Tom Knudsen

I know that sir, anisotropic filtering eliminates aliasing effects and preserving detail at extreme viewing angles. But it also differes from trillinear and anistrophic where x-plane just have tha latter one. In anycase aa tends to prevent blur details, but in my example it does not. And the performance/memory hit is not recognized in X-Plane even though my Nivida is set to "application controlled". Did not try to change the settings in Nividia control panel, but I dont think that would make any difference. Not saying it does not work in game, but i for one cannot see the difference, so to play it safe I set mine at x8 whilst I see others have it at 4

No difference what so ever between x4 and x16, not in quality or in frames - Not sure why this is in render settings when you can use the one in NVIDIA control panel Render x4 AA Cockpit Render x8 AA Cockpit Render x16 AA Cockpit Render x4 AA Outside Render x8 AA Outside Render x16 AA Outside Render x4 AA Close ground Render x8 AA Close ground Render x16 AA Close ground Render settings updated

Done, hope to see others do the same

Spec Intel i7-3770K default stock speed Asus Sabertooth Z77 Motherboard 16GB of DDR3 RAM Nvidia GTX 770 4GB Monitor Resolution 1920x1068 27" X-Plane 10.45 64bit on an 7200RPM SATA Disk IDE setup ENGM by tdg (with bugs) Default Weather no script or plugins, no texture mods Norway Ultra High HD Mesh by Alpilotx

Thanks for clearing that up, then I can remove the IXEG page bookmark

Is this blog discontinued? Seems latest update is Saturday, 23 January 2016 15:38 and pretty much dead after that. Take it most of the updates are done in here, so my question might answer it selves. But nevertheless, any chance of you posting some images, dev pics or films on the webpage/blog?

Thank you Ben for that insight. That pretty much answerd all my questions. I too have had some discussions about Vulcan with Ben, hense this post http://developer.x-plane.com/2016/03/what-vulkan-means-to-developers/ - Also did some tessellation discussion too.. To sum up, we have much to look forward to regardsless of what features next version will prove to provide. But actually I do look more forward to IXEG than anything else Keep up the good work guys..

Ok, so we all are waiting for this excellent aircraft to be released, we are also enjoying X-Plane 10 now more than ever. Things are moving along and new airports, scenery, features are coming along on a daily basis. We had X-Plane 9 for more or less 2 years and we are flying X-Plane10 going on 5 years now with version 10.50 in the making. Which leads me into my question, how are you guys calculating the future in regards to development? Take it everybody have wonderd about the next version of X-Plane, what type of features it will hold, what compabilites it will have to past versions and how easy it will be to port over new developments like the IXEG. Since IXEG has been scheduled for release for what seems to be an enterity i am scared it may not make the X-Plane 10 big release. Scared because I don't know when or if LM is releasing a next version, also scared because it seems that the updates are now incremantal increasing by the factor of 10 which makes the next version a half way point. Is this something you guys have calculated in regards to any release predictions and or have you planned the aircraft to meet i.e. a Vulcan API if ever implemented in XP10 or 11?

First post, three first images

Very impressive and extreme nice 3D.. was it rendered in keyshot?

Glad at least someone knew what i was talking about so thank you for the answers.

Sorry, will try to explain and will use an example Lets say you are decending from from FL100 inbound BAVAD for an RNAV GNSS RWY 19R (GLS approach) and whilst the speed restrictions states 220 knots at 5000 feet you get a "free speed" clearance from approach while you still need to fly the RNAV with all its "hight restrictions" until you capture the ILS? Will IAS settings on the MCP then override the DES page speed restrictions or any manual added speed limit programmed in the LEGS page for each waypoint on the STAR? Reason for asking is that I have heard many of times to controller say i.e. "Cleard OVDI at 4000feet no speed restriction" or "maintain high speed approach".. Perhaps explained already by Tom, but I just wanted to know what happens on the LEGS page and with the navpoint speeds. Will it be calculated by what speed is set on MCP or will it continue to show indicated STAR speeds? To use the picture Tom posted, if decending on VNAV passing DF644 for DF654 where speed is set to 240 and you get a "high speed approach request" due to traffic from ATC making you i.e fly at 280 knots on LNAV, i.e. down to locolizer capture, I take it EFIS will then show FMC SPD, LNAV and on the LEGS PAGE DF654 fix will show /220 calculated hight less you put in a dedicated hight.. So if using my first example again and replacing DF654 with OVDI where /200 at 4000feet is restricted the page will show that and not current IAS??? Hope I managed to explain my self Morten.. and PS.. Will the aircraft down the line have support for SBAS or EGNOS? I take it Jan and Tom knows it as Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)??

But what happen if you get free speed from the approach controller and forget to remove the speed restrictions in the FMS? Does it give you a warning or will the airplane naturally slow down to meet the criteria set in the LEGS page?

Me too, I want to study the 737Classic and this aircraft will be a useful study aid. I will use it as is, and the more detail it has, the more of an study aid it will be to me. Luckily I've had the pleasure of flying the 737-300 and 500 in a true real life simulator. Also I love the 737-300 EFIS instruments over the 737-300 Non-EFIS F/O flight instruments so I tend to favour the NG series. Regardless a 737 for X-Plane is most welcome and highly anticipated. However an classic example of why I do not want to buy this airplane just yet, is the A350.. Whilst a very nice airplane indeed and one of my favorite airplanes, it is still an basic edition. It is said that an Advanced version with a working FMGS will come, but it takes for ever and as far as I know, its not released yet. I was stupid enough to not wait then and most likely I need to spend more money when the advanced verison is released, seems this is the agenda of many developers. Hope it is not the case with IXEG, just a way to increase sales and milk the general public for their money?? Please do not follow examples like SkyMaax and others like it, its just makes for a bad overall product. Good luck and god speed.

I think the last post by Jan and Vantskruv was kinda a wast of time reading on any level of the english language, but thats just me. I can only speak for my self and share my honest opinion to my fellow debaters in hope they would care to read it or not. But I am truly a fan of Jan and his 1. dedication to IXEG and X-Plane community by his population of airports and teaching about the 737, I welcome that with all my heart and mind. I have also followed Tom since he first launched MU-2 back in 2008 and I have known Mortens work since his earlier days in X-Plane 8, heck I even remember all the heated discussions with him on the norwegian forums back in the day.. That said I did not fully start to use X-Plane since it become XP10 but used periodicly XP all the way during v8 and 9.. Lack of 3D cockpits was one of the main reasons for me using FS which had been the flavour since FS98 back in the earlier days. And I do belive my obsession for the system simulation was born on the ACE Combat Simulator when pcs was running at DX2-100Mhz and the arcitechture was only 386.. Seems so far away now, but then again so does my youth.. Anyway I digress, my humble request for a "close to real" seems to be take right out of context and made the developers question their own product and what to include or not to include in version 1.0. Its always hard decide what you want to deliver and what you feel is safe to deliver to the public, on one hand you want to provide the best product to meet the expectation builded over several years, through selveral videos and tons of text, and on the other hand you want to make sure the aircraft is working as it should. So in that sense I truly understand what the developers are coming from, not saying I want to buy verison 1.0, but then again I am in no hurry either. I know and look forward to this airplane as 99% of the majority of X-Plane users are shortcomings or not. Heck I would go as far as state that whilst 95% may be buying the version 1.0, the rest will soon follow making this bird the best developed airplane for any flight simulator. I would concure with Tom, this is what I vision the airplane would be, a fully working model that you can use to fly, enjoy and play with either you use it to train procedures or not I belive PMDG started this "false" and "perculiar" statement, as it did become an airplane "real life pilots" did use to train before taking their "re-test" in this excellent place of knowledge And I persume most of the "study sim" was contributed by places like http://www.b737.org.uk/book.htm and wonderful and dedicated books by Captain Mike Ray http://utem.com/ So yea, I do belive there is a basis in the word "study sim", just quite sure it has never been used to describe IXEG just yet, mearly a wishful thinking. Its because of this we now are being reverted back to my initial saying "we want to bird to be close to real" and of course we know IXEG does not build a real airplane, but hopefully it can be used as a base for "cockpit builders" down the line too hook up to equipments and thirdparty programs like the genious PROSIM http://prosim-ar.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=40&sid=17fe3158cb2df8a54ef7f4447833b127 So in a sense, we hope it can be a study sim down the line, a place where "geeks" like us can train on procedures, failours, emergencies, navigation, known and unknown routes and or just have an excellent time whilst study for the ATPL exam like many do. At least if anybody is like my, study the 737NG for the past 8 years you will now have a hardcore follower to this plane down the road. So please get back on track, do not give into all of us that say or mention that we will not persue the first official release of this plane, will be customers one day anyway. PS.. To Jan !! Whilst I hold you dear to my heart with your dedication, it does not matter to me if IXEG remove LNAV or RNAV or even the entire FMS system. But you might shake the willingness of other core dedicated customers for version 1.0 - Perhaps more will wait for bugs and features are added or fixed. To sum up my feelings on the pervious mentioned "shortcomings" or features not included in version 1.0 There are many things I would like to have such as a working HOLD function in the FMS system, LEGS page etc. Simulation that touches the basic navigation of the system and how it flies, others might not be important as it is just eyecandy. Like eyebrows (which by the way got removed from most airplanes - at least Norwegian if I do not rembember wrong anyway), wing flex and cabin detail, heck opening doors and windows is a new feature to x-plane as it is LOL.. Even JARDesign Ground Handling Deluxe do package delivery to default x-plane aircraft without having doors opening he he.. So what I am saying, continue with your development in the timeframe you need or want regardless of what our wishes are for the release, better serv a working product without important shotcomings than a pre and under developed aircraft just to please the market. If you need money, I would recommed to use websites like https://www.kickstarter.com/ or something like it! A nice way to support and invest in this lovely bird.

I promised my self I stay out, buuuuut.....

Here is two picture of the first flight

ENGM to ENAL ENAL to ENGM ENGM to ENVA ENVA to ENTC ENTC to do a RNAV into ENAT with crosswind on approach Then I want to test out a longer leg! First ENGM to EGSS then EGSS to EGNT EGNT to ENGM and from there a long haul ENGM to HEGN

Can only speak for my self, but at least I "want all the features to be close to real, at least functional to some extend" Shotcomings or not, things not simulatated is just shit in the cockpit that has no real value to the overall flight simulation experience and PMDG is a good example of such. Flying around with their "in op" buttons and gadgets. I suggest we drop this debate and move on to rooting for IXEG, because in the end it must be up to the individuals if they want to buy a unfinished aircraft or not.

I would think the ability to enter HOLD information in the FMS is pretty much a day to day routine, but then again I am not an 737pilot and not arguing it as you instruct. While you say jump and I say ok, I must take the chance to ask why it is so horrible and aweful to state that I personally (never said anybody else) should wait to buy this bird? Never even thought the thought about NOT buying this plane and whilst waiting is unthinkable to you or anybody else, I tend to wait on the boarder to see if a bird is worth buying or not. Got at least 30 planes for FSX bought on impulses due to its eyecandy, even the Feelthere 737 was a shitty wast of money.. Heck I have not even started to re-evaluate the 767 by FlightFactor even though it is one of my favorite airplanes or the A330 by JARDesign.. I have the money to buy product everyday of the week if I want to, but as a reasonable grownup person would do, wait and see without spending money like there is no tomorrow. Is that so wrong of me Camron? With respect, I do apologies for arguing, but I feel your authority lable me as a troublemaker where the real fact is that Im as dangerous as a teddybear can be..

LIVE NOW http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/first-flight/?cm_mmc=BCA-737MAX-_-FDB-_-Email-_-First-Flight_WatchItHere

Please stop putting words in my mouth frumpy, tell me where I badmouth IXEG??? I am not trying to spoil it, far from it actually. But I only said Us being the customer they address this thread to, and shortcomings being a quote from the first post. In the middle I added my own opinion

Chilled as one can be I am said the curious fellow in the blue jumpsuit with pink elephants on it.. Regardless of your little effort grumpy I am actually looking forward to this airplane and have been since the very beginning. But I must say I am in no hurry to buy either. To me it does not even begin to matter if I buy version 1 or 3 thinking Its actully better to wait a while. Why your curious mind screams? Well sir, my humble opinion is that all good things comes to those that wait. And perhaps some of the "child sickness" bugs are out of the way.. Take the JARDesign A320Neo as an example, which aircraft do you think is the better one, version 2.6 public beta or version 1.0? So most of you might add, but you can enjoy the aircraft while you wait for an update or "what if everybody think like you, they no body would have bought they plane", heck some might say that I do not support the community by not paying or "helping the developers". Well yes you are all right, but its my choice and whilst I do welcome any new airplane, its not obligated to purchase. To parafrase you frumpy, I for one car not to buy a car when the dealer says to me "It does not come with ABS, navigation system or even adaptive cruiz control, but we are most likely fitting this later on for sure". Of course its a un-fair comparison a 3D plane and something you depend your life on, but the essence is there and I do belive you understand what I am coming from sir. I for one can say for sure that I will buy this airplane, even if it cost me 300 dollars down the line. That said, as a paying customer I do belive I have the right to state publically when or why I want to buy or pospone to buy this airplane without being asked to chill out, catch my drift sir?

I am mearly an amature enjoying the art of flight simulation Ben, so you are excused

Point taken Camron, just replied a previous post. For what its worth, waiting for the bird my self, shortcomings in mind