Released Today Boeing 777 Worldliner 64bit version

[Robert McDonald 167]

Yeah, this happens a lot ... I few weeks ago I started a feasability process around doing ATC for FSX and XP. But before I really did any serious coding (did a few feasibility tests but nothing much) I started with a pre-liminary specification. Call me crazy but I like to plan my projects and I'm not the software engineer type that just starts coding and see where it takes me (been doing this too many years to approach a process that way).

 

Too make a long story short, I was about 40 pages into my pre-lim spec and I soon realized that ATC for FSX or XP was NOT going to be a 1-2 person job ... at a minimum I was already up to a team of 6-8 full time resources and at least 24-36 months of work. Even for just the approachs to a single airport there can be anywhere from 5-20 specific (based on traffic patterns and weather) code paths ... in the US alone there are 14000+ runways (including airfields) and about 5000+ paved ... so I'm on average 50,000 ATC code paths just for the US alone (assuming I ignore airfields). And then their is the audio system ... to cover this many code paths it would have to sound like your typical car nav system trying to speak street names

 

But I was also at the point where the complexity of an "emulated" real ATC required at least a 2nd computer and the complexity started to suggest that the 2nd computer would need to be moderately powerful.

 

And finally, what caused me to stop my pre-lim specification was projected cost of the project vs. projected sales of the product. I was at $350-$400 and requiring 10,000 unit sales just to make a small profit. So sadly I stopped at pre-lim spec, but I also didn't waste a lot of time just jumping into coding.

 

Rob

 

I understand that the makers of XSquawkbox are williing to make their codebed available for possible migration to 64-bits (?). I think there is a strong market for that product as many of us INSIST on 64-bit VATSIM ATC. Since the current dev's have "quit the project", possibly you might be able to acquire the rights, then port it to 64-bit (?).

 

Just an idea (and not an unselfish idea)...

 

Whaddya think, Rob?

[Guest]

It's a very selfish idea, but that's ok

 

I'll think about Robert, but honestly the development resources required to do ATC right is probably why the current dev's "quit the project".

 

But IMHO, the most important tool for XP10 right now are automated migration tools (FSX to XP10 ... aircraft, scenery, objects, etc.) ... this SHOULD be Austin's priority rather than hoping everyone (3rd party) is willing to re-invent the same wheel again. Make the tools and give them to the 3rd party dev's to minimize their work and allowing them to capitalize on a "new" market for their products. Some tools do exist for XP10, but they have limitations and aren't "fluid" in their use. The wealth of products for FSX are just mind boggling compared to XP10. Don't get me wrong, I love XP10 but I'm not blind to the reality of their situation.

[Muskoka 104]

It's a very selfish idea, but that's ok

 

I'll think about Robert, but honestly the development resources required to do ATC right is probably why the current dev's "quit the project".

 

But IMHO, the most important tool for XP10 right now are automated migration tools (FSX to XP10 ... aircraft, scenery, objects, etc.) ... this SHOULD be Austin's priority rather than hoping everyone (3rd party) is willing to re-invent the same wheel again. Make the tools and give them to the 3rd party dev's to minimize their work and allowing them to capitalize on a "new" market for their products. Some tools do exist for XP10, but they have limitations and aren't "fluid" in their use. The wealth of products for FSX are just mind boggling compared to XP10. Don't get me wrong, I love XP10 but I'm not blind to the reality of their situation.

 

Very interesting approach, I like it. There are a lot of addons for FSX that would fit nicely in Xplane. How it could be done is beyond my knowledge, but the added functionality would be very welcome, and is much needed.

 

 

Glen

[MdMax 233]

For sceneries, you can already find FS2XPlane:

http://marginal.org.uk/x-planescenery/tools.html

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=44099

[Muskoka 104]

Ya, sceneries are not such an issue, tools are already there (for the most part), but, ATC, AI Traffic, and a more advanced Weather Engine would be very welcomed. I'd love to buy the 777, but I'm at a point where I refuse to spend anymore money on Xplane until it offers full simulation functionality. Not having suitable / useable atc or ai traffic is a huge negative for me, especially when flying heavies. Online flying, no thanks, did it, not interested. Need something like Radar Contact or Pro Atc, perhaps voice like Vox?

 

Glen

 

Ultimate:

 

Xplane 64 bit

Radar Contact / Pro Atc / Vox for Xplane

Opus / Active Sky for Xplane

Ultimate Traffic for Xplane

Scenery of your choice for Xplane

Sure there's more......just scratching the surface.

[Robert McDonald 167]

Ya, sceneries are not such an issue, tools are already there (for the most part), but, ATC, AI Traffic, and a more advanced Weather Engine would be very welcomed. I'd love to buy the 777, but I'm at a point where I refuse to spend anymore money on Xplane until it offers full simulation functionality. Not having suitable / useable atc or ai traffic is a huge negative for me, especially when flying heavies. Online flying, no thanks, did it, not interested. Need something like Radar Contact or Pro Atc, perhaps voice like Vox?

 

Glen

 

Ultimate:

 

Xplane 64 bit

Radar Contact / Pro Atc / Vox for Xplane

Opus / Active Sky for Xplane

Ultimate Traffic for Xplane

Scenery of your choice for Xplane

Sure there's more......just scratching the surface.

 

I was stunned to see what's 'available' for gaming development right now (see another thread here on Avsim) - some of the stuff is mind-blowing, albeit still early days. I think that we will ultimately see what Microsoft 'tried' to do (with Flight). MS didn't bring enough functionality to Flight- and their idea of paying for 'almost everything' as an 'add-on' killed the project - along with totally forgetting about the heavy jet / FMC navi / ATC crowd (hard-core but willing to $pend on our hobby).

[Guest]

For sceneries, you can already find FS2XPlane:

http://marginal.org....nery/tools.html

http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=44099

 

From that thread

 

FS9 scenery always stands a much better chance of converting well than FSX packages

 

To aim at the big market, the tools need to be more automated and work with 99% success on all FSX scenery/objects. Austin has stated that he "needs" (at a fundamental level) 3rd party developer support, but I haven't seen a big committment to make that happen?

 

For example, changing the user interface of XP10 would have been LAST on my list of "things to get done" ... yes it was needed, but it IS NOT what stops people from buying XP10. But for some reason Austin deemed this of higher priority and spent months working on it?? So I'm definitely seeing "mixed" signals from the XP crew and those mixed signals filter to 3rd party devs who it turn say "wait and see".

 

The relative differences of 3rd party support for FSX and XP over the years is widening ... meaning XP is getting "some" 3rd party support but it's not keeping up with the pace of 3rd party support on the FSX side ... the gap is getting wider and this isn't a good thing for XP.

 

Better visuals, cross-platform, and a 64bit code path isn't starting a mass migration from FSX to XP10 ... and it never will ... it has prompted interest but it'll take more than that. Although I think it's GREAT (and recommend that if anyone doesn't have XP10, the should get it), but what I think/want isn't the issue ... sometimes one has to compromise their ideology for the greater good and long term goals -- I'm not seeing Austin do that -- and one's personality really should have NOTHING to do with the correct business decisions to grow a product.

[Robert McDonald 167]

From that thread

 

 

 

To aim at the big market, the tools need to be more automated and work with 99% success on all FSX scenery/objects. Austin has stated that he "needs" (at a fundamental level) 3rd party developer support, but I haven't seen a big committment to make that happen?

 

For example, changing the user interface of XP10 would have been LAST on my list of "things to get done" ... yes it was needed, but it IS NOT what stops people from buying XP10. But for some reason Austin deemed this of higher priority and spent months working on it?? So I'm definitely seeing "mixed" signals from the XP crew and those mixed signals filter to 3rd party devs who it turn say "wait and see".

 

The relative differences of 3rd party support for FSX and XP over the years is widening ... meaning XP is getting "some" 3rd party support but it's not keeping up with the pace of 3rd party support on the FSX side ... the gap is getting wider and this isn't a good thing for XP.

 

Better visuals, cross-platform, and a 64bit code path isn't starting a mass migration from FSX to XP10 ... and it never will ... it has prompted interest but it'll take more than that. Although I think it's GREAT (and recommend that if anyone doesn't have XP10, the should get it), but what I think/want isn't the issue ... sometimes one has to compromise their ideology for the greater good and long term goals -- I'm not seeing Austin do that -- and one's personality really should have NOTHING to do with the correct business decisions to grow a product.

 

Unfortunately, Austin has a very STRONG personality and that cuts both ways. He can insist on 'his way' and 'his vision', and God-willing, that might carry the day. On the other hand, such single-mindedness can also work against your business, you can become distracted, or succumb to the lure of simple 'denial'. True enough- right now, XP10 is our 'best hope' for the future... but the big question is, will XP grow and develop fast enough to have the 'legs' to carry itself forward? The larger question is, "Can Austin "let go" of the reins and let XP grow into all it can be?" To do that, he will have to work hand-in-hand with the big players in aftermarket, companies with established creds, particularly Orbx, FSDreamteam, Active Sky, Rex, and so on. Some of them may want to come to the party - others may need to be enticed. One thing is certain - Austin needs to kill the patent lawsuit to remove any clouds over XP's long-term future so the dev community can see that XP will be here 10 years or more down the road. It costs money to develop product offerings, the better they are, the more the development cost. Corporate management will insist on a stable platform and good long-term outlook before turning the spend switch to full throttle.

 

Compelling software demands purchase by the consumer. The costs are nothing compared to the benefits of the software? A SALE will occur. To be truly compelling, the eye candy grabs the consumer's attention, then the support floor of allied components (great navigation, wonderful scenery and heavy 3rd-party support) shore up the initial lust and force the onward march toward ever-better flight environment. Each of us has a "if-only" wishlist for final migration to 100% X-Plane. In my case, the 777 and its truly fine FMC were enough to put me on the brink of deleting my FSX deck. Even though I can do more in FSX, I am truly hooked by X-Plane. If VATSIM were available in 64-bits for X-Plane, it would be a done deal. That is a 'must' to me. I can add airports and scenery as stuff becomes available. Boston Logan just got released as payware for around 19 Euros or so, and that was an instant sale for me as I already have the upgraded JFK and routinely fly hops between JFK and KBOS. What I truly miss is my AivlaSoft Electronic Flight bag plus FSInn or Squawkbox (FSInn heavily favored over Squawkbox). Another huge hole is the lack of 64-bit ACARS for my virtual airline, DeltaVA. The admins at Delta are harping on me to log flight hours but I cannot due to that issue. I ---insist--- on 64-bits all the time. I won't fly 32-bits just because product X or add-on Y isn't available in 64 bit. I just won't use those products.

 

I know that someone will see the market and make it happen, I only hope that is sooner rather than later!

 

FLASH: Philipp of Ramzzess aviation announces defect in Navigraph Current AIRAC (cycle 1302) and advises all 777 pilots to re-download this month's AIRAC rev. 2 to prevent crashes due to the defect in the current Navigraph AIRAC file. The problem is in a corrupt "navaids.txt" file (according to Philipp's post on X-Plane.org 777 Support Forum.

[Anxu00 176]

I myself find I am flying only XP. I look at my FSX videos, and the herky-jerky frames on approach? I can't dig that. I watch the cars merging onto the freeways at night in X-Plane white lights coming towards you, red lights going away - the realistic overpasses, bridges, and yes (drumroll) moving trains...

Just curious, do you still have herky-jerky frames if you reduce autogen and set low AI/road traffics in FSX?. If flying is all one cares about, then one can remove autogen and road traffics. This is what I did as I too had fed up with tweaking OOM and CTD. Reducing the troublesome sliders gave me the smooth flying in FSX too. However, I am intrigued about X-Plane 10.

[Robert McDonald 167]

Just curious, do you still have herky-jerky frames if you reduce autogen and set low AI/road traffics in FSX?. If flying is all one cares about, then one can remove autogen and road traffics. This is what I did as I too had fed up with tweaking OOM and CTD. Reducing the troublesome sliders gave me the smooth flying in FSX too. However, I am intrigued about X-Plane 10.

 

Of course! I shut off autos COMPLETELY in FSX. And yes, I adjusted the autogen. Once I saw XP 10, particularly with the recent upgrade of the 777 by Ramzzess Aviation (VMAX) - I never looked back, and I have a very substantial investment in FSX including dedicated controllers from VRInsight for the V737 overhead, MCP Combo II (Boeing) and CDU-II (FMC) none of which I can use (presently) in X-Plane, guess what? Don't care. It's X-Plane for me. Once you see the cars on the freeways, it's game over. The moon reflecting off the water...all this and 64 bits... a wealth of FREE add on scenery and airports... plus a lot of payware coming on line (KJFK, KLGA, KBOS, KLAX, etc) well, you get the picture. Visit my youtube site there are 2 XP10 videos on there, I think you'll see what I'm driving at. Link is below my signature graphic. XP 10 is worth it - if nothing else, just to see what 'could be'. Fly the demo. You'll have to rough it without the 777 (it's payware). If you only buy one plane for XPlane (assuming you fly jets) it's got to be the triple-7

[captain420 3,099]

Somebody please post screenshots. I would love to see the new virtual cockpit with the new 4096x4096 hd textures. Thanks!

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

Somebody please post screenshots. I would love to see the new virtual cockpit with the new 4096x4096 hd textures. Thanks!

http://xsimreviews.com/2013/02/16/xsimreviews-16th-feb-2013-elanports-new-project-leading-edges-current-project-b777-worldliner-goes-64bit-and-cargo-stma-dhc-3-otter-upgrade-64bit-xpuipc-64-bit/#comments

 

[jcomm 5,919]

Sophisticated aircraft. with complex systems can in fact be designed for X-Plane10 using plugin programming /etc...

 

I don't know what was used for the 777, but SASL, for instance, was used for the one which is probably the best freeware add-on prop twin for XP - the IL-14...

Force the engines and you'll be in trouble. Overall systems modelling is "pefect"!!!!

 

I guess that the future will bring even more good surprises

 

I keep eagerly awaiting for the LES Saab ;-)

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

[FlyBoyMike 38]

I don't know what was used for the 777, but SASAL, for instance, was used for the one which is probably the best freeware add-on prop twin for XP - the IL-14...

 

That looks like the same plugin that was used for the 777. I checked through the aircraft folders and found one in there called 'sasl'.