Queen versus Ready for pushback

[Mats_J 2]

Carel,It's really an apple and an orange you are trying to compare systems-wise. One of the reasons for the cockpit technology in the -400 was to decrease the workload in the cockpit and get rid of the F/E.You bring up the start sequence in RFP as an example. With the EEC in the -400 any start is pretty much failsafe. If the systems aren't setup properly the EEC won't allow a start.So comparing the systems between the RFP and the PMDG 747 can not really be done in my opinion.That being said, I think you can expect system modelling equal to and exceeding the RFP package.Cheers,

[Guest AJ]

No flame intended, but I think the point was not to compare the 742 and the 744, but rather the level of detail which is realized in the two simulations (RFP vs. The Queen). While the 744 is a much more higly automated aircraft, with a greatly simplified crew interface, that does not mean that there is less complexity for PMDG to simulate (even if there are not as manny buttons and switches in the cockpit). Judging by PMDG's promotional materials and comments both from the developers and from beta testers, PMDG has obviously taken great pains to simulate what goes on behind the scenes. While an amateur will likely have a better chance of successfully executing a crude flight in the PMGD's Queen, I suspect that those who really dig into the aircraft's systems, will find at least as much, and probably much more complexity than what is found in RFP.I have to say that the developers of RFP did a fantastic job with both the earlier and later version of their product, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to experience the old school 747 and compare it to the Queen. However, the sim itself is an older product and its features are less sophisticated than what I would expect of PMDG's upcoming bird.

[Guest Carel]

PGDG touches the subject in their promotional materials as you callthem,but really only go as far as giving some headlines.So it is a wait and see thing here.Thanks for your reply.Carel

[kmanning 12]

Hi Mat,Will the 747-400 flight dynamics be very accurtate? I assume it will.Ken.

[744pilot 0]

About those manuals.I tried to send it to you guys that requested it. But the file is to big. But I think I know were to find them and I'll let you know if I find them.

[crvm 0]

My opinion? This 744 system wise compares not to other sims but only to CBTS in various systems. RFP models a different bird, different system workings etc so comparing them is not going to work. The thing here is to compare this 744 with other 744s AND PS1 included (I KNOW where things already overtake PS1 but in other areas perhaps limited by FS) yet this should make every hard core 744 fan a happy camper ;D Things like FUEL+OVERHEAD there is nothing like it plain and simple..[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]

[Guest Carel]

Hi Randy,The only bird I have flown and fly is the RFP and there you have to work all the way.In your opinion the queen is going to be less intensive to fly?Carel

[744pilot 0]

It's wat you prefer...I like glass cockpits with modern systems. The Analog style is realy old these days. And RFP is so good modeled that you should be with atleast two persons to fly the A/C in FS9. The Queen can be done by yourself but most of the times it's a team excercise. And that's a second reason why I prefer the Queen.

[crvm 0]

It's going to replicate the 747 systems in a realistic manner, if one says that flying a 747 400 is easier than flying the old type then that assumption would be true. But make no mistake about it, you will need to know how to use a 747 400 to get the most out of this simulator.[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]

[744pilot 0]

That shouldn't be a problem...atleast not for me. :)

[Guest Carel]

Oke', fair enough.Are you testflying the queen?Cause you seem to be very well informed.Anyway Randy,thank you for your patience.Carel

[Guest teeloo]

Hello all,I might as well add my 2 cents as I haven't read them here yet:I believe it is easier and more realistic to simulate the 744 with FS then it is to sim. the 742 with FS!Mainly because 742 is a real hardware cocpit... difficult to get on a PC screen. And the 744 is more of a software cockpit with displays rather then so-many-dails.So to get the same PC-sim satisfaction with the 742 I believe one needs an extra pilot at home and a lot of hardware switches and stuff external to your PC :-)I have flown in a 742F many times and startup (for example) isn't really much harder compared to the 744... but more procedural intensive... easy to perform in a real cocpit.. harder on a PC-sim due to all the windows needed...The 744 is basically 'PC simulation friendlier'.Other though for 742 simmers: when is FS going to introduce online intercockpit simulation... log in one server for one cockpit for 2 or 3 or more (observers) players!!!(Nice for checkrides too!)regardsTeeloo

[JaneRachel 515]

Hey Teeloo, gangOK, actually from a software point of view its way way harder to model a 744 than a 742, if you model to PMDG standards that is :). This is not intended to decry a superlative product such as the RFP, its simply great, Im sure we all agree. An awful lot of work went into that product.This thread has two main themes as far as I can see, procedural modelling and workload, let me address both and bore you all to tears for a couple of minutes reading if I may. I will mention some realworld things and then to the PMDG specifics in each post. I will probably do it in two separate posts, for those bored with the first, please feel free to skip the second ;)1) The 744 still has all the primary ingredients of the 742 (and Im talking real aircraft here ). It has hydraulics, electrics, pneumatics and all those gubbins that you see in a 742. However, the difference lies in presentation. One of the first things you are taught on migration from a steam 742 to a classyglassy shiny 744 is not to underestimate what you see. You still have all those items that you see on the steamships but rather than round dials stuck here there and everywhere, the information is transposed to the EICAS, upper and lower displays. Flicking between the lower synoptic pages effectively gives us all the same information, and we have to be aware of it and monitor it, we just monitor on a screen not on a dial.Now, in terms of systems in the 744, there are indeed a chunk of automated things that happen. Again though dont take these things for granted. There are many thousands of combinations of aircraft state (ignoring the complexities of say the FMC system). Its a case of if this switch is here, then this this and this happens, but not if this happens first. The logic tree of the 744 systems is frightening. Lots of configurations with lots of permutations, that the pilot can intervene with creating more permutations. Its horribly complex to model, more so than "steam gauges" which in many ways (yes I know the exceptions) are on or off, or at position x, y or z. In the 744 we have "this happens only when this happens, and only if the attendants served a cheese roll before offering the chicken and beef scenarios"Examples? what do you think happens to the pneumatic systems if you chose an APU-PACK departure, with the APU driving air conditioning. Or did you know that the 744 changes fuel valves around automatically when flaps 10 or 20 is in position for takeoff, to always ensure a tank to engine initial climbout? Or what if we start messing with electrical bus switches, or maybe the odd hydraulic switch?your starting to get the idea Im sure, the 744 is as complex as any other airplane. Now, superimposing this onto the PMDG744. Has PMDG modelled a complex logic tree of aircraft systems. Answer oh yes! enough to keep procedural fans feasting on what is offered for a very long time. Do the synoptic displays on the lower EICAS, and upper EICAS messages accurately reflect aircraft state. Oh yes, they are not just pretty pictures on all those graphical pages. Your going to have to monitor them and respond to what you see. Thats "real" data your seeing there, not pretty pictures, but a representation of the aircraft systems. There has been opportunity to double check all this information with real 744s during dev.And if you dont want to autostart (various reasons why), you could always kill the EECS and start manually. Make sure to monitor all your N1, N2, EGT values, vibration, oil pressure etc. Did I mention these numbers are what we see on the real aircraft and that Vangelis spent a long (read real long) time modelling engines and performance. Im sure I did :)Jane-Rachel

[JaneRachel 515]

now onto 744 workload.There is still significant workload involved with flying a 744 properly over a steamship. On the ground that is simplified to an extent by the automation, but dont forget we have an FMC to program and worry over in the glass birds (and Im sure many of you will put your hand up and say that is non trivial). You gain in some areas, you lose in others, preflight.Of course, we still have things like IRS alignment. Now on the 744 do we enter positional coordinates by hand or do we trust what the GPS is telling us and prime the IRS from the GPS position, or maybe do we enter an airport ID etc. Lets make sure that the FMC radio autotuning is in sync with the IRS and GPS and that we are getting sensible navigational data. Lets press that POS button on the glareshield. Is the country we are departing from not certifying GPS navigational updates over their territory. Do we need to inhibit the GPS from the appropriate page in the FMC. decisions decisions ;) And dont forget all the paperwork pre-flight, fuel and weights etc etc..Once airborne, if your flying properly there is still work to be done too. Dont forget to plot your alternate airports on the FIX page, and maybe range rings on the navigational display for equal time points. Maybe keep updating RTE2 with a route from where we are to our alternate, in case we need to divert rapidly best to have a route in hand. Keep checking the EICAS and synoptics to make sure that all the aircraft systems are still cute and cuddly and not about to bite you :)The bottom line is that if you sit in LNAV and VNAV watching a video and combing the dog your missing out on a lot of the inflight procedures that are followed in realworld ops. As a simmer the workload is as real as you want to make it. This applies to any aircraft that you chose to fly in FS2004. If you want to know whereabouts on the dogs back has not yet been combed, or exactly how far you are from that alternate at Keflavik, the choice is yours.

[Guest Carel]

Whow,thank you for this prof.lecture!This should be written in the main 744 page.Carel