PMDG 737 NGX: PMDG's attitude toward realism

[ahuimanu]

PMDG is not a group of college kids with photoshop and a stolen flight manual trying to make an airplane simulation.

You know Robert, sans the stolen part (we do have essco and other sources), this is the essence of freeware, which is the essence of the first steps toward greatness. I purchased some of your first products, which were basically PDF manuals for the 757/767 and 747, which contained information that I could have picked up anywhere. However, it was a good start for the times, and the manuals were geared towards the simmer. From those inauspicious beginnings, you've flourished into an empire. Even you started out cleaning aircraft before flying, and then making virtual representations of aircraft.My point is, try not to be too dismissive (if not in deed, then in tone) of the beginners. Frankly, the beginners/freeware spirit is much dimmer now than during the heady days of the late 90s, when PMDG was just about making PDF manuals.Looking forward to the NGX and thank you for sharing these wonderful updates with us.

[martin-w]

Okay guy. This is kind of stupid because PMDG has already stated they ARE going to make one,

Indeed they have, but the comment that confused and worried some of us was "some kind of 2D panel"Or words to that effect, I think some are concerned that rather than a full set of 2D panels, it will be more of an afterthought, with the primary emphasis on the VC.Given that there's pretty much a three way split, between those that favor all VC, all 2D and some that use both, we are hoping that PMDG will find the time to confirm a full set of 2D panels.Unfortunately, I don't think they have made their mind up yet, how well catered for we 2D panel fans will be. :( Martin Wilby

[aceridgey]

what a wonderful world

[king123]

can anyone please confirm if there will be manual reversion in the NGX.Screenshots are looking better then anything else out there.Looking forward to the release.Vikrant Soni

[RPRIEVER]

So having being exposed to the Leonardo Maddog for a few weeks while I wait for the NGX, I can't help but worry that the NGX won't quite tick all the boxes when it comes to realism:Functioning CB'sEngines that melt if you over stress them.Gear that doesn't come down if you don't have the hyd pumps on highHyd system logic that actually simulates diagonal functionality (Hyd 1 system inop = RH thrust reverse doesn't work)Acceptable differed defects log (Or whatever you civvies call it)

The PMDG J41 already simulates engine meltdown if the condition levers aren't in the correct position. I'm sure they can simulate an overstressed engine meltdown.

[Cras]

The problem is the maddog is sometimes infuriating to fly and it can be a bit temperamental and buggy, the VC is **** (Not very good) and support is practically non existent. I'm after the best of both worlds really, very accurate (bordering on anal) systems, beautiful VC, good docs, fine exterior model and no critical bugs. Please allay my fears and I'll be eternally grateful. :ph34r:I took some convincing when I switched from 2d to VC. Track IR is an absolute must, you sort of get used to it after a while. Going back to a 2d cockpit for me now would be unthinkable.

I agree with the Maddogs VC. I enjoy flying the plane very much, but with all the high praise I heard about it, to say I was underwhelmed by the VC is an understatement to say the least. The overhead panel in the VC is just pitiful. But it still is a fun plane to fly.But the real reason I am posting here is about Track IR. I have been very interested in Track IR for a while now, but I am still not sure how it is used. Just thinking about it, I figure that it must somehow exaggerate head movements so I can move my head and still see the screen. How big is the learning curve on using it? Is it practically useful (I can glance out the left window when making a turn from left base to final), or is it more for looks.

[MorsAbAlto]

I agree with the Maddogs VC. I enjoy flying the plane very much, but with all the high praise I heard about it, to say I was underwhelmed by the VC is an understatement to say the least. The overhead panel in the VC is just pitiful. But it still is a fun plane to fly.But the real reason I am posting here is about Track IR. I have been very interested in Track IR for a while now, but I am still not sure how it is used. Just thinking about it, I figure that it must somehow exaggerate head movements so I can move my head and still see the screen. How big is the learning curve on using it? Is it practically useful (I can glance out the left window when making a turn from left base to final), or is it more for looks.

Although this

is not based on FSX it shows how TrackIR works. Especially real head movement vs. virtual head movements.

[Guest wims]

I'm sorry, but that is just nonsensical. First, it is a virtual cockpit, not a 3D one, so put your fancy specs away. It is representing what the pilot can see, not what is most convienient for the simmer, and since the pilot must move their viewpoint to see different things, it more realisticly simulates the pilots workflow then 2D views ever could. As for functionality, as someone who has made the transition from 2D to VC, I am curious to know what functionality you think I have given up?

OK, first of all, no need to take stuff personal and use words like nonsensical. VC or 3d, who cares what I call it, its the same thing. It doesnt actually represent what a real pilot would see, the field of view is way narrower than a real life field of view. In real life you would be able to reach anything you want on the mcp without spending a second panning the view around. You wouldnt have to use a mouse pointer to manipulate knobs and buttons, and spending time finding the exact correct spot to click to be able to turn a knob. In real life you wouldnt even have to look at the MCP, you would know where everything was by heart and experience. Think muscle memory.What I like about the 2d panel is that the knobs are always in the exact same spot and I dont have to waste valuable time trying to find that exact click spot, which happens to be moving because of g-forces (yes, i know, its possible to disable the camera movement). Its simply way more functional in a high workload situation, it makes it easier for me to focus on actually aviating, navigating and communicating. Since I'm being the captain and the FO at the same time I prefer to reduce artificial hurdles like having to find the correct click spot as much as possible. Thats why I use the 2d panel in high workload situations. When the workload is lower I usually use the 3d cockpit.But this topic isnt about the advantages of 2d vs 3d, its about the upcoming NGX. I just hope they put as much effort into the 2d panel as they have done with the VC, so people like me can get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of the simulator

[teropa]

WimI couldn't agree more! 2D cockpit in the sim, when HW sim is not an option ;), is the perfect solution to flying the desk and staying in control. 3D cockpits / Virtual cockpit are of course nice, but to fly complex aircraft on single-man cockpit crews, in VATSIM/IVAO, following procedures to the letter and generally flying the way it should be flown, requires the precise controlling of the aircraft. In my years of sim flying I have noticed that whatever the 3D environment be, that it never comes to even close of the precision that good 2D panels offer. Not even close. For the reasons mentioned in above posts.Of course, the most handy cockpit is the HW one :), which is my absolute favorite... Tero

[Tabs]

This is what I've got used too:Functioning CB'sEngines that melt if you over stress them.Gear that doesn't come down if you don't have the hyd pumps on highHyd system logic that actually simulates diagonal functionality (Hyd 1 system inop = RH thrust reverse doesn't work)Acceptable differed defects log (Or whatever you civvies call it)

We are not modelling CBs - that's something 1/10th of 1% of people will ever care about or use and it literally adds nothing to the normal simming experience on an advanced modern jet like the NG. If an airline or training company wants to pay us to do it, by all means we'd have to entertain the idea, but it's just not something that's worth the time it would take to model accurately. If I recall correctly, the LSH product has just a small subset of all the breakers functional anyways right?You have to ask yourself how many of these things are actually even possible on a 737NG though too. You can't just say that because one addon for a much older aircraft has things like "Engines that melt if you over stress them." that any aircraft should have that - the NG has electronic engine control (EEC) computers that limit you from doing exactly that to the engines. It was something that was invented after the MD-80 series was designed. There's no such thing as "high" hydraulic pump settings on an NG either.As for stuff like failed or incorrectly set systems and their associated dependencies and effects on the other systems in the aircraft, we've had stuff like that for a long time - the 747 and MD-11 are chock full of them. The NGX has an absolutely extreme level of detail with this type of thing though - there's many many things that we're sure people are going to report as "bugs" here after release that are actually realistic issues you'd see on the real aircraft if you don't configure the systems correctly.

[captdini]

Dear Ryan,I totally agree with you on the issue of CB's. They are never touched by the pilots in real life anyway and even then, a very few of them form part of a handful of NNC procedures. Although, there are some older NG's which are not fitted with a CVR switch on the OH panel, you have to pull the CVR CB located behind the P1 I think, while on ground. You could have this as one of your myriad options :( . Even in the airline Level D simulators, at least in the one I have seen, the CB panel is like a "door" and even that was folded away and latched along the simulator side wall. This of course gives the instructor more room to see whats happening up front :( and also it is obvious it is not required during sim training / check.Dinshaw Parakh.

[Cras]

Although this

is not based on FSX it shows how TrackIR works. Especially real head movement vs. virtual head movements.

Thank you. I am now convinced that I need to get TrackIR. But I am also in the market for more realistic and Jet based Yoke,Throttle,Rudder Pedel set. Not sure which one I should go after first.

[Krister]

Thank you. I am now convinced that I need to get TrackIR. But I am also in the market for more realistic and Jet based Yoke,Throttle,Rudder Pedel set. Not sure which one I should go after first.

Scott,First of all, trackIR is a wonderful piece of tool that I never fly without for the last 3-4 years, secondly Maddog 2010 in my opinion has a very nice overhead panel and I frankly don't quite understand the earlier comments, thirdly, Bryan at FS2Crew will use his magic wand to raise PMDG 737NG to an even higher level as he did for Maddog 2010! And my incoherent rambling all comes together in this video :D

Mind you, I didn't use the Pro clip on the TrackIR which would have gotten ridden of all the erratic head movement and it was just my second or third attempt at using FS2Crew... But I think it does prove the great advantage TrackIR gives you!

[airlinejets]

Top one is PMDG?

nope...it's the bottom one

[MMartinov]

............people are going to report as "bugs" here after release that are actually realistic issues you'd see on the real aircraft if you don't configure the systems correctly.........

You hear that people! Stop beating around and grab those 737 manuals... We have things to learn before the NGX comes out..