Hello PMDG,I see SP1 was released to focus on performance issues, and I see there are still some problems after the patch. Sorry to hear that. I remember the level of quality stated at the time of announcement of this very over looked aircraft in FS was quite high. I was very disappointed to see the state of your product when I purchased on release day, no where near what I think what we (customers) were expecting and what you were aiming for.The current state it is far from what was promised, but I have faith that your commitment to give us a top quality product is still in your goal. We have not had 767PIC quality in any product since. All I hope for is a similar level of realism. I hope that your level of commitment is still the same, and I hope you don

I agree with you in all of the above... I'm not a pilot nor I will be (perhaps a ppl with instrument rating at most) my interst in aviation (or any other subject, it could be a submarine simulator...) is driven by technology (systems operation, data feed, systems logic,procedures) and the possibility to "practice" most of them, following a manual or a check list using the SIM as an interactive multimedia learning centre and not as a game. I don't care much about visual FX scenery, eye candy... this product promissed much of what I was hopping for, but it turned out mainly (in this first release) a screenshooter paradise given the level of eye candy VS functionality and acuracy... I have faith in this team. maybe in a near future we all have what was expected, meanwille we all must inform PMDG of our views, opinions, expectations, regarding this product, they certainly will read, and hopefully provide us...Regarding the lights of A/T and F/D they stated already that they will not include them due to a design option and because they serve as an indicator of the selected A or B system in the aircraft, and because in this product its only simulated one system (captain side) they feel that its not necessary to include them.( I think thats not a valid point, other developers don't even question this point in realism)Jos

Thanks you Jose, I am so glad that to see that others agree with me on this. I hope others show support to get more realism out of this project."Regarding the lights of A/T and F/D they stated already that they will not include them due to a design option and because they serve as an indicator of the selected A or B system in the aircraft, and because in this product its only simulated one system (captain side) they feel that its not necessary to include them." They are not an option. All NG models have an Autothrottle ARM light, this is not an option or side specific (capt or FO) . The fact that this is simmed from the capt still does not change the fact that it should be there, same is true of the FD Master light. That is the kind of response from them that makes me think this is not going in the original direction from what was stated on the site when this was announced. Thanks

Well it's true that the MCP should have the A/T ARM light but the MA is simply NOT needed, the only reason for that if there are 2 FDs to switch on and we don't have that option it serves no purpose whatsoever and really without 2 FD switches can not work like the real deal. You may think what you wish but I know what type of input works and what does not, I am a perfectionist when it comes to this aircraft and if I felt for one minute that PMDG did not have realism as it's GOAL for this aircraft I would not bother at all. You might be suprised at what is comming... [h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smith [h4]P M D G 7 3 7 NG[/h4]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/196432/mineimage.jpg [h3] Realism on the horizon [h5]AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF2 MX 32 MEG and still runs GOOD!|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h5]

Dennis-It is hard to tell from your post whether it was intended for any of us at PMDG- or was more directed as an "audience post" for the rest of the community.Spend a few moments reading our forum and you will probably answer questions about our commitment to this project on your own.I'll allow the work and continued effort of this team to speak for itself rather than answering your post.

Robert & Others at PMDGI feel that Dennis made some good points in his post. He was not being abusive with words or anything like that, but stated real things (of which at least the pack selectors operation is a real bug. Many of the bugs that I myself reported before SU1 was released, are still there... including the mentioned switch operation, night MCP displays look weird etc etc, will post a list later when I feel I have all of them listed that I can find).He also stated that he expects PMDG to perform by the expectations us customers have about the NG. The requirement specs for this NG is IMO simply this: produce an NG that has the same level of realism than 767PIC. Once that is done, everyone's happy. I _know_ you hate the comparison, but let's face it; it's inevitable. Nothing so far has exceeded PIC, nothing. It's the standard that others are measured upon.Small things... small little details that are somehow "off".. they bring the atmosphere down, unfortunately they do. I know I demand a helluva lot more than an average simmer, if that can be said. But I also have a right to do so. You gave me the reason. The NG is a brilliant aircraft, but it still has flaws that need to be addressed. I say it like it is.I feel that some of the members of the beta-team have maybe given us the wrong impression before, that the NG already has "it all", when it does not. I feel that "advertising" and such is great, but one shouldn't advertise something that simply isn't there. We're getting there I know.. and I support PMDG and I also am willing to help in anyway I can.Respectfully,Terops. beta testers, don't bother...

>-Waypoints disappearing after passing them in LNAV mode. >This should only happen if a DIR TO is commanded.Agreed - I verified this looking at airliners.net inflight shots a while back. The real ND continues to show waypoints you've passed over unless you've line selected on down the line to the top and EXEC'd it. This is done for situational awareness etc... Take a look at how PIC does it - copy that and you'll have it!>- When setting direct to a waypoint in the FMS, a dashed white>line should appear from the airplane's nose to the waypoint>then when you hit EXEC the magenta line should go from the>nose of the airplane to that waypoint! (all previous tracks>should then disappear too!) Instead it is currently drawing>from the last waypoint to the new one not from the airplane>depiction on the ND as it should. Please refer to 767PIC for>correct behavior (I know it should work the same in a 737NG).You're right on how it should be drawing the line, but PIC is actually slightly incorrect in it's modelling of what actually happens when you do a direct - if you notice, PIC creates a course from the point in space where you EXEC'd the direct and then the plane actually turns past the true direct heading to intercept the course it drew a short time earlier. The real thing turns until the nose is pointing at the waypoint and rolls out - it doesn't intercept a course, it constantly calculates the heading throughout the turn and then rolls out on the direct heading that is right at that very moment as the nose comes up on the waypoint.>-Approaches! Will they be fitted to the FMC database so that>we can transition from a STAR to a specific type of approach? >(eg. ILS 34 versus VOR 34 etc. etc.)More important even that the approaches to me are the DEP/ARR page transitions for SIDS/STARS. I emailed Anthony a proposal on how the SID/STAR format coudl be changed to allow these as well as runway specific segments, hopefully they'll do it at some point. I'm still shocked this was left out honestly.>- The FD Master Light missing on MCP (see pictures at>airliners.net)>>- A/T ARM light missing on MCP (same as above)These are no issues to me really - as stated above they have to do with having 2 FD and A/T switches in the real plane and until someone releases "FSCopilotConnect" or something like that, I don't think we have to worry! ;)>-FMC Assumed Temperature Thrust Reduction incorrectly modeledHow so? It will be more helpful to the team if you can post specifics and suggested fixes to be made.>-Master Caution remains lit after Batt Master to OFFMay be related to the same thing as the issue on the screens staying on from the standby bus. Are you sure the APU and Ground Power are disconnected?>-A/C Pack Switches -- switch position is completely wrong.>Panel needs to go to HIGH before OFF. Should be able to choose>any switch position and not have to cycle thru undesired>positions.You may be right on this - can Ian Riddel comment on this maybe?>-The calculations for the 737-600 for V1, V2 Vref are wrong,>but in the 737-700 they seem correct./me waits for Vangelis to come in and prove you wrong! ;) I too thought the Vspeeds seemed off (on the low side) but Vangelis emailed me the actual Boeing chart and the NG does indeed have rather low V-speeds compared to other airliners in the Boeing fleet.Ryan

This 737 NG is an on going project unlike others. Rome, my dear friends was not built over night ;) [h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smith [h4]P M D G 7 3 7 NG[/h4]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/196432/mineimage.jpg [h3] Realism on the horizon [h5]AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF2 MX 32 MEG and still runs GOOD!|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h5]

Hi,I have to step in here as well to add my POW to those small but important things that makes the difference. One thing I have noticed is that not all the blue lights for valves have the bright illumination for transition or disagree. I have seen the transition bright light on the Engine anti-ice valve (I think) but that's about it. Oh, maybe on the SPAR and ENG CUTOUT VALVE as well when fuel cutoff switches moved to idle.Just a note for you guys. This craft is already awesome! :-)Cheers,

">-A/C Pack Switches -- switch position is completely wrong.>Panel needs to go to HIGH before OFF. Should be able to choose>any switch position and not have to cycle thru undesired>positions.You may be right on this - can Ian Riddell comment on this maybe?"I can indeed, Ryan :-)Of course you can go any way you desire on the real aircraft. It's simply a 3 position mechanical switch (unlike, say, the Wing Anti-Ice switch, which has a degree of automation).... However, this involves lots of extra programming, I'm told. Even some of the switches in the much more expensive PS1 had this somewhat annoying inability. BTW, does anyone know if PMDG will be bringing out a third patch before the release of the 800/900? I was hoping for corrections in other parts of the pneumatic system prior to this (e.g. the Isolation Valve Auto logic). Even though my system takes over 6 minutes to boot up the NG in 2D mode, I'd be willing to overlook this somewhat undesirable behaviour if it meant getting a properly functioning airplane. As much as I admire the incredible work/effort which has gone into the graphics, as an engineer I need the sim to be a learning tool more than a work of art. Re the Caution light.... At the moment I am unable to add anything meaningful to this discussion until the sim is programmed so that all electrical switch positions and aircraft system states match up on sim bootup (from a dead ship onwards). Also, the Standby Power switch really needs three positions (BATT, AUTO and OFF) before I can state that the aircraft should do this or that. In fact, a sim with this feature would have come in very handy yesterday.... We had a rare defect on the Standby Power system on a foreign operator... Unfortunately, because the cockpit is so small on a 737, very few can participate in rectification... or even the observation of rectification... especially when the pilots are hogging most of the cockpit seats :-) It would have been nice to have had a sim to allow the experts to show us exactly what they did during faultfinding/rectification after the event). :-)Re DIR INTERCEPT. I recall reading that there are two, maybe more, ways aircraft handle these (It depends on FMC software/hardware). It's not a good thing to compare PIC's 767 FMC with PMGD's 737NG FMC because the FMC's in real life are made by different manufacturers (Honeywell Vs Smiths) and they do behave differently as do the autopilots. Smiths FMC's have features Honeywell FMC's don't have and vice versa.Hope this helps more than it hurts :-)Cheers.Ian.