tkyler

NOTE: This is my candid opinion and version....and I present it as a form of "history for the curious from Tom Kylers perspective". I am quite sure others' perspectives will differ. Any attempts to argue these points in this post will result in a rapidly locked thread. The finer points of some of the high level statements below are best left buried here. Such points can only be dredged up over many hours of spoken words and beer. In the beginning was x-plane.org. It was a true dotorg, non-profit and for the community. In the early days, it subsisted on sales of coffee cups and T-shirts to cover some costs. It grew at a nice pace. Over time, the ownership changed hands a few times. The org became THE place to share x-plane information, scenery, aircraft and such and many of us were regular contributors to add-ons and knowledge. The current owner saw this value and purchased the org several years back and turned it into more of a business. He operates a store there and of course the forums and free downloads draws folks to the domain. There was no competition to sell x-plane add-ons at this time. (pre 2009) In 2008, I created a product for sale, the Mitsubishi MU-2, but before I sold it....I had very particular needs and specifications that I insisted upon as a vendor of 3rd party aircraft. I felt as though the x-plane add-on world, at the time, did not portray the kind of quality the rest of the flight sim world (i.e. FSX users) was used to and in order to draw more FSX folks to what x-plane was capable of, I felt we needed better products and better marketing. There were products being sold on x-plane.org and marketed as "the best of x-plane", but these products were getting insulted by the FSX community. I didn't much like that as I felt it was stifling x-plane growth. I had a dialog with x-plane.org concerning selling my MU-2 there but we could not come to terms to my satisfaction. I approached the now-owner of X-Aviation and requested he build a new store for my product and in 2009, X-Aviation opened its doors with the MU-2 as its sole product and built on a platform of high quality....the definition of which is, of course, subjective. We had been spreading word of the MU2 during its development through x-plane.org and when I didn't sell the MU2 there, it was seen as a bit of a slap to the ownership by some. But you see, for the longest time, the org had no such alliances with any commercial interests....but with the new ownership, the forums were now inextricably linked with the store. I personally viewed this as a potential conflict of interest given the spirit of the org and its .org domain. I made the case to switch it to a .com and I'd be satisfied, but did not like that the site moved forward under the guise of a "open" dotorg, given its link with the store. There were hints that the forums were only open to "supporters of the org business model". The forums became an advertising ground for the org store. So, when it came out that x-plane.org had competition, words began to get exchanged behind the scenes, feelings were hurt, X-Aviation and myself were deemed "arrogant" and narcissistic...and creating another store came across as "our stuff is too good to be sold on your site". Once feelings were hurt, then views began to become skewed and what is true gets lost to one's perspective, tinted by their emotions...we are all subject to this. To make matters worse, a few other developers came to X-Aviation to sell their products here and they were rejected due to a lack of quality...that really pissed off some folks too. Some of those folks now sell at the org store but one went back to the drawing board, upped his quality and came back to X-Aviation....so not everybody took the rejection in the same way. That person went on to be part of the LES team that sells the SAAB 340. So it was that in the course of words exchanged, some publicly, some behind the scenes...x-plane.org banned several of us from the org and we had no 'home' per se.....and so we created X-Pilot as a 'free' community. Again, by doing this , we further insinuated that the org was now a dictatorship and if you didn't support the leadership, you found yourself cast out.....Animosity flourished further. There were cases were innocent users would purchase my MU2 at x-aviation, post a picture of it on the org, unawares of the link between the forums and the store... and that users post would summarily disappear from the org. A few users got vocal about this and were banned from the org also. Those users inevitably came to the only alternative...and x-pilot started life as a band of 'outcasts' from the org...malcontents who complained all the time and bad-mouthed the org. Feelings of key developers and distributors really got hurt during this time in x-plane history. As with any breakaway, it wasn't pretty and we were scrapping for our place in the x-plane world against a juggernaut....so yes, we were a bit edgy at the time. These stories are buried here on x-pilot somewhere I'm sure. In the heat of battle, some folks were banned from x-pilot as well just to keep the peace. Both sides were stalwart that their 'ways' were justified. Only a few folks know all the facts and we all seem to interpret the facts differently. Time passed. Since that early beginning, X-Pilot and X-Aviation have grown steadily and healthily, fueled by persons that say, "we should do things X way"....while the org and its developers are fueled by persons that say, "we should do things Y way"...competition 101...and these ways are different and we don't agree on many things....and a lot of folks still have hurt feelings. A lot of us have also moved on, feeling that those early days are typical of any early business battle/growth and we are no longer at the same place we were then. Apologies by all parties have not been forthcoming over time though so bad blood still persists with some...not terribly unexpected, we can still remain civil though. I myself have sincerely reached out to everyone that I know I offended to apologize. To this day, I still harbor no ill-will, see the past as a struggle we had to go through to be where we are today. So, finally..... regarding the forums, X-Pilot was never intended to be a replacement for the file sharing that goes on at the org...sure we have a file library here, but it seriously lacks compared to the org and really only exists to give people with sufficient conviction an alternative to post their work. X-Pilot was created just so us old-timer outcasts could communicate. I would simply tell you that the owner of the org forums DOES own the org store as well and does not tolerate what I would term, "sending folks away from his site", so post no links to the outside world or competition for sure! I myself have come to respect his position, albeit reluctantly in the early going. The org is a fantastic place to discuss and interact with the community, get information and answers about a great many things. I will not tell you to favor one forum over the other, you should judge the merits of each based on what you expect and further receive from each. Each forum has a different 'tone' and the size/resources of each make for a different atmosphere at each. I WILL say though, that with regards to x-plane add-on development and operation, that x-pilot has a few folks with very deep knowledge who are unable to contribute to questions/conversations should they be put forth on the org only. -tkyler

The problem we've seen with Navigraph is that their format for procedures is inconsistent. We obviously have to write code to parse the file and interpret the procedures and Navigraph will have, in the same file, two separate syntax for the same type of procedure...and while we read one of them fine, there is a new one in there also that would take a bit of effort to parse. What this means is that if you use the navigraph dataset, then some procedure will be missing from the FMS. Ultimately, we can add code to parse this "strange syntax", but its not our first choice. The fact that there is two 'competing' syntax in the file for the same procedure type doesn't make any sense and we'd rather navigraph correct the issue. If they do that, then there is absolutely no problem with using the navigraph format. We will look into the issue post release. -tkyler

We hope so, we make no promises, only have a target and we are really close. Not at the time of release, simply because we have not had time to look into integrating it. It is high on our list after release though. That will have to wait a bit, busy trying to get the product done this year -tkyler

VNAV is still a WIP. For proper vnav work, you need 'full routes' and so I had to go back and stabilize a lot of route editing features before going on to full VNAV work....hence the video.... Now that being said, VNAV is quite a ways along already...and I will be returning to it this week more than likely. I have to work my way through a few bugs we found with regards to (VECTOR) waypoint types...not unexpected...but we have to clean it up just the same. VNAV and associated progress pages (progress, climb, descent, enroute) are the last few pieces we have to get in place. -tkyler

No concrete plans at this time. We will probably evaluate later. IMO, it would be a whole lot of work for not a whole lot of return (the aircraft would still operate similarly)...and its been difficult enough finding time to execute this one. The change isn't as simple as 'elongating / shortening' the fuselage.....BUT...we'll still look at it eventually and make a determination then. -tkyler

In addition, we are providing a series of tutorial PDFs that are aimed at newbies to airliners. We will not be providing official Boeing documentation...its a bit overwhelming, comes with a rather expensive copyright license and not the best source for folks who want to learn about airliner operation in a progressive manner. Though a developer here, I am NOT an airliner guy...at least not yet, I am quite the beginner myself and we are going to leverage my ignorance here to help develop more comprehensive training resources suitable to folks like us to bring us up to speed over time. -tkyler

I am not sure what a "user friendly way" is.....but if you enter the minimum required data, then the V-speeds are calculated and you can "double-click" on the V-speeds (once to copy them to the scratchpad...2nd click to 'apply' them) to get them applied to the speed tape on the EADI. Jan demonstrates this in one of his videos.....though my old brain can't remember which. -tkyler

Certainly we have thought about it and my personal take on is, "make it a preference". Of course the nature of implmenting the preference in a reliable way demands some forethought..maybe not much, but certainly not none. We are on a fast track to getting a accurate and operable aircraft out, but will give up on what we call, "conveniences" until after the initial release. Its been five years, time to get something out the door and our position is as long as you can operate the aircraft fully and reliably (for VATSIM ops and realistic operation), that we'll take that for an initial release. That being said...you can see from the videos that the controls are quite operable and dare we say, "natural" after a bit of usage....not perfect, but not bad. There are times I wish I had a scroll wheel, but its few and far between. ....so lack of the feature is definetly not a reason to withold release. Our list of TODOs, post release is decently long: more animations, more preferences, hardware integration, failures module, more convenience tools, etc. Which ones get addressed first, or make it out the door before the initial release remains to be seen. -tkyler

There is a winglet version, and you can switch between winglet and non-winglet "on the fly" if you wish.

Hi all. We'll start this new forum off with a section regarding the FMS and autopilot because that just happens to be what we are working on. If you have any questions about the FMS/AP, this will be the place to post it. The FMS is still a work in progress but we are toiling on it every single day and things are coming together well. One reason we have taken a long time on the project, besides doing it in our spare time, is we really want to get the FMS 'right'. We expect our 737 to see heavy use on VATSIM and it is critical that users be able use the FMS reliably, especially for any change ATC might through at you unexpectedly. With our IXEG pilot guru, Captain Jan Vogel being a current, real-world airline pilot, nobody knows better what we absolutely must get right in order to recreate the pilot experience. For the last few weeks, we have been working on route editing features. It is surprising just how complex things can get. In all cases though, the FMS needs to be able to process your input, even a mistake or a change in mind and generate a flyable route. Below is a little video that showcases some of the route editing features of our FMS! NOTE: DO subscribe to our YouTube channel if you want to be informed of future videos! Also, if you're new to our YouTube Channel, be sure to check other videos by Jan! If you have seen any of Jan's videos, you know how good they are for learning! -Tom Kyler

That does look very cool, I hope you guys hit a home run. An old timer like me would quite enjoy flying the MadDog in X-Plane. -Tom Kyler

It is not a priority at the moment. We are totally focused on the FMS and its quite like a bridge where the middle hasn't been built...so there isn't much to show that hasn't been shown in previous videos. We are wrapping up the descent portion of the VNAV calculations...then we have to program up the enroute navigation to be able to get complete routes entered into the FMS. I think we may do one more video before release after the FMS is a bit more complete. Best I can do is simply show you where I sit every day, 6 days a week now in an effort to get this thing functional asap! -tkyler

It is the rendering settings....kind of. In plane-maker, there is a checkbox for specific objects whereby it tells x-plane to "not reduce the texture resolution" when you scale back your rendering settings. This is intended for exactly this kind of situation, to allow you to reduce texture resolution for scenery or objects "not in front of the camera" while keeping other textures (i.e. cockpit) hi-rez and readable. McPhat might have missed this one when developing their plane...its an easy fix though. The trick is to find which object uses that texture, then go into plane-maker and check that checkbox for that object. Alternatively, you can check it for all of the objects and then the plane would probably look spectacular....but consume in inordinate amount of VRAM. -tkyler

Hi all, So a quick report here, since I am unable to post at the org. As we have said, we are targeting a 2015 release still. We know full well we have to stop developing at some point and just put this thing out; however, we also feel there is a minimum functionality with regards to the operational model and FMS that we must attain. It will not be 100%, but neither can it be 70%. We are pushing for operational features that we have not seen in any product in x-plane...so it is taking a goodly amount of time to work through these issues for the first time. The good news? I can tell you that I have quit every other revenue producing endeavor I was working on (and there were some really good ones) to devote all my time to the 737 here until release. I code on the FMS each day, moving forward and am very hopeful we'll have a solid functioning airplane by the end of the year for you. The team have discussed that we would happily delay developing "fun eye candy" until after initial release if it comes to that......most important is that users get to operate the aircraft accurately, and we can always add in 'toys' later. We have all been disappointed with simulations that have more eye candy that substance. So while we still won't guarantee a release date, we are putting more hours into it now as we make a run to the finish line. -tkyler

If you drag a second button out, it will be tied to "index 2"....or a 2nd HSI if one exists. I would drag out two buttons and mark one of them "copilot" as smetal60 suggested above. -TomK

The state of the cabin is shown in Jan's 4-video series on our IXEG YouTube channel...re: cold and dark startup. We moved from the cabin work to the FMS a good while back and will indeed revisit the cabin to bring it up several notches prior to release...but for now, what you see in those videos is where it is now. Not up to our release standards, but a placeholder till we get back to it. the 3D goes very fast compared to other works. I expect we'll rework the entire cabin within a 2 week window of time in the near future. TomK

I couldn't say at this time. We will be discussing it however in the next few weeks. Certainly we want our 737 to be fully representative of the real aircraft. Nearing 4.5 years of development though, we are about ready to concede a few things for our initial release, especially less frequently used features. Now that being said, we do not plan to rest on any laurels should we receive any after the release. There is a "line" that we have set for ourselves prior to release. We'll just have to wait and see. TomK

Major milestones in the last few weeks. Any questions?

OK...last video before Christmas...a good one at 15 minutes+ highlighting subtle under the hood details and Jan's phenomenal competence! Merry Christmas all....back to work we go!

The Falco actually sits a good way toward 64-bit compatibility but enough remains that it needs a window of time I can't fit into my schedule at the moment. The good news is that the Falco will see 64-bit light of day (barring my untimely death) and improved when it does....and it will be a great value too. TomK

another addition some may like.

LITs are not part of the specular pipeline no. Just the "daytime" light source. Consult the file format specifications for which entities can accept what....however, I'm not sure how up-to-date it is. It if were me, I'd certainly try the normal map effect on some items anyhow. http://wiki.x-plane.com/Category:Scenery_File_Formats

Well we should be very careful about our terminology. The term "normal map" inherently implies a "bump like" map, which is achieved using the RGB channels of the texture. If you say "normal", then you automatically mean "bump". Here is where things get interesting. If x-plane uses the RGB channels of an image for bump effects, then that leaves the alpha channel of that same image (if it has one) free. The alpha channel is simply a grayscale component of what is called a "RGBA" image and you can use the alpha channel of a "normal map" to control shininess if you choose. What you get here then is "two for one". You get both specular AND normal information in one image, saving some VRAM. Most other programs might use a separate grayscale image for the specular and then yet another image for the normal map....thereby having to load up two images. Why not use the same image for both???...well that is what x-plane does. BUT.....lets say you didn't care about the "bump stuff"...you only want the "shininess" part. ...well, let me back up..... The real reason x-plane has two ways of affecting shininess is typically bump/normal maps only use a small percentage of their pixel area for actual bump effects....which wastes VRAM for the other pixels. 9 out of 10 times, what you really want is just the specular effect. So Laminar said, "OK, you can choose to use a "grayscale" image if you are only concerned about shininess only. As far as the "alpha channel" funnies go....it only causes funnies if you have an alpha channel in the grayscale image. If you have an alpha channel in an RGB image, then indeed that alpha channel will be used by x-plane for specular effects. If the RGB image has NO alpha channel, then all you get is bump effects. So as a artist you have 3 choices: Use a grayscale only image (never any alpha channel in grayscale).....this controls specular effects in combination with GLOBAL_specular 1.0 Use a RGB image (no alpha channel) for bump effects only. (no specular effects with this option...and therefore GLOBAL_specular 1.0 directive not needed) Use a RGBA image where the RGB part of the image controls bump effects...and the alpha channel is used to control specular effects. Use this option when you want BOTH bump and specular effects on an object. With this option you DO need the GLOBAL_specular 1.0 directive. Note that the alpha channel of a RGBA image is just a grayscale image....so its possible to do a specular map as a grayscale image, and then later, if you want to add bump effects, simply paste the grayscale image into the alpha channel of your RGBA image...and then do your bump effects in the RGB channels. TomK Oh...and FWIW, the '1.0' part of GLOBAL_specular 1.0 simply means, "white pixels are as shiny as x-plane can make it". You can lower this value to 0.8, or 0.3 or whatever in order to lower the overall effect on the object globally. A value of zero will make the object wholly dull with no specular highlights at all.

Actually, ATTR_shiny_rat, though it still works, it is a deprecated feature. The modern method of making shiny parts of a model is by adding the text directive to the OBJ text file: GLOBAL_specular 1.0 The line above can be added to the header of the object file, just below the TEXTURE entries. What this line does though, is tell x-plane that the object also has either a normal map texture or a grayscale specular texture. So when using the above directive, you should also have in the object file header a directive like so: TEXTURE_NORMAL SomeTextureName_NML.png That directive will work for both RGB normal maps and grayscale specular maps. X-Plane will simply look at the image and if its grayscale only, then it will only affect shininess. If there is RGB information in the image, then that will affect the bump and the alpha channel will be used for the shininess/specular. A "grayscale image" is a very specific image type in Photoshop/GIMP...not just an image that is gray or has been desaturated so you have to explicitly set your image type to grayscale if you want to control shininess only. (and not bump also) Note that if you use a grayscale only image to control shininess, then that image should contain no alpha channel. This trips up lots of folks and leads to weird things. Once you have those two lines in the header of the object file, then you simply use the grayscale UV image to control shininess. white is fully shiny, black if fully dull and gray is "in the middle". Below is an example of a grayscale specular image used on the F4 phantom. You'll note the brightest color is essentailly a dark gray. Basically this means there is no shiny parts at all on the F4. The whiter the texture, the shinier the part. TomK

Here's a tiny little bit of visual progress as a result of the FMS coding. There is a large amount of infrastructure code to handle route editing, calculation and entry....and what you see here is the beginnings of tying this foundation code into the CDU display itself, beginning with SIDs. Current work is to tie this code into all procedure entry and then into the LEG and RTE pages. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/955680/CDU2.mp4