so you decompiled the .air file and checked confidential performance data that Boeing just gave you, and on top of that Boeing told you PMDG did not have such data.

Feel free to read again and see that I'm talking about "tables", meaning charts in the manual, Sir.We would both have big problems to say if the performance in the sim is somehow close to the real thing without having such tables, do you agree?I'd like to amend to my sentence ("which, on other devs, usually causes a big outcry") that a PMDG "blame" therefor would cause some members to jump in to counteract this "insulting" fact.See those named aircraft as examples for the strong believe in some names and a maybe overall disbelieve in others.Clearer for you now? At least for me it is.

I agree, in fact it is the only version I fly now. As for the 787 I would buy it if it were a reasonably complex systems & model. I purchased the AirbusX and I am fairly happy with it. I really lament not being able to program runways but other than that it is a decent plane.

if you are happy with the AibusX level of simulation, you are going to be pleased with the QW787 too. For as far as I could see, they simulate about the same overall, but I find you can do more with the QW757's FMC that with the AirbusX's MCDU.

Seems like this "real" usually is a self made award of some kind (and some people around). As shown, your maybe favorite dev offers at least two planes with completely wrong data based on another model, one with the lack of tables (which, on other devs, usually causes a big outcry) and another one with features in the manual (and no mark like "not simulated) but no function in the sim.Talking about the 747 variants, the MD11 and the J41 here.So before starting to get "real" in your meaning, we should agree that this is a simulator and that some companies just build software for it without hyping the somehow real element all the time and making some people think that they are better than others because they are using this hyped stuff (which of course offers some quality).So while you click in your cockpit, looking at your flatscreen and maybe searching for some real-alike items on it, be reminded that some of that realness was implemented by marketing guys only and you seem to be a strong believer of those elements.As seen in the examples above, people around here sometimes seem to question all other devs on their "real" approaches while some names are out of discussion without obvious reasons.I own the mentioned titles too and like them but I wouldn't dare to call my sim experience to be more real or (which often is the intention of using this "real" word it seems) in any way better or classy than other's.So lets get this childish "I am more real than you" stuff out of the line as it has no basis. Much appreciated.

"I'm more real than you" is absolutely a VALID argument because this is a hobby of SIMULATION and the whole purpose of SIMULATION is the imitation of something real! For instance. If there is a product where I can utilize it almost EXACTLY as I would in the real world and there is another product whose representation is less exact, then it is a valid statement that the use of one is more REALISTIC than the other. A great example of this: When crash testing cars car companies use crash test "dummies" that simulate human behavior. Obviously the most accurate test results are going to come from a real person being slammed into a brick wall at 100mph, but you're not going to have a lot of volunteers therefore a crash test dummy is a reasonable simulation of a real person. Much time is spent simulating force effects on different parts of the anatomy and the behavior of the human simulant is so realistic that valid test results could be taken that translate into the real world almost exactly as if you had a real person involved in the crash. On the other hand, you can take a typical store mannequin and put it in the same crash situation. The store mannequin probably looks great and probably will be very well dressed and may even resemble someone you know, but it behaves nothing like a real world human. Now, given that both human analogs are meant to simulate humans, WHICH simulation do you think behaves MORE realistically as compared to a real human given that neither, of course, are real humans? So, let's translate that into flight SIM-UL-ATION. If I am using a simulated B747 cockpit that can be used with a real B747 manual to simulate 90% of the actions a real world pilot could do and another person is using a simulated B747 cockpit that doesn't really conform to a real B747 manual and only simulates 40% of the actions a real world pilot could do...at the end of a 3 hour flight whose flight simualtion experience was more realistic? Now there is no "marketing" hype but real substantive evidence that one more closely simualted a real flight than the other (I'll let you decide which.)The ironic thing is that the more developers "simplify" their aircraft the HARDER they actually make it to fly! For instance, a "complex" simulation of an FMC and ILS approach allows the FMC to automatically tune the ILS for the pilot and the Localizer and glideslope magically shows up so the pilot can concentrate on flying the plane. On a "simplified" simulation of FMC and ILS the pilot has to manually tune the ILS which mean he or she probably has to first find the correct frequency and manually tune it in! Okay, the "complex" model now becomes "simpler" to operate than the "simple" model that is more "complex" to operate! Oh the irony!!!So, let's not mix marketing hype with reality. For the mere simulation of a complex subject on a home computer FSX is capable of actually doing things that SURPASS that of a Level D full motion sim! The more a product simulates its real world counterpart the more realistic your Flight Simulator experience will be. So yeah, my flight simulator experience may very well be much more realistic than yours...its not ego or impoliteness simply the truth!

I must admit that my first and still remaining thought about your huge post was "please, calm down". Shame on me. I hope you feel better not after writing this and missing the topic by more than some nm.My intervention was targeted towards this childish and very self-revelationed "I'm flying somehow realer, so I'm better" mentality and all posts trying to fight this intervention just underlined the need for it. Funny paradox, isn't it?Seems like my PMDG examples just did the same thing: forcing some reactions that are emotionally driven and sadly not fact based, showing the need for a correction again.Sad to see that some guys follow a forum bias without being able to discuss things in a objective manner. Seeing someone jumping in, defining "the truth" for others by order (regarding your last sentence) might be another indication for a strange regime around.To doubt the QW approach on the 787 and (maybe) simultaneously using and praising some of those 747 variants (which are good examples and only examples) from the other dev together with the mentioned mentality is a very poor reflection of somebody's mind in my eyes.At least, QW might use some rw data while e. g. the 747-8i goes completely off the line, by intention of course. I haven't read any doubts around Avsim on this plane but a vast amount on much more detailed and correct approaches from other devs.So maybe our "truths" differ a bit and I can't really say that I'm sad about his fact.

"I'm more real than you" is absolutely a VALID argument because this is a hobby of SIMULATION and the whole purpose of SIMULATION is the imitation of something real! The ironic thing is that the more developers "simplify" their aircraft the HARDER they actually make it to fly! For instance, a "complex" simulation of an FMC and ILS approach allows the FMC to automatically tune the ILS for the pilot and the Localizer and glideslope magically shows up so the pilot can concentrate on flying the plane. On a "simplified" simulation of FMC and ILS the pilot has to manually tune the ILS which mean he or she probably has to first find the correct frequency and manually tune it in! Okay, the "complex" model now becomes "simpler" to operate than the "simple" model that is more "complex" to operate! Oh the irony!!!So, let's not mix marketing hype with reality. For the mere simulation of a complex subject on a home computer FSX is capable of actually doing things that SURPASS that of a Level D full motion sim! The more a product simulates its real world counterpart the more realistic your Flight Simulator experience will be. So yeah, my flight simulator experience may very well be much more realistic than yours...its not ego or impoliteness simply the truth!

I agree, it is a valid statement when the term "realistic" is used. Realistic is fairly value free; different terms produce different results. I like the QW level of simulation and I do like having the GPS in the panel mainly for the purpose of having a visual representation of terrain, visual representation of when I will intercept the glide slope and approach data. There are a couple problems with using accurate approach data and a realistic FMC: 1. ATC doesn't use that data and 2. the data does not always mimic what I have represented in my scenery. Also, ATC determines your altitude and vs, not your FMC. Maintaining radio silence when approaching a large airport isn't very realistic and robotic ATC add ons do not seem very realistic to me. Realism in the sim isn't completely possible - you improve one aspect and you end up messing up another. It is all about trade offs and some are willing to trade off different aspects of the simulation experience.

duckbilled, I really must say that your post did the trick for me. That's what I like to read around flight sim forums and no individual should jump in defining good or bad without delivering facts. And the facts towards flight sim realism are: your last sentence just names it.

CoolP: no worries.. I get your point. Honestly one or two tables is nothing to prevent development over. If QW wants to build the plane using the 777 tables, let them, they can always release a patch once the data is public. However saying that development which will take years, is pinned on getting the aircraft performance table first, is just silly.

Still seeing the old MD11 sailing under a "confidential" flag concerning its data let's me develop doubts about getting some reliable stuff of current or even future birds.Funny that people talk about "real" performance without having a reference while every developer on the planet nowadays states a "developed with real world pilots" in its brochures. So it's mainly up to the user if he develops some pilot wannabe attitude because of this or just goes for a simulated ride in more or less precision.As spoken before, tables, funny variants and missing functions were just examples of the imperfectness of those sometimes hyped addons around. Seemed to have left a mark though. Can't explain the reactions in any other way so far as just emo-statements were presented as answers towards some facts.As I own some of those "real" titles too, those facts don't come out of the oracle.This "real" forum bias has more (viral) marketing and intentionally driven emotions in it than some of you can think of it seems. Looking on the list of the most read threads at Avsim, you might catch my drift.As flight sim forums usually don't lack of people that (want to) state being "realer" (and meaning "better") than others because the use this or that, the targets for this modern product placement will stay at high numbers. Glad to see some alternative releases coming up and being honest about their simulated nature and maybe being build for the other and in my eyes far more sympathetic guys around.As Ali G. said: Keep it real! :(

People buy PMDG products for their detaied VC's and "As real as it gets" Guages and Automation. That's what I paid for.. the .air file is not that important and if you know what's going on there it becomes rather trivial until you have to tweak it. But if you honestly think you can just take the numbers as published and expect the same results you are sadly mistaken.

I agree, it is a valid statement when the term "realistic" is used. Realistic is fairly value free; different terms produce different results. I like the QW level of simulation and I do like having the GPS in the panel mainly for the purpose of having a visual representation of terrain, visual representation of when I will intercept the glide slope and approach data. There are a couple problems with using accurate approach data and a realistic FMC: 1. ATC doesn't use that data and 2. the data does not always mimic what I have represented in my scenery. Also, ATC determines your altitude and vs, not your FMC. Maintaining radio silence when approaching a large airport isn't very realistic and robotic ATC add ons do not seem very realistic to me. Realism in the sim isn't completely possible - you improve one aspect and you end up messing up another. It is all about trade offs and some are willing to trade off different aspects of the simulation experience.

Great post duckbilled! I say to each his own, and there are developers that fill every niche, for that we are lucky! You and I both have our own ways we fly! I typically only fly clear blue (because my laptop can't handle any clouds), and never use ATC except for takeoff and landing clearances. Being a real world airline pilot, I find it not even close! So I typically fly complex FMS addons such as the PMDG birds, or anything else with a good FMS, as I know the next plane I fly in real world flying, will be FMS equipped, so I like to hone those skills! I usually just give myself vectors and use real approach plates (US only, haven't been able to get them world wide). Does that make me more real? Not even, but it's what I like and it helps keep the skills I want sharp, sharp :(.

Seems like this "real" usually is a self made award of some kind (and some people around). As shown, your maybe favorite dev offers at least two planes with completely wrong data based on another model, one with the lack of tables (which, on other devs, usually causes a big outcry) and another one with features in the manual (and no mark like "not simulated) but no function in the sim.Talking about the 747 variants, the MD11 and the J41 here.So before starting to get "real" in your meaning, we should agree that this is a simulator and that some companies just build software for it without hyping the somehow real element all the time and making some people think that they are better than others because they are using this hyped stuff (which of course offers some quality).So while you click in your cockpit, looking at your flatscreen and maybe searching for some real-alike items on it, be reminded that some of that realness was implemented by marketing guys only and you seem to be a strong believer of those elements.As seen in the examples above, people around here sometimes seem to question all other devs on their "real" approaches while some names are out of discussion without obvious reasons.I own the mentioned titles too and like them but I wouldn't dare to call my sim experience to be more real or (which often is the intention of using this "real" word it seems) in any way better or classy than other's.So lets get this childish "I am more real than you" stuff out of the line as it has no basis. Much appreciated.

My comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

QW came out with the 757 and now the 787.....Gee looks like PMDG going to have to catch up......LOL.:(

My comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

So we have to care about the other guys (and their tongues) then. No harm done, Coneman. In the meanwhile, let's watch the others fight for their "real" status around the forums and enjoy the more and more sympathetic comments in between.And of course, lets get exited about a hopefully nice 787 in the sim.

I like it! :) I hope this comes out and gives us a good option for buying a 787 addon. I'm looking forward to seeing more in game shots and more development updates. :(