tkyler

These planes probably "paid off" a long time ago, which means these are some of their more profitable aircraft. That is offset by maintenance I'm sure but its as simple as "are they making profit". At some point, the operating cost, upkeep, risk and even passenger perception will begin to make these not so attractive, but on paper, they are probaby still turning profits. It makes sense to keep them along as they make money with an calculable amount of risk. Regarding the -300 model. Way back when, we did this because the x737 was making good progress and we did not want to overlap work. We do not see things the same way now of course, but it is what it is...HOWEVER, this -300 has really really grown on us. We kind of get the best of many worlds. We have a reasonably modern EHSI / EADI with an FMS so we get all the fun from flight planning and dancing with the magenta line...but we also get a little bit of nostalgia from the steam gauges. We have put enormous effort into making the steam gauges look and feel absolutely realistic. If you watch some of Jans videos in-flight, you might have caught a bit of motion blur on the RMI DME scrolling digits. You might also have noticed the "servo powered" mechanical speedbug on the ASI during power up. Combined with a lot of attention to detail in the sound department, we think this aircraft is tons of fun to fly and really immersive. Considering a lot of -300s are still in service today speaks volumes that its certainly still viable. TomK

Very much so. We have taken a bit of a break this summer but are steadily working on the FMS system. There is simply not much to show during this phase. A whole lot of core code has to be written before the fun stuff can be seen. We are well into it though and moving along steadily. It will be many months yet; however, the FMS is the last significant work to be done before we begin to prepare for distribution. TomK

I flew Southwest airlines last week on a -300, with winglets AND a mechanical ADI / HSI. That caught me by surprise, but I'm telling you I saw it with my own two eyes. TomK

Nothing to show. We're in a short hiatus at the summer transition...I have kids moving out and into college, etc and had to take some time for other obligations. We'll be rolling along shortly though and will show whatever it is we think might be worthy. It will be quiet for some time though as most of the 3D is done and we will work on programming and docs etc. TomK

Possible? Certainly. But we will not have this option at release. TomK

For other's interested, when creating an aircraft in plane-maker, an aircraft author can make any point they choose a datum (0, 0, 0, point). Many developers make the Cg of the airplane the datum which means that points aft will be positive values and points forward will be negative values as that is x-plane's aircraft coordinate systems (+z towards the rear) One reason it is convenient to make the Cg the datum is that when custom programming, x-plane uses the Cg of the aircraft to represent the aircraft' position in space. It is mostly a personal preference, I myself use the nose (or thereabouts) as the datum as I typically try and use the same data found in maintenance documentation but any point can be a datum, even at the tip of the tail. TomK

Fabian, the Saab uses an earlier version of the soundExtreme® sound engine. The current development version of this sound engine does allow for custom sounds during reply mode; however, it would still be up to the developer (LES) to ensure the sounds are calibrated properly for reply mode. What this means for you is that replay sounds will probably make it into the Saab at some point but not until an updated engine is available to them. The sound engine is developed by the IXEG team and so probably won't be available to LES for a few months yet. TomK

PeterT, we will not be providing a lite version. It takes a bit of work to do so and results in maintaining multiple versions of products. That translates into more time maintaining and supporting and less time developing/improving. Restaurants don't have to maintain their dishes after they are put on the table, food is "fire and forget". The 737 can work "fail free" and we will have a mode to start the aircraft running and ready to go, which is quite easy to fly, drop flaps, release brakes, add power, fly. You are not required to work or understand any of the systems in any such case, just don't run out of fuel. If we did a lite version, it would operate exactly the same. If, however, you were hoping for a lower priced lite version, that is not going to happen. TomK IXEG

For the most part, we have structured our code to run in such a way that if you start "mid-air", then everything will work; however, there is usually some type of "glitch" because at the instant a aircraft loads, it loads with several default x-plane values and THEN our code begins to run and that tiny little gap between x-plane's code and ours running causes some seconds of hiccups. It's like if someone were to push you over, you'd take a second to recover and stabilize. Regarding full start ups...we do not really do that a lot at this stage, we have a mode where we start with everything ready to go. For a lot of systems stuff, we don't need to be in the air so all the testing is done on the ground. For flight testing though, it depends on what we're testing as to how far we'll go. For myself, testing some type of landing scenario...like auto-spoilers or such, yea, we just set x-plane to 3 miles out repeatedly....and get the airplane enough under control after loading the scenario to make the landing and test the systems. TomK

We have put up a somewhat different kind of video. This one is a more candid "over the shoulder" look at a developer testing the overall simulation experience during a crosswind landing. These types of flights are usually performed dozens of times over, each time looking for anything out of place, a light, a sound, a movement or aircraft handling issues that might need to be addressed. We thought perhaps users might like the honest nature of the video as its not planned out or edited and is therefore a great example of seeing exactly the way the aircraft is operated by normal x-plane users with a regular joystick and mouse. After a small bit of practice, you can get around the aircraft cockpit very well with little effort.

The interaction we have implemented is very much designed to mimic reality in a cognitive fashion as Jan describes above...it IS a PITA, no shortcuts here. A real knob, you turn as far as your hands allow, then reset your hand, turn again, over and over and over. In our sim, you grab-drag, reset, grab-drag, reset, over and over and over again...it is very much the same action to the brain. There is no magic button in reality for these knobs so we've left it out. I can guarantee it gets to be 2nd nature in no time...you can see in the videos how fluid Jan is with the controls. We are interested in presenting what we believe is a more accurate and natural paradigm provided us by modern methods...and we think folks will like it.

Based on the exact example you wrote above, the newer throttle dataref needs a array index after it, like [0] just like the old one does. If you forgot that, then it definitely wouldn't work. The "old" sim/cockpit and newer sim/cockpit2 datarefs will mirror each other when applicable. The old ones are mostly deprecated for aircraft dev and OBJ use. I don't believe I have used an "old dataref...(sim/cockpit) in quite some time and I've done quite a few planes top to bottom. If you did use the [0] index with the newer throttle dataref and it still does not work, then there is something else at play because all the datarefs work fine. A sure-fire way for us to help diagnose is to post the cockpit *.obj file here for examination (the exported text file, not the blender one). TomK

The videos tend to make things a bit dark unfortunately due to all sorts of compression and conversion issues. So here is a direct from sim screen shot of what it looks like with everything cranked up, albeit on an overcast day so its dark on purpose. This is what the "lucky ones" with a 4GB video card will probably get to fly with. MAYBE the 2GB VRAM crowd depending on other settings. This is max everything at 1920x1080. My 512 card was giving me....oh....about 10sec / frame. Here you can see the quality of the texturing and lighting a bit better.

Part 2 of KILM > KJFK is up a bit early

As part of some experimenting that I'm doing, I've put together a little web app that aircraft authors can use to browse and filter datarefs quickly...similar to Dataref Editor (DRE) in x-plane. If you normally use the list of datarefs found at xsquawkbox.net, this will be welcome relief. Simply type in a search string and hit enter to filter the dataref results. Case insensitivity is included in the searches by default because well, Austin wasn't the most consistent in this area. Also, the search box supports PERL style GREP expressions. So you can search for things like: cockpit2.+actuators.+ratio which would list all cockpit actuators that set a ratio value. In addition, there is a quick filter pull down that lets you filter by common categories depending on authoring needs. For example, you may be animating a cockpit in blender and only need to be concerned with actuators and controls...or you're just working on Landing gear stuff. This is a 'practice app' that I'm using to learn some specific things. The tech I'm using is what is called "reactive" in the sense that if I make a code change and upload it, you will see the reaction automatically without you having to refresh the page ...so if you're browsing with the app and all the sudden the page looks like its refreshing, then you know I have made a change. The changes I will most likely make will be visual and/or to increase the filter options or perhaps add a few checkboxes for whatever reason. There is no plan, this is just a sandbox project that I happen to find very useful at the moment and figure other authors might as well. The app is hosted as a "guest" on its server, so no telling how long it was persist. TomK http://drbrowser.meteor.com/

We call that "stealing thunder" Harry. People love being the first to break news. The general rule though would be to respect the developers and let them have the thunder as a reward for their hard work. That's probably why Nicolas was defensive. TomK

nvrmind

Critical altitude is specifically for propeller aircraft. Use the "Jet Curves" settings to tweak jet engine performance at altitude. TomK

Not much to tell. With the 3D very close to completion, we are focusing on the FMS. Being this is our first project and not having the benefit of being involved in FMS programming prior/leveraging others code or reusing our own existing code yet, we are having to create the FMS from scratch.....and well, it takes a while. I expect things to be very quiet on the forums for some time while we continue on this path as there will be nothing to show until its complete. I will say we are well into it though and moving along predictably. Do not think that lack of screenshots or updates of visual items means the product is stalled. This programming thing will go on for a few months yet. When the FMS is finished; however, we will begin the "wrapping up process", which involves punchlist 3D items, beta testing, document proofreading, marketing, tutorial development, distribution infrastructure and will easily take several months also. We are on the home stretch, but its a long one. TomK

It will be available in 64-bit at some point though I can't say exactly when. It is about 90% towards that goal now and the remaining work I have not found the time to do given other responsibilities. I hope to find a window of time in the upcoming months to bring it into the 64-bit world and make it viable for several more years to come. TomK

Well we have some thoughts on that. One thing that you get with a "boeing license'...is a license to not only put the boeing name on your product, but also use boeing copyrighted material, including pilot handbooks. Most developers do not like writing customized documentation...it is absolutely tedious work. You need a template, standards and guidelines, standardized headers and graphics, a revision management system, etc. etc (yes we have that). Why do all that when you can just toss the user the real manual and save yourself all that time? I mean, by skipping customized documentation, you can shave months off your delivery date. I'll tell you why, because sim users don't hve 1300+ hours of flying experience and dedicated hours of training. Part of the appeal is having a simulation that you are confident represents the real thing thoroughly, but also having someone show you "the ropes" and walk you through using and enjoying it. We have desgined into the product a series of training manuals to help newbies jump in right away and get flying as soon as they "open the box" but with opportunity for more tutorials in the future. This whole hobby isn't just about the simulation itself, its the enjoyment and satisfaction we get from reading, learning, doing and mastering. We want to help users along the way with that and let them get the most out of it. That is an immense benefit we get with Jan...you get a real airline pilot with real airline experience who is also a dedicated flight simmer and a natural at teaching to help users get the most of out of the simulation. The complexity in most of those products in our opionion isn't the complexity of the aircraft, its the complexity of the documentation Here's a snippet from just one of our WIP training booklets. We'll be shipping with 4 at least, probably more though and will introduce others in the future. TomK IXEG

well certainly the org's right and perogative. I have no issues with it any more. TK

Alan. I caught your question at the org but do not have posting priveleges there. Regarding your mixture on the 172, X-Plane's mixture ratio goes from 0-1 BUT does not really do anything from 0 - 0.48 except cut off the engine < 0.48 or so. A mixture ratio of 0.49 will BARELY allow the engine to run. At mixture ratio > 0.5, the engine will then be able to run. I'd recommend animating your mixture handle from 0.45 - 1.0....but you'll probably have to use some show/hide tweak as x-plane defaults the mixture ratio to zero when starting cold and dark and your generic graphic would probably not look right at a mixture ratio position of zero. TomK

Mick, Default x-plane, like FSX, comes with marginal complexity. The GPS system is currently not very featured BUT is going to get a pretty sizable update in the very near future. Now that being said, you will not be getting FMS style functionality out of the box.. Only the 3rd party add-ons, again like FSX, will have FMS functionality with SID/STAR and route mapping abilities. There are only 3 aircraft currently that have this, the CRJ200, 777 and 757...all using the same code base by the same author so they will all have a similar feel. There are other 3rd party aircraft in the works with that will also have FMS functionality and I'm sure more will make their way into x-plane in the future. Folks are so used to acquiring add-ons for FSX, they routinely 'think' of their addons as default after a while. When folks move over to x-plane, they forget how much money they spent on FSX add-ons to get all that goodness...but that's just the way it is. X-Plane has some catching up to do and it will get there. It has been built from the ground up with stronger and more accessible "legs" than FSX and I believe we will see x-plane carry flight simming where FSX has not. TomK

Seeing as there are two contrails coming out of it.......I'll go with a 757.