How poor is your behaviour, guys?Are you really so unprofessional that you are totally unable to stand justified criticism so that you have to instantly delete uncomfortable threads because you

Huh, another nameless and I might add, meaningless post. :-violin Yaaaaawwwwwn.

With a whole 31 posts under your belt nameless, one who negelects to read and follow forum rules, both here and on Avsim's policy on how to conduct one's self toward other respected long time members or any member, should be more concerned about their continued status as a Avsim member.[h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD [pink]XP[/pink] 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG @ 215/545|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

Nameless-We have a LONG standing tradition of deleting only those threads that are considered to be outside of the bounds of acceptable behavior.The thread I deleted yesterday reached that point and was removed.Not because of it's content, but because of the immature nature of some of the posts.I invite you to search this forum and you will find posts both for and against PMDG's position. We are not concerned with criticism in this forum. If we were, we would simply lock the forum and require posts to be screened prior to acceptance.If you take the time to read the FORUM GUIDELINES at the top of this forum, you will notice that our primary concern is to maintain civility in this forum.It is entirely possible to disagree with another individuals position without attacking him personally.If you aren't capable of doing that, then you will not remain in this forum.

>Are you really so unprofessional that you are totally unable>to stand justified criticism And what is "justified criticism" ?More often than not, it's when a "simmer" realizes that he/she has spent $70.00 for FS2002, $30.00 for the add-on plane............. and has came to the conclusion that it's not "exactly" like the real one. And since it "somehow" falls short of being an exact replica (nevermind being a few hundred million less), every thing down the line now becomes eligible to criticize. And year after year, that's the way it is with many "simmers". The aircraft falls short in their particular view , and a thousand rights won't overcome a few wrongs! And as usual, everything is blown out of proportion!! This forum is no different that Dreamfleet, FSD, or PSS. These so-called "justified critisim's" get deleted there also........................ and for the same reasons.To bad the reason is always the same........The "armchair simmer" is upset because they didn't get the real thing when they invested a huge sum of 30 or so bucks..L.Adamson

L. Adamson,>> The "armchair simmer" is upset because they didn't get the real thing when they invested a huge sum of 30 $Who knows, maybe it was an armchair simmer that has spend 300$ for Addons already and what's wrong if he expresses his expectations ?I almost can't stand to hear this anymore, "we" users are paying and are not only the stupid ones that are nothing but complaining and moaning, we are also guilty for everything.Developers write stuff like "close to real" and "tested by real pilots" in their announcements and then wonder when that raises expectations. And complain if users come and ask where all that "realism" is.Not related to PMDG, as I haven't seen their FS product yet, but general to this business. It would be good if the majority of Addon developers would come down from FL300 back to the carpet. From what do they live if not from the 30$ peanuts paying users ?Michael

Michael-You know- I agree with you completely on this one! I've seen a tremendous amount of language that appears to indicate that a model has been "certified by a real XXX pilot."As a pilot, I can assure you that I am the LAST person who should certify a flight model. The performance of a model in a simulator is far different than the performance I get when flying the real aircraft due in large part to the differences in the interface. There is a tremendous difference between the controls I use at my desktop and those i use to fly the airplane at work. The forces are different, the control laws are different....When Marc was putting together our pages for the NG, I was highly critical of some superfluous language that I found there. Marc pointed out that "it's similar to what others use" and my response was quite frustrated.For example: on our page right now we have two sentences that annoy me: "Most realistic 737NG flight model ever" and "Tested by Real-Life 737NG pilots."These first of these two phrases bothers me because it is entirely subjective. How exactly do we know that it is the most realistic model ever? Well....we happen to know it is a darn fine model that was designed by a seasoned expert in the field of mathematical modeling....but that doesn't make it the MOST realistic ever. (I'm having that sentence changed....again....)The second sentence is a bit different. Our airplane will be tested by a collection of 737NG pilots who are actively flying the airplane on a daily basis. I think this leads some credence to level of realism that we are looking to provide. At the very least, it means that we have taken the time to obtain real-world expertise and I think it is important to show that to potential customers...But we aren't having our flight model "certified" by anyone. There is no governing body to certify MSFS flight models. ;-)As for whether a customer has a right to gripe in the forum, here is my opinion on that: YES a customer has a right to speak and be heard in our forum. After all, that is the purpose of the forum: Two way communication.A poster in our forum does not gain/lose posting rights based on the amount of money they spend now, or have spent in the past. In fact, this forum is open to any poster even if they have never spent a nickle with PMDG or any other commercial producer.I don't know how other forums are managed, but I draw the line where an opinion becomes a personal attack, or where a poster clearly has made no effort to maintain any level of decency. (i.e.: A mindless, screaming, immature rant that is designed to aggitate or attract attention.)Other than that, posters are free to say what they wish!Thanks for a good, healthy discussion, gents!

Don't listen to these people Robert - this plane is gonna be great, I can already tell by the amount of detail that's gone into what we've been shown so far. You guys already appear to be approaching 767PIC level and we haven't even seen the FMC, the VC, etc... I think this is gonna be one that we're not gonna have to "wait for the reviews" on as some have put it. You've got my order on release day!Ryan

>Developers write stuff like "close to real" and "tested by real >pilots" in their announcements and then wonder when that raises >expectations. And complain if users come and ask where all >that "realism" is.Maybe your right......In reality "close to real" means certain things for me, that might be meaningless to others. As an example, regarding a simulated single engine aircraft, I need to know that items under the "hood" are realistically portrayed. For instance, I expect the OV protection & shunt/ammeter devices to work properly. If an alternator overcharges to my near dead battery (after jumping), then I expect popped breakers, blown fuses, or at a minimum.........."fried wires"!! And what about wiring from the intercom to the headsets; is the "sheilding" accurately simulated so I don't hear the electrically operated turn coordinator in my headsets?..........Keep in mind, that the above paragrah is only a very small example of the components behind the panel of a simple single engine aircraft. But I could use it to activly critisize the developer regarding realism at every opportunity if thats my objective. As I said...... once again, you're only paying 30 bucks for something that could potentially simulate thousands of items. And each of these items has the potential to be critisized, whether it's tested by real pilots, or not..L.Adamson

Robert,>> Tested by Real-Life 737NG pilotswell, if you ask me, one should leave out such annoucements completely. I agree you can't write certified, because that brings it too close to certification of a real sim (parameters must be within 5% of the real thing, is that correct ?). Writing "tested by real pilots" doesn't mean anything, who knows the pilots found the product really good ;-) ?Then what ? Tested by real pilots and found 100% realistic ? If I would read that, I would ask if that pilot reads Micky Mouse books during his real flights. Hmmm, then 90% realistic, 80%, or even less ?Better not write that, who would buy a 70% realistic product ?No matter how you turn it, it's remains a cat that bites in its own tail. The more I read mouthful annoucements, the more I would put that into question in the FS world. And it's raises expectations too high and that's counterproductive, as you don't want to deal with moaning customers, that find the switch X doesn't react like in the real FCOM he bought a day ago.So, better just let the product speak for itself :-)Michael

>>>As a pilot, I can assure you that I am the LAST person who should >>>certify a flight model. The performance of a model in a simulator >>>is far different than the performance I get when flying the real >>>aircraft due in large part to the differences in the interface. >>>There is a tremendous difference between the controls I use at my >>>desktop and those i use to fly the airplane at work. The forces >>>are different, the control laws are different....Robert, you hit the nail on the head. What a real world pilot would be very good for is this; Attesting to how well the systems of the aircraft/panel/FMC/MCP are modeled and the interaction between those systems, not the FDE.

Hello, I agree with Robert and pmDG. I think "realistically" we can't expect 100% perfection, but I am quietly confident that pmDG will create a good show, and produce something that is as close to the real thing, as far as they can push MSFS. I have bought the pmDG 757 for Fly!II, I also bought the pmDG 757/767 for Fly!2K and I was in awe at how good it was, so I have came to know what pmDG is about, and I think that pmDG HAVE taken the right approach. The 'old' saying that rings true every day is "You can't please everyone" I know that pmDG won't release anything that 'they' aren't happy with, and I can rest assured that 'I' will be obtaining a quality product. I don't care what XYZ thinks! pmDG thank's for all your work so far, your daily input to these forums is great, your support is great, pmDG is great!

-----------------------[bR]Matthew Murray[bR]Jet-Precision[bR]

http://www.jet-precision.com/MyTravel.jpg

As a PIC flyer for many years, I hold my own with real world pilots for procedures and general knowledge on the aircraft, but one thing I cannot ever know is the feeling of setting my yoke to 18 degrees on takeoff or any other motion. What's the point here? I see many flight simmers who have never even flown on an airliner (not that this means much mind you) not to mention as a pilot on an aircraft like a 767,727 or 737, and preach about correct flight dynamics. Captain Sim's 727 suffers from this issue. This couger guy is another example, who a few days ago asked on the 767 forum why he cannot turn the aircraft (767) while the auto pilot was engaged. "How can I change the cfg file to fix this" he asked. Well the real bird (767)does not allow heading changes unless they disconnect the A/P or use heading select of heading hold modes on the MCP. They fly the default FS models with it's auto pilot and think that there is something wrong with others who don't fly like it. Well what then if any can those of us who have never flown a 737NG compare with this upcomming PMDG product? Simple my friends, procedures, interaction and numbers. I can tell you that even real 737s won't always be right on the numbers but will be "close". PIC 767 was not "perfect" when it was released and really I cannot think of any other (airline) package that has not needed some "fine tuning" after it's release. After 3 years of people flying the 767, I asked Wade (the main code programmer for PIC 767) why the transition "250/10000" was still displayed on the FMC's climb page? This should be removed by the FMC upon reaching the transition. He told me he over looked this item. So I for one don't want to put the cart before the horse and will wait and see what's to come before getting all worked up about things not availible just yet...[h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD [pink]XP[/pink] 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG @ 215/545|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

"I can tell you that even real 737s won't always be right on the numbers but will be "close". Randy you dont know how right you are, I just wish we could convince our customers :). But thats what keeps me employed, making them as close as humanly possible.

Randy,>> and preach about correct flight dynamicsYeah, that's funny sometimes. Or users asking for real world fuel flow numbers or other less significant stuff, while on the other hand our virtual passengers need G-suits, we still can not land on wet runways and Microsofts "simulation" of asymmetric thrust is suspicious for the next nobel prize.In that regard Microsoft deserves some pressure. I really admire what AddOn developers manage to get out of the flight model constraints they are facing.It will probably not take long, until we see virtual flight attendants, who bring virtual coffee in the cockpit. It's just they will throw the coffee in our neck while the Autopilot throws the plane around with 3G.However, FS is a mainstream product and both developers and users shall stay on the carpet when it comes to realism discussions. But I'm still looking forward to try what PMDG has achieved ;) Michael