Mabye it's an lang story but please read need help! Anf if you still think it's to long scroll down to my question because I need help!Hello, My name is Daniel Rosh. I'm a cockpit builder. Afther two years of hard work I've got an full 737 flightdeck. I'm using Project Magenta software, for the Instruments and the Overhead panel logic. I'm using 6 Pc's to run my Simulator. A good friend of mine is an First Officer by Transavia Airlines on the Boieng 737NG. He tested the software I'm using for my cockpit Project Magenta and he tested PMDG software. But he says that PMDG software is the real thing! And Project Magenta isn't! If he looks to the Instruments they are for 98 % real! And also the logic of the Overhead Panel is the same as in an real airplane. But Project Magenta software isn't! My question is. I want the most realistic software for my cockpit, I want it as real as it gets! So is there an option to load the Panels (the Instruments) of the PMDG over an network? And is there an way to use my hardware Overhead with PMDG? And I almost forget, is it possible to use the Engravity CDU / FMS with PMDG? (It's an hardware CDU / FMS) Best regards, Daniel Rosh

Hi Daniel,Congratulations on your project. Regarding PMDG.... They're very limiting of what you can do.Regarding PM.... Talk to them and let them know what you consider needs to change. Keep in mind, the displays (and other things) are also based on airlines discretion.If you don't get what you want now.... you will eventually:) I think we're all working toward that goal:)

Hi Daniel,I don't know exactly how your cockpit is built, so I won't be able to give you an exact answer, but I hope this will help.Recently I've heard about a cool program called MaxiVista(.com). With it you can "pass" screens to another computer by a network connection.It means that you will be able to spread the PMDG's panels over several screens, which are not connected to a single PC, and it will work as "Extended Desktop", while FS is installed on one primary PC.I also know WidevieW(.it), but I don't know much about it.About using the overhead- PMDG is not so kind to cockpit builders, and many toggles, buttons and knobs on the panel don't have any key command, so you won't be able to operate them by some kind of keyboard encoder.However, there is this program called Key2Mouse(at wideview.it), and it can be used for operating instruments that accept mouse clicks only.I don't know much about it, so I'm not so sure how helpful will it be for you, but try to give it a shot and see what happens.All of those softwares I wrote about have a trial version, so you won't have to spend any money just so you could see if it works.I hope it helped, good luck!

Tal, I checked out MaxiVista..... That is slick, I see it being useful in many ways. Unfortunately, little slow for the purpose of spreading panels.It's too bad about PMDG, ran into the same problem with my PFC setup, can't use the PFC radio stack with it.

>A good friend of mine is an First Officer by Transavia>Airlines on the Boieng 737NG. He tested the software I'm using>for my cockpit Project Magenta and he tested PMDG software. >But he says that PMDG software is the real thing! And Project>Magenta isn't! If he looks to the Instruments they are for 98>% real! And also the logic of the Overhead Panel is the same>as in an real airplane. But Project Magenta software isn't! Even if your friend were a chief test pilot at Boeing, we'd still love to hear some facts explaining what the differences are and why one is better than the other?PMDG's sad side is that it's not interfaceable to a home cockpit.//Tuomas

Hello Daniel,>Even if your friend were a chief test pilot at Boeing, we'd>still love to hear some facts explaining what the differences>are and why one is better than the other?>>PMDG's sad side is that it's not interfaceable to a home>cockpit.I think you are mentioning here one of the biggest challenge for cockpitbuilders, who likes to build their cockpit as real as it can, and use it afterwards to fly with it also as real as possible. Because in my opinion, these are two major differences. During many meetings and events I attended , I notice a lot of cockpitbuilders who are making brilliant cockpits - really because they like to build it. The fun of creating I would say, but operational wise they don't care that much if a gauge isn't doing exactly what the real counterpart is doing, as long it is functional. This is one category of people.Some others like to have a cockpithardware as real as it can, but also they likes "to operate" their cockpits as close to the real counterparts. Here is were we can come in some conflict with the Magenta Software.I use PM already for more than 5 years now. It is amazing what Enrico - as a single person - as created with this series of program's.On all fronts - Boeing or Airbus airliners, regional jets - general aviation - you have something to run your cockpit with. Very openminded, relatively easy to interface it, etc. The graphics are cristal clear just as in the real aircraft.Enrico is mostly also willing to add what is necessary to satisfy most of his clients. Support is very accurate and quick.The big downside of all this is that such a huge single man project never can be as detailed than a specific airliner type software as PS1, or PMDG, which has been developed by a rather larger team with the help of alot of professionals in the industrie. This is also clearly stated on PM's website.When you say that there are big differences between the real one and the PM software for the B737NG which is now just the type with the most details in PM, what must I say than for the B744. You don't have to be a test pilot to see this, just take an AOM or a CBT or even PMDG B737 or B744, and go thru the pre-flight procedures and you see already lot's of differences and missing parts.Also you have to take in consideration, there are around alot of company-specific Boeing options, as well as software updates.Recently at Blackpool, I had a rather long talk with Lefteris of PMDG about interfacing. As far I understand they will never be prepared to give us interface data offsets, so that we can connect all the hardware stuff to their software packet. Simply because the market isn't that big and the variety of interface products. Commercially it would be the hardware companies who would benefit from this. The PMDG software packets are also developped for single PC use, there don't are available for network environments.It is so frustrating... it's technical all possible, the data is available, but someone has to develop the "bridgesoftware" between PMDG software and Phidgets interface cards for exemple, in order to let us have a type related and correct working simulator.So Daniel, I think at this moment there is simply no 100% solution around to use highly realistic and correct working type- detailed software in our cockpits. Nevertheless I still have a big hope that PM-Systems will come better and better in the futur. As with the open structure to create the system logics maybe a team of enthousiasts can work together under the supervision of Enrico and put all their experience and knowledge of a specific type in the software. If I see what the PS1 guys can achieve, I still have hope.I know it is the idea of Enrico to organize workshops with that goal in the futur.I always think that in a spirit of friendship, team and the strong willingness to do it, a man can create huge things ;)CiaoMichel

Key2Mouse does work. It's sometimes finicky about where the mouse is placed for the click so re-programming might be neccesary.You also can't see the entire program unless you go into your FS folder and call it up in Wordpad. And this is the only way to do an edit as well.The last item about K2M is that the panel you are throwing switches on must be open for it to work. For example, my Boeing 727 overhead has many switches programmed to work in the sim, but the overhead window in the sim must be opened for anything to work with K2M.It sort of deafeats the purpose of having a real peice of Boeing hardware to use with FS.

>Key2Mouse does work. It's sometimes finicky about where the>mouse is placed for the click so re-programming might be>neccesary.>>You also can't see the entire program unless you go into your>FS folder and call it up in Wordpad. And this is the only way>to do an edit as well.>>The last item about K2M is that the panel you are throwing>switches on must be open for it to work. For example, my>Boeing 727 overhead has many switches programmed to work in>the sim, but the overhead window in the sim must be opened for>anything to work with K2M.>>It sort of deafeats the purpose of having a real peice of>Boeing hardware to use with FS.Could you stuff most of the clickable gauges in one full 1024x768 panel window that you have open in a spare monitor in the corner?Still that doesnt help in the biggest issue: you cannot get data *out* - so no displays or warning leds will work.//Tuomas

>Because in my opinion, these are two major differences. >>During many meetings and events I attended , I notice a lot of>cockpitbuilders who are making brilliant cockpits - really>because they like to build it. The fun of creating I would>say, but operational wise they don't care that much if a gauge>isn't doing exactly what the real counterpart is doing, as>long it is functional. This is one category of people.I agree. These folks are a lot like the modelling folks, trying to build a replica to recreate a special feel, the atmosphere of a cockpit. Which is a very interesting aspect of this hobby. In a way these cannot be separated though - there's a bit of both in most of us :) And a lot of us enjoy the actual building process too.>Some others like to have a cockpithardware as real as it can,>but also they likes "to operate" their cockpits as close to>the real counterparts. Yep. That's why I am building a "twin engine piston simulator". It's not any specific aircraft type, since most of the light twins have more or less the same controls and switches anyway. Mine has a control stick since it was easier to build with the tools I have. So call it "Diamond Twin Star" then if you have to name it :) But it's focused on the systems instead of shapes of knobs or finding the exact panel colour..>Here is were we can come in some>conflict with the Magenta Software.( zap )>The big downside of all this is that such a huge single man>project never can be as detailed than a specific airliner type>software as PS1, or PMDG, which has been developed by a rather>larger team with the help of alot of professionals in the>industrie. This is also clearly stated on PM's website.>>When you say that there are big differences between the real>one and the PM software for the B737NG which is now just the>type with the most details in PM, what must I say than for the>B744. You don't have to be a test pilot to see this, just take>an AOM or a CBT or even PMDG B737 or B744, and go thru the>pre-flight procedures and you see already lot's of differences>and missing parts.Well, can you give some concrete examples I already asked in the first reply I wrote ;-)If you take your "operational method" even further, you'd study the logic and reason why something is like it is, studied the Magenta features, and designed your own preflight checklists and operation manuals to match the avionics on the simulator. What matters are the big things - are you saying Project Magenta software has flaws that makes it impossible to use it in flight operations, or are you talking about small details that conflict with a certain airline's operation manual because some detail happens to be different?So what's "wrong" in magenta? And what version of an operating manual do you have?>Also you have to take in consideration, there are around alot>of company-specific Boeing options, as well as software>updates.Yep. And that's why the manuals also get revised to match the stuff on the actual planes, because systems also get upgraded over the lifetime of the aircraft.>Recently at Blackpool, I had a rather long talk with Lefteris>of PMDG about interfacing. As far I understand they will never>be prepared to give us interface data offsets, so that we can>connect all the hardware stuff to their software packet.>Simply because the market isn't that big and the variety of>interface products. Commercially it would be the hardware>companies who would benefit from this. The PMDG software>packets are also developped for single PC use, there don't are>available for network environments.>>It is so frustrating... it's technical all possible, the data>is available, but someone has to develop the "bridgesoftware">between PMDG software and Phidgets interface cards for>exemple, in order to let us have a type related and correct>working simulator.>>So Daniel, I think at this moment there is simply no 100%>solution around to use highly realistic and correct working>type- detailed software in our cockpits. Maybe my GA background has made me not worry too much about exact details, since every GA plane is different. I look at Project Magenta as an integrated avionics package more than "Boeing 737 NG".It's like when one would design a business jet - you'd go to Honeywell, Garmin or Avidyne and see what kind of glass cockpit stuff they have to offer. You'd then install those on your aircraft, together with other systems and switches, would try to design the cockpit in a logical and most efficient fashion using user testing and other usability methods - trying to make a best possible combination of those things so that your plane would be both efficient and easy to operate. And then you'd design the operating manual and checklists based on what you have.Of course I see your point too - trying to build a very type-specific cockpit. But one needs to consider what the goals are too. Is it to make your flight simulation hobby more realistic? Remember to focus on what _YOU_ need. If you are building a simulator for a 737NG operator for type rating (someone did this with Magenta software btw) - your requirements are and should be very different from Joe Simbuilder who is trying to get more out of his CH yoke and 17 inch screen at his computer desk... :)My own goal is to be able to practice the routines of flying a high-performance twin or single engine aircraft, both IFR and VFR, using real-world procedures.My sim will have the Sandell HSI from Reality XP since a nice Piper PA-32 has one at the local airport, and maybe someday I'll be flying that one. It will also have a Garmin 530 because our Cessna at the club has a 430 and I can get more familiar with the unit on my sim as well.So my approach is very "operational" in that sense - I want to learn and keep up with the procedures. But I don't want to get stuck in details that do not really matter in real operations.But what was "wrong" in magenta? Details please :)>I always think that in a spirit of friendship, team and the>strong willingness to do it, a man can create huge things ;)Yep. And it's pretty amazing what we can create with simple PC technology these days out of a $50 game :)//Tuomas