A warning to all X-Plane users!

[mikea76 184]

3 hours ago, Pilot53 said:

Ill have to try the saab then.  How far off is the xp11 update?

[mikea76 184]

3 hours ago, Pilot53 said:

Ill have to try the saab then.  How far off is the xp11 update?

I bet you will like it,  not sure on the update,  I have not been checking the forums lately 

 

[katice 35]

All I am going to say is that amount of people coming from NGX and complaining about FF "lack of systems" is dumbfounding.

It's almost like 1980s era airliner, with a late 80s FMS modeled won't have as much complex software in the box as late 2000 NG. At least FF draws and flies arcs, RNAV correcty :)

Also, it's very interesting how easily people opinions are influenced by the " flightsim mob". IXEG has nowhere as competent FMS as, let's say, Rotate. It's a fact. Yet you will still see people swearing on their lives how IXEG is by far the best thing around while it objectively isn't, simply becuase that's what people tend to mindlessly repeat in every flight-sim related media. 

Seems like the key to a great addon is bascially stating how much of a study sim it is over and over again until people start repeating after you. 

Teaches you to take those posts with a grain of salt, eh?

[tonywob 4,769]

54 minutes ago, katice said:

Seems like the key to a great addon is bascially stating how much of a study sim it is over and over again until people start repeating after you. 

<sarcasm> I can't imagine any flight sim company hugely overhyping their products, up to the point where it almost becomes a cult  </sarcasm>

 

[60North 120]

1 hour ago, katice said:

Also, it's very interesting how easily people opinions are influenced by the " flightsim mob". IXEG has nowhere as competent FMS as, let's say, Rotate. It's a fact. Yet you will still see people swearing on their lives how IXEG is by far the best thing around while it objectively isn't, simply becuase that's what people tend to mindlessly repeat in every flight-sim related media. 

Seems like the key to a great addon is bascially stating how much of a study sim it is over and over again until people start repeating after you. 

Teaches you to take those posts with a grain of salt, eh?

What IS very misleading is judging an aircraft by just by parts of one system as you do.  All aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses.  What is important to each user also varies a lot - the list is endless - but to most users it is the overall impression that counts.  Should you try to give an "objective" view, you would have investigate in huge detail each system, flight model, 3D, textures, sounds etc etc and then try to sum it up, but it still would be biased since I'm pretty sure you do not have the competence (formal education) needed in all these areas. 

[tonywob 4,769]

2 minutes ago, MortenM said:

What is important to each user also varies a lot - the list is endless - but to most users it is the overall impression that counts

The summarises it perfectly for me. Well said!!

[katice 35]

5 minutes ago, MortenM said:

What IS very misleading is judging an aircraft by just by parts of one system as you do. 

Yes, there are people judging an aircraft by the amount of wingflex it has.

I will rather keep judging a modern airliner mainly by its key system that FMS is. 

Also, I thought it was implied that my opinion isn't formed by that single factor, but rather of the entire package. Your mental leap as to what I do and think is not appreciated. My opinion still stands. Have a nice day.  

[60North 120]

3 minutes ago, katice said:

I will rather keep judging a modern airliner mainly by its key system that FMS is. 

Thats off course up to you, but speaking of the FMS, as you know, the FMS is much more than the FMC, it also consists and depends on several other systems like the AP, and A/T to mention a couple.  They all need to interact correct, modes, sensitivity, behavior to be right.  Further, and most important maybe, for the whole FMS to be anywhere realistic the flight model needs to be right to get the correct vertical profile ( lift, drag, engine performance etc etc)!  So you are on very thin ice already judging how good the FMS is on any sim aircraft unless you have deep knowledge in all these areas which means you need to be an engineer - and - an in type pilot to have anywhere near an objective view of the FMS. (You off course might be, I don't know but it's not common). 

Quote

My opinion still stands.

Sure, but it's in no way objective (which was what I reacted to in your post) it is an opinion ;)

M

 

[katice 35]

8 minutes ago, MortenM said:

Sure, but it's in no way objective (which was what I reacted to in your post) it is an opinion ;)

Didn't know this thread was about IXEG all of the sudden. Thrilling.

Once again, I didn't include my reasoning anywhere in my posts, so your conclusion is irrelevant becuase you are trying to apply it to something I haven't even presented yet. 

If you are interested, I am sure we can take it to PM or thread somewhat more fitting to discuss IXEG in detail. 

12 minutes ago, MortenM said:

They all need to interact correct, modes, sensitivity, behavior to be right.  Further, and most important maybe, for the whole FMS to be anywhere realistic the flight model needs to be right to get the correct vertical profile ( lift, drag, engine performance etc etc)!  So you are on very thin ice already judging how good the FMS is on any sim aircraft unless you have deep knowledge in all these areas which means you need to be an engineer 

First. Fallacy. I don't need to be an engineer nor hold a type rating in that particular aircraft to hold valid opinion regarding functionality of certain systems or the addon as a whole given I have enough knowledge on the subject. That's one of the flagship arguments made by certain other developer to disregard any unflattering feedback.

"Non type rated = you don't know what you are talking about". That's garbage. 

Second, however, I do have rather in depth knowledge regarding subjects you mentioned and even formal education in that aspect which you seem to hold in such high regard. 

But you still seem to imply that I would judge something through one single feature of the addon to make my assertion based on that. Stop getting so hang on it. I already said it's false assumption on your part. 

25 minutes ago, MortenM said:

Further, and most important maybe, for the whole FMS to be anywhere realistic the flight model needs to be right to get the correct vertical profile

Funny you mention that. IXEG vertical profile management is still vastly incorrect which was even officially stated by some people of your team and why some people expressed their disappointment when IXEG team said that there are "No changes to VNAV in next patch". 

Glad we at least agree on this point. And really, there is no reason to continue this conversation here. If you feel the need, my PM box is always open. 

Thanks!

[GoranM 3,764]

Let's be happy.  Have some...

[tonywob 4,769]

Time to close this discussion I think, it's gone off topic from the original. Anyway, I'll take a slice thanks Goran :)