints. We'll look into such options in due course. -tkyler

PMDG been in business what? 18 years? We've had weather radar since day 1....they just got it into the NGX when? several years after release? Other major manufactures...you can't even "lift" the flap lever out of a gate........Do you really want to have a pissing contest over "feature X" or feature Y"? We'll be here all year. Noted that you like that feature and you want it. -tkyler

And TBH...I'm looking forward to adding more features. It won't end with release, I assure you -tkyler

That is good info Jerry. We'll see about getting it implemented at some point. We have discussed implementing more comprehensive 'options' at some point. The info is not lost on us. Thx. -tkyler

We're not opposed to these types of tools / features or stuff, its just a matter of not knowing if/when we'll get to it. Of course we want it all. And compared to other products, we have a whole lot of essential features they don't have. Between a CG/seat thingamajig and a FMS that doesnt' give me "invalid entry' for every other button press....I'll take the FMS. The CG/seat feature can wait.

we do model the delay of the Gen and XFR relays. lights flash...all that stuff. -tkyler

as you know, we don't give out release dates. It would be a real bummer to give a release date and find a major bug the day before. I would like to believe we are within 4-5 weeks as of today though. All we can do is keep moving quickly..and that I can assure you we are. It certainly gets closer every day though, that I can say. -tkyler

I can't speak for the rest of the team, but I hope to attend this year...mostly as "myself" rather than IXEG though. I probably won't know till the week of. -tk

Hi YD . no to transfer hyd fluid from A to B. We discussed and tabled it to "possible after V1.0". Its a super special technique almost never used (but the speed brake pump trick is a really cool thing we'd like to simulate eventually). We'll see after the fact. (pressure drops with rapid control input IS simulated)...of course this would be tough in reality....but not like joysticks have feedback pressure. . Yes to flap transit speeds affected by hyd pressure (flow rate actually)....and reversers too (shown in one of Jans videos), no to air pressure effects (but now that you mention it, probably easily implemented . Yes to auto-slat extension (and retraction) in high-alpha regime . Yes to different behavior during reversion (controls get sluggish as best we can with a sim) . Unsure on AP autoland...Jan/Nils to answer. . no on abuse simulation for V1.0. We do not intend to abandon development after release and anticipate some type of failure / MTBF / abuse model after the fact. As with many things, time is the great enemy. Once we are rolling, then it is a point of pride to get these more advanced systems working properly. Our generator heating for example...its simple at the moment, but will eventually take into account proper heat transfer with conduction / convection and Q (internal heat generation)....BUT we really do have to cater to the 99% percentile first -tkyler

We have no idea really. We are on the final stretch and working very hard. Every FMS page shipping in V1.0 is in place and we are calibrating our VNAV performance calculations. I would remind everyone we are sim consumers ourselves and we make no decisions we ourselves wouldn't be willing to live with as consumers....and we want it as right as we can get it given current constraints. Doing so means years of satisfaction instead of 'days of frustration'. and March is no good for me, I'll be out of savings by then.....earlier actually -tkyler

fully functional. Jan makes use of it one of the YouTube videos. -tkyler

That's up to Jan as to when he feels he has something he wants to show. We are indeed moving at a crazy pace though. Things are shaping up very nicely on the FMS....we have lots of functionality crammed in with a good foundation for adding 'power features' as time goes on. We think most will be happy with the usability, readability, reliability and predictability of the system. I just flew my first "gear up to gear down" LNAV/VNAV flight the other day. I just sat back and watched the plane do its thing for 45 minutes. My favorite part is crossing T/D and watching the throttles chop and this bird fly itself thing through a winding arrival procedure right to the threshold. Soon...soon. -tkyler

here's what's going on. Nobody can tell anybody else what is realistic to them, only what is realistic for themselves. NEXT....we don't all perceive things the same way. NEXT. Some of us have things we like to be more realistic than others. The ideal solution is....OPTIONS / PREFERENCES. But, preferences take time to implement, and you don't work on preferences before you have the base functionality in. I'm not against implementing anything...I am against no adequate Return on Investment....and the effort to implement any particular preference will have to be evaluated at the appointed time. Are we going to put in feature "X"? Maybe. -tk

This from a few days ago: http://forums.x-pilot.com/topic/8581-ixeg-before-christmas/#entry90703