Fantastic job guys! I remember looking over this option years ago and never thought it would be that cool!

Welcome back Randy, haven't seen your name around here in a LONG time!

Absolutely amazing work PMDG! I have one little question though: I asked this before concerning the MD11; when you are intercepting the localizer on an ILS approach, or a VOR radial, the autopilot seems so eager to align itself with it that it jerks and turns quite abruptely. Now i am no pilot so i can't know for sure, but it seems a bit unrealistic when it does this. When i asked about this the answer was that because of fsx limitations it is not possible to make it smoother without other functions working improperly as a side effect. I just did a short flight with the default 737-800 and eventhough i was a bit late to press approach it still intercepted the localizer smoothely, although overshooting it a bit. Same with the autothrottle, it is not as jerky as the autothrottle on the 747-400X/MD11 but less responsive to changes in speed and therefore slower. Is this more realistic? The real world 737-pilots in here; how fast is the autopilot/autothrottle in making changes to speed or intercepting localizers? I have found that the only way to make the intercept smooth is to press approach in the middle of a turn, but even when doing this the autopilot will often turn the other way quickly to line up.Which is most realistic? And with (perhaps) new technology/techniques, is it possible to make the autopilot smoother on the NGX?Thanks

Ok I have noticed, and I think a few others have as well but I am not sure. Has anyone noticed that the panel in general looks kind of blackish or dark grey and in the earlier previews it was kind of silver? This is bothering me because the real thing is more silvery, and I am not sure why it has changed. Does it have to do with lighting?Thanks, Connor Garrett

There's a wide range of looks in photos due to camera settings (exposure, white balance etc) and the lighting intensity. What we did was ask our tech team pilots to show us photo examples that most closely matched what you see on average with the human eye in the actual cockpit. That's what they did and this is what we're going with. We're not about to argue with or second guess people who look at the thing for a living. You should know too that a lot more people complained about the lighter color in the previous screenshots - you're the only one who's said anything about the darker ones.

Absolutely amazing work PMDG! I have one little question though: I asked this before concerning the MD11; when you are intercepting the localizer on an ILS approach, or a VOR radial, the autopilot seems so eager to align itself with it that it jerks and turns quite abruptely. Now i am no pilot so i can't know for sure, but it seems a bit unrealistic when it does this. When i asked about this the answer was that because of fsx limitations it is not possible to make it smoother without other functions working improperly as a side effect. I just did a short flight with the default 737-800 and eventhough i was a bit late to press approach it still intercepted the localizer smoothely, although overshooting it a bit. Same with the autothrottle, it is not as jerky as the autothrottle on the 747-400X/MD11 but less responsive to changes in speed and therefore slower. Is this more realistic? The real world 737-pilots in here; how fast is the autopilot/autothrottle in making changes to speed or intercepting localizers? I have found that the only way to make the intercept smooth is to press approach in the middle of a turn, but even when doing this the autopilot will often turn the other way quickly to line up.Which is most realistic? And with (perhaps) new technology/techniques, is it possible to make the autopilot smoother on the NGX?Thanks

I think its a specific thing with a plane's avionics suite. On the ERJ-145. The auto pilot is notorious for not being able to intercept the LOC if the plane is on a somewhat steep intercept. It would snake back and forth all the way down if you didn't intervene.

there should be some opacity to the thing, giving it a sense of thickness and depth,

I beg to differ. There are quite a few photographs of HUD in different lighting situations on the net and there is really no 'opacity' in the HUD to speak of. And I would not think there should be one - you don't want to distract pilot with some thick crude glass that would reveal its 'depth and thickness'. The HUD 'glass' called 'combiner' is actually a relatively thin glass of very high quality (and quite expensive) and specially treated/coated to remove all sort of ghosting or glare that you would normally get from a cheap thick glass plate. So yes, for all intensive purpose it is 'invisible' by design.

Well Robert and team all I can say is you guys are the best, Can't wait to get it. :(

Well, what do you expect a 737-800 cockpit to look like exactly? The default isn't grossly wrong shape or color wise or anything like that. (the fonts and the look of the displays most certainly are though). The texture resolution on ours is orders of magnitude higher - it's hard to even do it justice in screenshots - you'll see when it comes out. I personally think we've already surpassed the Airbus X - that cockpit looks very "CGI" to me, almost too clean looking. Example: http://www.aerosoft..../airbusx_39.jpg

You said it's too clean looking ? Well your bringing out a new aircraft so what's the matter with it looking like it's fresh out the factory ? :)JAMMUR

Hi RyanCan you tell me if there will be an option to create a separate window for the HUD like the eicas pfd and mfd as I would love to place it on my iPad in my home cockpit attached in the correct position in front of me hanging from above.Mike Kendall

Just a general question to robert and tabs.I dont know or expect an answer to my points, but it is just a query and interest.Which part of the aircraft do you start working on, where could you start.With the screenshots on page 1 of this thread, your obviously in the air, so i presume the flight dynamics are in place. my question is,For the pmdg ngx, through the stages of development did you use the MS FSX default 737 for subsitutes in the development phrase, for example dynamics, sound and exterior model? As things got ticked off the list?Cheers

Alex-Oooh.. thats a surprisingly complicated answer. It depends upon which developer you are talking to, what phase of development they join the workflow, and whether anyone else is falling behind and holding up deliverables that they depend upon, etc...In other words- I'll give you the answer we most commonly get from one of our most influential tech team members: "It depends."You hear that quite a bit in aviation. :(

Bill-The engine model/autothrottle/autopilot model in FS is terrible. It behaves nothing like the real airplane- and is best described as junk.The "jerkiness" that you see in the 400/MD-11 is actually an issue with the way we linked the visual controls to the auto-function logic... To get the airplane to behave according to the correct acceleration forces, it is necessary to control FSX "rather severely" under the hood... By linking the animation to the inuts- you see quite a bit of movement in them, where in the airplane you wouldn't see it. (Because the airplane doesn't have to monkey with physics in order to behave like itself. :( )To eliminate this in the NGX we are implementing smoothing logic that sits between the function we use to force FSX into submission and the animation that you see...This is a lower order implementation- meaning that it hasn't gotten much attention beyond basic layout because there is no point tuning the smoother until we are done monkeying with the flight control law...

Alex-Oooh.. thats a surprisingly complicated answer. It depends upon which developer you are talking to, what phase of development they join the workflow, and whether anyone else is falling behind and holding up deliverables that they depend upon, etc...In other words- I'll give you the answer we most commonly get from one of our most influential tech team members: "It depends."You hear that quite a bit in aviation. :(

So was there a point where you subsitiuted the exterior model? ;)So does PMDG have drawn a critical path analysis? and you keep to that as best as you can? Or is it not the right business model to implement a critical path/

PMDG RULES FSXRef Ryan's post - The "jerkiness" that you see in the 400/MD-11 is actually an issue with the way we linked the visual controls to the auto-function logic... To get the airplane to behave according to the correct acceleration forces, it is necessary to control FSX "rather severely" under the hood... By linking the animation to the inuts- you see quite a bit of movement in them, where in the airplane you wouldn't see it. (Because the airplane doesn't have to monkey with physics in order to behave like itself.John Ellison

Robert, Don't you really mean "classified" instead of censored........LOL :(

I beg to differ. There are quite a few photographs of HUD in different lighting situations on the net and there is really no 'opacity' in the HUD to speak of. And I would not think there should be one - you don't want to distract pilot with some thick crude glass that would reveal its 'depth and thickness'. The HUD 'glass' called 'combiner' is actually a relatively thin glass of very high quality (and quite expensive) and specially treated/coated to remove all sort of ghosting or glare that you would normally get from a cheap thick glass plate. So yes, for all intensive purpose it is 'invisible' by design.

All right then. Sounds good.