Tom Knudsen
-
Posts
812 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Latest X-Plane & Community News
Events
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tom Knudsen
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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?
-
Quote
@Tom; you've seen some very small snippets of the stuff I've been working with, rain shaders and so forth.
I think you'll be amused with some of the things we unveil in future. There's a lot we don't show.
I think the IXEG 737 will be a transformative product for X-Planes future, in more ways than one.
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..
-
3
-
-
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?
-
3
-
-
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.
-
1
-
6
-
-
Quote
Not sure I understand the question..
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)??
-
1
-
-
Quote
But what happens if you are decelerating at the speed restriction altitude and you just happen to cross a waypoint at that exact time?
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?
-
1
-
-
Quote
Fair enough, for me it will
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.
-
4
-
-
18 minutes ago, tkyler said:
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 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.
Quote
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.
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
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?
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.
-
2
-
2
-
-
Quote
IXEG isn't builiding an actual, real aircaft. They are creating an addon to a game.
I promised my self I stay out, buuuuut.....
-
10
-
-
Here is two picture of the first flight
-
1
-
-
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
-
Quote
If you're a nerd and want to use these features, great. They'll come. But, it's apparent some people assume some features are or would be used more in real life than they are. That's my point. It has zero to do with whether they should or will be implemented.
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Quote
Truth be told, most everything Jan has listed is non-consequential. He went out of his way to list items that in all reality have zero bearing on daily flying life of a 737-300. As a captain with thousands of hours experience, I would trust his word.
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..
-
-
Quote
But what disturbes me here is that it seems like you are trying to spoil it to other people. IXEG is playing with open cards, there is no need to badmouth their work. I deeply respect them for their dedication.
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
QuoteThanks for warning us to buy version 1. I for one will wait and see what the next versions will bring to the table, especially regarding the system simulation shortcomings...
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
-
2 hours ago, frumpy said:
Seriously Tom, no one forces you to do anything. Someone is making a product and you either
like it or not. It's like a carmaker not offering a rain sensor for a specific model. Would you write them a complaint?If you are into the most tiny bit of system depth, check out PSX (guess what, there is no rendered window view).
Chill, man!
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?
-
1
-
1
-
-
I am mearly an amature enjoying the art of flight simulation Ben, so you are excused
-
1
-
-
Point taken Camron, just replied a previous post. For what its worth, waiting for the bird my self, shortcomings in mind
-
1
-
-
Tom;
With all due respect, I'm pretty sure the only product that will ever live up to your unique individual quality expectations is your Dash8-100.
We look forward to seeing what you can do to advance the state of the art when it comes to flight simulation.
With all due respect Ben, do the busses go where you live? My reason for asking is that you clearly cannot see the difference between a product made by amatures and product made by professionals? And oh, in case you did not fully understood, the professional one being IXEG 737 and not the Dash8.
-
1
-
IXEG FPS Readings
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Tom Knudsen
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