tkyler
-
Posts
2,810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
560
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Latest X-Plane & Community News
Events
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by tkyler
-
-
15 hours ago, fleurenf said:
Greetings, I thought the manual indicated that the condition levers were assigned to the ‘props’ command?
Sorry, I should have clarified more. What I meant to say is that sometimes hardware levers are mapped to "mixture" when they should not be at all. If they are, then 'noisy' hardware, which is super common, can set the fuel flow to 'zero', thereby keeping the engines from starting. So yes, the condition levers should be assigned to props as documented, but then NO levers should be assigned to mixture. If hardware ships with configuration files that have pre-assigned the levers to parameters , then they have to be expressely set to none (or not mixture at least).
-tk
-
15 minutes ago, Tomlinson said:
Can you help me figure out how i can get this plane to start
Do you have a Honeycomb Bravo hardware per chance? The most common culprit is hardware that is mapped to "mixture" and this hardware sets the mixture value to 0. The Honeycomb stuff sometimes have preset profiles for their levers. This 'mixture' value in X-Plane, doesn't really mean mixture in the 'recip engine' sense, but rather "fuel flow to the engine", so its applicable to turboprops too.
The second most common culprit is a lack of fuel in the center tank, which feeds the engines.
For a first troubleshooting test, I recommend you remove all hardware and try to start the aircraft using only the mouse, making sure you have fuel in the center tank. If that works, then we can focus on hardware.
-tkyler
-
28 minutes ago, Aeropole657 said:
Question: Might it be possible to have a variant without the cabin?
That is very possible, not terribly difficult or long to implement actually; however, I'd have to give the full implementation some thought. If I don't get that implemented by the initial release, I'll look at it fairly quickly after though....Its not a bad idea at all. I know there are lots of folks like yourself who only view the IXEG from the cockpit and external views. I'm unsure the FPS savings though, but will test.
-tkyler
-
3
-
-
Ok...a little more on the -ish side than the morning side, but here's a peek into the cabin lighting as I tested the functionality.....with the intro showing some cabin door interaction. The video compression is a bit heinous though.
-
12
-
-
6 hours ago, VirtualGAaviator said:
Care to elaborate?
its a fancy way of saying "reprogramming". We use a very old XML data format for our navigation data for the FMS...and we are wanting to move to XPlane's 'V11' navdata format , which is bit more modern with regard to flight plan leg types. So I have to "reprogram" all my code that parses these navdata files.
You can expect a new 3D exterior at some point. Its my goal to make the IXEG as 'modern' as can be, similar to the MU2, so that it can be viable for many years to come. It takes a while, but if done right, it also lasts a while.
And squeezing in a 'pop-report', I'll be wrapping up the last of the 'port +' visual mods today and focusing on the last few items in our todo list. I have a 10 day break for Oshkosh here beginning in about a week, but right after, we'll start the packaging for deployment process. I'll post a more in-depth video tomorrow morning ~ish (GMT-6) on the visual improvements...till then, here's the rear galley lighting.
-tk
-
12
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, FlyingToLearn said:
Those countless hours of coding/programming sure are appreciated!
Thank you for the encouraging words. Some times it seems like this process never ends. Every finished task seems to illuminate another. ...and to think this is just the "V12 Port +" process. I can't wait to redo the entire 3D exterior and refactor the navdata code
.
-tk
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, doglover said:
Any updates? Really excited to fly this bird in xp12.
you and me both. Still working on it every day (except weekends...really need my mental breaks)....there's just tons of little details to tend to, especially with lighting control and tweaks. I just finished swapping out all the old exterior lighting with the new V12 lighting yesteday, so that's the latest thing I worked on. Still moving down the punchlist.
-tk
-
19
-
-
On 6/25/2023 at 9:27 AM, ThorBrasil said:
any chance of releasing a 4k texture pack in PBR for the cockpit
not very likely no. The cockpit texture, being the center of attention and in view for the majority of the time was optimized quite well for 96 DPI monitors IMO and still looks good......assuming a reasonable camera distance from surfaces. Also, since we did this work way back when, before Substance Painter was a thing...it'd be a massive undertaking to try that.
Of course if you put the camera quite close to a surface, there will be 'jaggies', but philosophically, I'm not in that camp. I'd rather optimize performance for the 95% use case (pilot-ish viewpoint +/-) rather than the 5% use case (peruse 3D closeup under a microscope after buying).
-tk
-
12
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the inputs @rosseloh, this post is logged and very good feedback. Definitely some of those bugs are known and on my list already. I certainly need to go over some of these items again, I do know that XP12 and recent updates have altered some behaviors, particular with GPS stuffs that I expect to have to re-test and adjust. I talked to Philipp at the FSExpo about the reverse issue and hopefuly he'll take another look at that. I'm reluctant to override the engine model as its all or nothing, so if I do that, I have to simualte the entire engine which would be a big job, whereas Laminar is about 95% there, so I really want to get them to fix this on their end. That reverse thing drives me nuts. Thx for your patience, I'll keep toiling away steadily and eventually we'll get all this stuff going.
-tkyler
-
9 hours ago, Anthony Clark said:
You can fly a fully coupled approach down to minimums in a 172, but not in an MU-2?
that's correct. And it is because of the older autopilot in the MU-2. Its a lot easier to retrofit an autopilot in a simple 172 than the more complex MU2 and being the 172 market is easily 10x the size of the MU-2 market, gaining certifications for such an AP retrofit is a no-brainer for the 172 market, but never made fiscal sense for the small MU-2 market.
-tk
-
-
6 minutes ago, Rick310 said:
You ain't nothing. Move on. F#$% you.
a chink in the armor perhaps? Ok...not 4 yo......maybe 5. I don't think I was cursing at 4.
-
2 minutes ago, Rick310 said:
whether intentionally to get a rise out of folks or not I can't say of course
well now I know the answer to that question.
2 minutes ago, Rick310 said:Is this the best you got?
At my age yes. Maybe when I was 4 I could keep up with you. Best I have now is for me to move on.
-
1 hour ago, Rick310 said:
I have ask this thread be locked and you refused. Now this is your fault.
I find your candor strangely fascinating, like something out of some kind of social experiment....strangely refreshing from typical PC rhetoric; however, you wield it poorly IMO, .... whether intentionally to get a rise out of folks or not I can't say of course. But as you pointed out, we all reap what we sow. both us and you.
-
7 hours ago, Rick310 said:
Please lock this tread. It is getting ugly.
Not going to do that, but suffice to say this is all just conjecture and speculation by all of us. ...its just 'conversation', not much more that that. None of us know what will happen, but we all have our thoughts. I myself think XPlane is not in any danger of dying any time soon...just my opinion
-tkyler
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, scooke7 said:
XP12 is finished....long before it even started
we've been listening to these type of claims for 20+ years. Granted that differing folks use different words to describe how they feel about things.....to each their own.....but this is simply bombastic IMO.
Have you ever thought about writing for CNN or Fox News? Your commentary would be absolutely SHOCKING, the likes of which have never been heard in the history of the world.
-tkyler
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Pils said:
Will you do a beta, be it closed or open?
No closed beta, and no plans to call it an open beta at this time. While its been a lot of work porting things over, its been more about calibration of the flight model, flight testing and accomodating some new datarefs than a massive overhaul of the entirety of the system. We'll be on 'rapid standby' after release to address obvious issues though and get critical patches out quickly.
-tkyler
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, GusRodrigues said:
will be able to avoid the sun reflection on glass.
I'm campaigning for this to Laminar.....the ability to exclude light sources from reflective surfaces...but as of this moment, I don't believe we can.
I'll squeeze in a quick report here also. Just completed all the interior cabin texturing....at least 99.5% of it....and now I'm working on the lighting for the rear galley. Lighting for cabin/front galley already done. Next week some time I'll begin the final punchlist items list and we'll start looking to wrap things up to package for release...that's not an overnight step, lots of checks have to be made, but we're definitely coming to the end of this V12 port + process.
I'm going to start calling this the "V12 compatibility patch + (plus)"....becuase its exactly that. A port of the existing V11 functionality to V12, PLUS a few extra 3D stuffs thrown in. I want to make sure people understand this isn't some "V2" with all new 3D throughout, revised FMS/VNAV etc.....that work comes after this release...this is to get folks flying the 733 in V12. Here's a update screenshot of the new cabin/rear galley....the works that's been going on the last 4 weeks.
-tkyler
-
11
-
-
7 hours ago, ayster said:
do the seat belt/no smoking signs light up in the cabin when you flick the appropriate switch in the cockpit?
Yes they will.
-tk
-
6
-
-
1 hour ago, Sanguis_fluit said:
Curious Why is this taking so long long
Well the MU-2 detour work didn't help.....but beyond that, in the world of custom engineering / design work, there are unknowns in the process. Perhaps the results we are able to get out of x-plane might not be what we want and we have to backtrack and try different techniques, or we make conscious choices to implement things we didn't plan on implementing initially. May be the software we use is giving us fits (*cough Substance Painter).
In estimating efforts for stuff like this, I like to call such targets, "personal carrots" we dangle in front of our own faces to keep us moving and motivated. I can reel off a large list of custom efforts that went well beyond time and cost estimates ....by Boeing, NASA, Icon aircraft, Cirrus, Space-X ...really smart folks with billions of bucks to work with etc...so it just comes with the territory. We're happy when we get it right...and just keep our heads down when we don't.
One example though....we have working cabin doors. You can open these doors via the GUI by clicking a checkbox to have the doors open/close. BUT....I guarantee some folks will want to open these doors more like the real thing, by grabbing the handles and rotating them. So....I put that feature in, and it was a bit more work than clicking my heels together 3 times....and when I did that, now the checkboxes via the GUI need to reflect the door state if opened by mouse first. If you open the door halfway with the mouse and then open the GUI dialog....what do you see then, what should the checkboxes show? What feels natural and logical? This disconnect between possible actuation methods caused animating 'jumps' and I had to run a bunch of tests to see what worked and felt logical and natural, and add custom code to handle all that and it just added some extra time, etc. But in the end, I know that the customers that like to move stuff with the mouse will be happy and those that don't care can still use the checkboxes. But until I tried it, I wasn't exactly sure what worked best. I have to view the interactivity in this example from the perspective of a LOT of customers with different preferences and expectations. In the end, its a win-win for all customers, at the expense of my time estimate being delayed because I decided to add in a feature I didn't before, etc.
There's been a few other areas regarding lighting that didn't quite work out like I hoped, eating up too many FPS and I had to backtrack and make some changes there also. Until I tried it though, I wasn't sure what the performance cost would be..and the alternative method turned out to be quite a bit of work. So...its stuff like this that stretches the time estimates.
Your comment though, that you love the product gives me confidence that my choices when doing the work are mostly the right ones, and taking the time to do it right, even if it goes past my estimates, are usually worth it.
-tkyler
-
13
-
2
-
-
slow but steady on the lighting...this is cabin emergency lighting. XP12 has really opened up new opportunities with its lighting engine, though a learning process. Trying to balance lighting effects for a natural look across multiple x-plane 3D objects with multiple light sources is an exercise is patience for sure, but as a simmer since 1981, I can't say I mind. It fascinates me how far these graphics have evolved.
-tkyler
-
16
-
-
1 hour ago, Goofy said:
these two levers are animated, but have no effect.
They should. if you put them in the "locked" position, you will find you won't be able to move your controls. I know this because I spent 15 minutes trying to debug why my hardware throttles weren't working one day....until I realized I had move the control lock levers to forward. Frustrating and a relief at the same time.
What I have not yet simulated though, ergo has no effect... is the alteration of lever position based on 'vibrations' or 'loose rigging'. I"ll put this in eventually...and can't wait for the bug reports when I do.
-tk
-
3
-
2
-
-
Status report,
I just got my hands on V12.06....and the reverse seems only marginally better, still not right IMO. I expect a back and forth with Laminar on this one...and hope we can see eye to eye. If not, I'll have to overwrite and rewrite my own prop governor...not my first choice as it'll take a bit....*sigh
-tk
-
5
-
-
4 minutes ago, manguras said:
I think the flags represent the nationality of everyone who works or has worked on the IXEG project right?
That is correct. Four of us originally. Each of the others on the team have graciously reduced their stake so as to allow me to continue work on it and keep it alive. Without their sacrifice, the IXEG would have reached end of life at V11. I'm eternally grateful to them and wanted to honor them openly this way for their wonderful work. Their fingerprints will always be on the IXEG... Jan Vogel, Nils Danielson and Morten Melhuus! Thx guys!
-tkyler
-
11
-
1
-
Engine Start Issue
in Mitsubishi Marquise MU-2 v2
Posted
@Tomlinson Did you see my post above for you? What is the result of that test?
-tk