Well, for one thing, just how long has it been since PMDG promised a FSX version?! Has anyone seen it for sale anywhere or even seen a screen shot of it over two years since FSX was released? Secondly, Wilco, on the other hand, was quick to come out with a FSX version of it's 737PIC title.I wasn't aware that personal attacks were allowed on an AVSIM forum....

There is nothing in my post that was a personal attack. I see it as politely asking you a question that's all. The word 'misinformed' is not a rude word. I have on many occasions in my life been given incorrect information and, having made a decision on that, made an error. I was thus misinformed.If you believe my post to be a personal attack on you then please report it to the mods immediately and they will take the appropriate action against me. Notwithstanding that recommendation, please be aware that I had no intention of insulting you in any way (that's why I didn't use insulting language) but, if in any way you feel insulted/attacked by my question, please accept my sincere apologies.

Can we make it clear that PMDG are releasing the 737NGX :( these kind of rumors always seem to happen near release and are usually started by people who have absolutely no idea about how the company works. Regarding this big simmers myth about Heavy's flying short haul, even if we exclude cargo we can find many real world examples of short haul flights in the 747-400 & 777. You can find quite a few posts over on the PMDG forum regarding this, I myself fly the BA route OBBI - OTBD a couple of times a month on the 777 & 747 the route is a whopping great 80 miles with a cruise altitude of 12000ft and takes around 20/30 mins. BA still operate this flight once a day.

You know Les, this is about the 10204305045th time, but I'm not going to let you post factually incorrect things as truth and I feel entitled to defend us against it - see comments below:

13. The best Flight Dynamics I've ever seen for an FS airliner (We have real Level-D simulators here in Minnesota thanks to Northwest. This addon feels like what I experiance in the real sim for the 737NG)

This is just patently untrue - we have half a dozen real world NG pilots and actual design engineers who worked on the aircraft on our technical team and the iFly climb performance is way off, that's the honest truth. I've seen several real NG pilots post about it iFly's forum too, which you seem to just ignore in your postings there. The performance that's in our aircraft comes straight out of the official Boeing performance documentation that real pilots rely on for safe flight and it was checked by the real pilots - feel free to test what ours does against that documentation. You may have flown a sim once or twice, but guys who fly the airplane day in and day out as well as the Boeing performance information say you're wrong. iFly themselves even stated they're going to rework the performance. A fully loaded 737-700 cannot climb to FL400 in 12 or 13 minutes out of KPHX on a 110 degree day - I've been on that flight in real life and it was at least 25 minutes before we reached cruise, which you'll find is very much in line with the Boeing documentation. The iFly gets crazy 3000-5000 FPM climb rates above FL300 - that is not correct, ask anyone who flies the real airplane. The 757/767 and the 777 are the time-to-climb rocketships in the Boeing fleet, not the 737.

15. Proper PAK startup meaning you can't start this bird like the default airplanes, APU air has to push to the right systems to get the engines going

Huh? Ours has had proper startup procedure since the beginning.EDIT - if you're referring solely to the checklist item that has you turn the packs off before engine start, this is bug that was introduced in one of the later versions of the PMDGOptions.dll, we didn't program pack switches that do nothing, it did work originally. Should we have caught the bug? Yes, I will give you that point. You do however need proper APU bleed air routing to start the plane, I just tried it.

16. Proper engine thrust for the various models, the older PMDG version was underpowered. Taking off from KMDW was almost impossible yet real world Southwest 737NG's have no issue.

Same answer as #13.

22. Choosing the runway via the FMC automatically turns the frequency and runway heading leaving nothing more for you to do than intercept the approach beams.

Which is completely unrealistic and not a feature of the real aircraft's radios.---Regarding the rest of your commentary below your list, I think we'll just let the NGX speak for itself when it's released. It is the best performing product FPS-wise in my FSX hanger now aside from tiny GA planes and I'll bet this convinces more than a few diehards such as yourself to come try FSX out once people start posting about it. Maybe you should actually consider giving it a chance when we release it instead of writing it off before you've even seen it or how well it runs.

PMDG has been good for years. It's just getting old, that's it.

You know Les, this is about the 10204305045th time, but I'm not going to let you post factually incorrect things as truth and I feel entitled to defend us against it - see comments below:

First off Ryan that's not true and I'll leave it at that. One example you posted in these forums 'I never had a good thing to say about PMDG' which was false. If you want I can post the apology PM you sent me. Now let's move on...

This is just patently untrue - we have half a dozen real world NG pilots and actual design engineers who worked on the aircraft on our technical team and the iFly climb performance is way off, that's the honest truth. I've seen several real NG pilots post about it iFly's forum too, which you seem to just ignore in your postings there. The performance that's in our aircraft comes straight out of the official Boeing performance documentation that real pilots rely on for safe flight and it was checked by the real pilots - feel free to test what ours does against that documentation. You may have flown a sim once or twice, but guys who fly the airplane day in and day out as well as the Boeing performance information say you're wrong. iFly themselves even stated they're going to rework the performance. A fully loaded 737-700 cannot climb to FL400 in 12 or 13 minutes out of KPHX on a 110 degree day - I've been on that flight in real life and it was at least 25 minutes before we reached cruise, which you'll find is very much in line with the Boeing documentation. The iFly gets crazy 3000-5000 FPM climb rates above FL300 - that is not correct, ask anyone who flies the real airplane. The 757/767 and the 777 are the time-to-climb rocketships in the Boeing fleet, not the 737.

For me the original PMDG was/is underpowered. You guys put in the right specks for engine performance but for some reason I always had problems getting the thing out of KMDW without 'almost' running out of runway. I'm at work so I don't have all the spec info to quote here but with flaps 5 or the next one up the bird would not get off the runway (until almost at the blast fence) for me unless I lowered fuel (passenger load had to be half full) to a point I couldn't make it to destinations like KSAN which is a real route from KMDW. Now this is my personal experiance not a flame. Other add-ons I have don't suffer this issue. Concerning the iFly model let's cut to the chase. First off I know/hope you've been in a real NG simulator. For the money spent which was cheap for me due to fundraisers, you don't get the chance to do what you would do in FS. That meaning you don't take off and fly up to 30,000ft and cruise to your destination. I did mostly pattern work which is what most who train in the sims do outside of emergency procedures or the like. Actually I'm not in the know of all the training classed offered for a full Level-D sim but for those coming in to play around thanks to friends or connections all you do is pattern work and familiarity with the cockpit (you don't even taxi to the runway, you start on the runway). That being said I stand on my perception that the iFly model had the correct engine performance. I'll actually admit I'm wrong if real pilots of the NG say otherwise because I didn't have that climb to altitude experience when I flew the Level-D sim. Taking off from KATL was just like what I get with the iFly model plain and simple. I wish I could have flew it out of KMDW but real Level-D sims only have scenery where the actual plane will fly for the perspective airline.I flew the 744 sim as well and was impressed at what PMDG accomplished compared to the real thing. The only thing I found different was the roll rate in the real thing had lag time from the yoke input greater than anything I've seen in FS up until the iFly model. You can turn the yoke and the actual plane is a couple of steps behind you (hence you 'really' have to be ahead of things). That's not how the PMDG bird is. This is not a criticism as this isn't modeled for the most part in any FS 744. iFly got this aspect right with their model which impressed me greatly. Outside of that the PMDG model is fantastic (I would say more in how it impressed me based on the real bird but we're on a public forum).

Huh? Ours has had proper startup procedure since the beginning.EDIT - if you're referring solely to the checklist item that has you turn the packs off before engine start, this is bug that was introduced in one of the later versions of the PMDGOptions.dll, we didn't program pack switches that do nothing, it did work originally. Should we have caught the bug? Yes, I will give you that point. You do however need proper APU bleed air routing to start the plane, I just tried it.Same answer as #13.Which is completely unrealistic and not a feature of the real aircraft's radios.

For the most part I guess there's no argument here from me as you've outlined things perfectly. I agree the tuning of radios in the iFly model is unrealistic in which I never said it was. I just said it was something the original PMDG bird didn't offer which is what was asked by the poster of that thread, on top of that (real or not) it's a nice feature just the same for FS purposes.

Regarding the rest of your commentary below your list, I think we'll just let the NGX speak for itself when it's released. It is the best performing product FPS-wise in my FSX hanger now aside from tiny GA planes and I'll bet this convinces more than a few diehards such as yourself to come try FSX out once people start posting about it. Maybe you should actually consider giving it a chance when we release it instead of writing it off before you've even seen it or how well it runs.

The real NGX will speak for itself in FSX not FS9 which is why we love the iFly model...

I flew the 744 sim as well and was impressed at what PMDG accomplished compared to the real thing. The only thing I found different was the roll rate in the real thing had lag time from the yoke input greater than anything I've seen in FS up until the iFly model. You can turn the yoke and the actual plane is a couple of steps behind you (hence you 'really' have to be ahead of things). That's not how the PMDG bird is. This is not a criticism as this isn't modeled for the most part in any FS 744. iFly got this aspect right with their model which impressed me greatly. Outside of that the PMDG model is fantastic (I would say more in how it impressed me based on the real bird but we're on a public forum).

I'd like to amend something here in case of any misunderstanding. Larger planes from what I'm told have a lag time in maneuvering from what's inputed from the yoke to what the plane actually does. iFly (in my personal opinion) nailed this aspect more than many other offerings I've seen for FS. In my statement above I'm not saying the iFly model behaves like a 744 but rather like a heavy of it's size. For all those that had a chance to fly the 744 simulators in Denver know what I'm talking about. For the record I love what PMDG has produced over the years as they have single handedly in many ways advanced our hobby to where it is today. They raised many bars that others had to adjust to. We most likely wouldn't have iFly in the stat that's it's in if it weren't for the excellent PMDG products before it. Today's sad reality is they no longer produce products for the sim many of us use solely and that's what's unfortunate.

Tonight I made a online VATSIM flight from EDDG to LOWK in Austria and the sky (also EDDM on the ground, I flew direct over it to Austria) was pretty occupied by i-fly 737 planes.It's amazing to see the grown i-fly fleet on VATSIM in such a short time...Happy landings

For me the original PMDG was/is underpowered. You guys put in the right specks for engine performance but for some reason I always had problems getting the thing out of KMDW without 'almost' running out of runway. I'm at work so I don't have all the spec info to quote here but with flaps 5 or the next one up the bird would not get off the runway (until almost at the blast fence) for me unless I lowered fuel (passenger load had to be half full) to a point I couldn't make it to destinations like KSAN which is a real route from KMDW. Now this is my personal experiance not a flame. Other add-ons I have don't suffer this issue.

There's a ton of things that could be at play here - ISA deviation/density altitude/etc and the actual payloads that are used on that particular SWA flight in particular. Real planes can and do get weight restricted due to performance considerations when the payload would be such that the plane is out of limits for a particular runway. I can't say for sure if this is the case with that flight without talking to an SWA dispatcher, but I'll bet that it is. If I do a full pax load, but light cargo (simulating just pax and their baggage) with the proper fuel load (around 26,000lbs), I can replicate what's in this KMDW-KSAN takeoff video:

in our plane. The plane gets airborne just past the intersection of 31C with 4L/22R. Ops at MTOW out of KDMW is probably not realistic and I very seriously doubt that's what SWA is doing here.

Concerning the iFly model let's cut to the chase. First off I know/hope you've been in a real NG simulator. For the money spent which was cheap for me due to fundraisers, you don't get the chance to do what you would do in FS. That meaning you don't take off and fly up to 30,000ft and cruise to your destination. I did mostly pattern work which is what most who train in the sims do outside of emergency procedures or the like. Actually I'm not in the know of all the training classed offered for a full Level-D sim but for those coming in to play around thanks to friends or connections all you do is pattern work and familiarity with the cockpit (you don't even taxi to the runway, you start on the runway). That being said I stand on my perception that the iFly model had the correct engine performance. I'll actually admit I'm wrong if real pilots of the NG say otherwise because I didn't have that climb to altitude experience when I flew the Level-D sim. Taking off from KATL was just like what I get with the iFly model plain and simple. I wish I could have flew it out of KMDW but real Level-D sims only have scenery where the actual plane will fly for the perspective airline.I flew the 744 sim as well and was impressed at what PMDG accomplished compared to the real thing. The only thing I found different was the roll rate in the real thing had lag time from the yoke input greater than anything I've seen in FS up until the iFly model. You can turn the yoke and the actual plane is a couple of steps behind you (hence you 'really' have to be ahead of things). That's not how the PMDG bird is. This is not a criticism as this isn't modeled for the most part in any FS 744. iFly got this aspect right with their model which impressed me greatly. Outside of that the PMDG model is fantastic (I would say more in how it impressed me based on the real bird but we're on a public forum).

You can do anything you want in a simulator if you know the right people and can get the time. Yes, real airline pilots in their sim proficiency checks mainly focus on abnormal emergency procedures and not on doing the mundane normal procedures but I know for a fact pilots do do full flights in the sim in their initial training on type. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from flying a full flight FS-style in a real sim other than the amount of time you're given and the willingness of the sim operators to let you do it. We're fortunate enough to have people that will in fact let us do it. ;) Regarding your comments about the lag in the controls - I will check this in the actual sim. I do recall that we made it more responsive in our modelling to deal with the fact that there's far more "throw" in a real yoke than there is a desktop simmer's joystick - I think that actually may have been what you experienced in the sim rather than anything having to do with mechanical response times to the hydraulics and control surfaces. I think simmers are used to far smaller stick/yoke movements than what it actually takes to produce a bank or pitch up/down on the real thing.

iFly has said numerous times that the FDE is going to be getting an overhaul for the upcoming service pack. The engines are underpowered on the low end, and overpowered up top. They are looking at smoothing out the performance, but this is going to make for some serious work considering all of the different engine variants available...each one will have to get its own proper parameters. The spoiler logic is also being reworked. Right now, iFly is working on the navigation side of things, and the way that the plane reacts with the FMC...basically making sure that the plane behaves properly in a turn, and that the flightplan line is drawn correctly on the ND. They are also working on the VNAV descent logic. They have started working on the spoiler logic as well along with several other small systems related issues.I know that this post doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, but I wanted to make sure that people weren't confused with what iFly's position is.

iFly has said numerous times that the FDE is going to be getting an overhaul for the upcoming service pack.

The engines are getting an overhaul not the FDE itself. They like what they've produced with the basic flight dynamics.

Cmpbellsjc wrote; "...I'm always up for making easy money, so I would be willing to bet you all your money that your wrong about that, especially since Ryan posted the other day in the PMDG section that the a/c is currently in alpha".Yep, and they also said they were making the 737NGX for FS9, but look what happened to that.TABS wrote; "...This is just patently untrue - we have half a dozen real world NG pilots and actual design engineers who worked on the aircraft on our technical team and the iFly climb performance is way off, that's the honest truth".I would like to know what gives you the right as a developer to diss another developers product regardless of whether in your opinion its flawed or not?In my opinion that is just plain wrong and will open up a can of worms.Moderators?

TABS wrote; "...This is just patently untrue - we have half a dozen real world NG pilots and actual design engineers who worked on the aircraft on our technical team and the iFly climb performance is way off, that's the honest truth".I would like to know what gives you the right as a developer to diss another developers product regardless of whether in your opinion its flawed or not?In my opinion that is just plain wrong and will open up a can of worms.Moderators?

He more so wrote that directed at me versus iFly to debunk what I was saying about his product. It looks like our short back and fourth above left us on mutual ground. There's no need to go after Ryan when the issue is resolved. :(

The engines are getting an overhaul not the FDE itself. They like what they've produced with the basic flight dynamics.

The engines are tied to the FDE...as well as the spoilers. So by tweaking the engines, they are going to have to tweak the FDE.

The engines are tied to the FDE...as well as the spoilers. So by tweaking the engines, they are going to have to tweak the FDE.

That's splitting hairs... :( The flight dynamics can get confused with adjusting the engines if it's not explained right. You make a slight point when talking FS realities and programming but flight dynamics in it's truest since is different from thrust. When a bird is being tested in a wind tunnel it has nothing to do with engines outside of their shape on the wing. The actual engine chosen and fitted in the bird usually comes after the airframe is considered stable in many test areas and ready for the speed the desired engine is going to accommodate. How a plane handles in the air has nothing to do with the engines unless you loose one creating a serious yaw effect that you have to compensate for. You can have engine/engines out and pitch for best speed and get a since of the flight dynamics of the airframe. Different engines on a plane will give more power but not effect how a plane handles unless their housing is a different shape on the airframe. Another thing that goes outside of this scope but worth mentioning is a 182 is more nose heavy due to the engine versus a 172. Now that has an effect on flight dynamics big time but that's a weight and balance issue versus thrust. When we talk thrust in FS yes you adjust the same file that has all the other dynamic features of the bird in it but if nothing else is changed the bird handles the same but has more or less power when needed. Concerning the spoilers there has been much said about this. I don't know if iFly is really going to adjust this area. I find the spoilers fine in my experience as this is something I used in the real sim. I will concede the point if actual pilots of the NG are stating it needs to be adjusted but the big question is how much and is it increase or decrease in effectiveness. Don't automatically equate adjusting meaning 'no effect' at all in slowing the bird in the air. In the 744 where we had to use the speed brakes as one of the guys with me was having trouble, they did gradually slow the plane down. This assumption that they do nothing but dampen the wings on touchdown is not true at least on the 744. Now every airliner is different so I'll hold off comment until I see what iFly does. For me both the 744 and NG (more so the 744 as we used it specifically) slowed down in the Level-D sim using them. The decrease in speed was comparable to what the iFly model currently does...

You are also splitting hairs. The flight dynamics might be separate from thrust, but they are also affected by thrust...ever hear of P factor? Anyways...I went through ground school a long time ago.Rest assured that iFly is going to fix the spoilers (and they are in the process of doing so right now.) The iFly's spoilers in their current state will give the user a 10 degree nose down pitch and a 8,000fpm+ descent rate in the full down flight detent. That is not realistic, and it wouldn't be hard to find a rw NG pilot to point that out. Anyways I'm not here to argue with you. Believe what you want to believe.