Hi!I am considering buying Fly The Maddog Professional 2010 Edition. I am enjoying my PMDG J41, but I feel like flying a bigger jet sometimes. I know PMDG 737 ngx is coming soon (it's been coming soon for quite a while now...) and I will probably get a copy of it when it comes out. Anyone has any experience with the Maddog in FSX? I see that FS2Crew has a version for it and TSS also has a sound package. Anyone?

It's an extremely in depth and accurate addon (I have that from an ex r/w FO). The only reason I don't use it much is that it's 'too' good!! These days, I often only have the time to jump in and fly. The MADDOG doesn't really allow for that very well.If you like the J41, you'll also enjoy the maddog i'm sure. just don't expect the eye candy to be quite as good though.

It is excellent. My only issues with it is that it is not FSX native, the VC textures are dated (it's an older product), and if you use the VC it requires some jumping around between 2d panels and the VC to operate all the systems.

Really? 100% from VC and every thing is operable from there.

It is excellent. My only issues with it is that it is not FSX native, the VC textures are dated (it's an older product), and if you use the VC it requires some jumping around between 2d panels and the VC to operate all the systems.

Only reason I ever held back on this product...I don't mind being told to use DX9 mode, but if it's not dx10 compatible I won't touch it.

I think I am going for it. There is just one thing that worries me. it is the fact that it is not FSX native. I have experience with a non-FSX native from before, the F1 ATR 72-500. I bought it and I never got it on the air because the VC was bugged. The buttons on the overhead panel were not clickable (in VC) most of the time and when they became clickable I had the flickering mouse pointer issue. Well, well, that is part of the past. I hope the Maddog will work... I like advanced and complex aircrafts (maybe to compensate for my own simplicity ). Thanks for the responses!

Enjoy your portover! :(

Really? 100% from VC and every thing is operable from there.

I don't think you can interact with the FA and ground crews from the VC if I remember correctly (there might be FSX menu controls for this but I don't recall). Also, to control the hydraulic switches I usually have to jump over to the FO position in the 2D panel. They are hard to see from the captain's seat even with my trackIR in my experience.

I don't think you can interact with the FA and ground crews from the VC if I remember correctly (there might be FSX menu controls for this but I don't recall). Also, to control the hydraulic switches I usually have to jump over to the FO position in the 2D panel. They are hard to see from the captain's seat even with my trackIR in my experience.

That's correct Shane, there are a few tidbits that need the 2d panels to be opened in order to be operated. Other than this the product is superb, and the port-over hatred that many seem to have does not pose any problems - it's still one of the best payware add-ons out there, with the most comprehensive flightplanner/fuelplanner/loadplanner etc etc. You will thoroughly enjoy it once you have studied in great detail how everything works! :(

I have been studying this plane during the christmas break (the 2008 version in FS2004), and I'm glad I did. It's a refreshing change from Boeing and Airbus. As a matter of fact, the PMDG 747 seems rather boring and bleak in comparison to the Maddog... The amount of stuff you have to do manually on the Maddog is startling and I confess I was a bit shocked by the fact that so many airlines (especially in the USA) still use this plane. I find it to be extremely primitive when compared to other aircraft of its time and age, such as the Boeing 767. I guess it shows the difference in goal that the planes were designed for, just like the ERJ-145 series of aircraft does not have an auto throttle (which the Maddog does have, by the way).

I find it to be extremely primitive when compared to other aircraft of its time and age, such as the Boeing 767.

It's designed for the Old Farts among us, Ben! The 80-series came about as a new version of the DC-9, but under the new ownership of McDonnel-Douglas in 1980. The DC-9 base aircraft has been around since 1965, and widely used. The 767 was the beginning of a new wide-body stream of aircraft, using the latest technologies throughout the aircraft.The major difference I've found - is the depth of simulated systems integration: almost everything that one might do as PF or PNF is replicated, and will have meaningful dependencies. That means that one cannot just jump in and fly, because you won't make it to the far end of the runway - or even to the threshold if you missed any of a good number of clicks, pushes and pulls, or did something out of order. Engine de-ice works: it needs to be on in many areas of the world: autoland and go-around works properly, provided you understand the what needs to be done to achieve it: there's a built-in failure generator that's beyond belief: Reduced Thrust Take-off Procedure works: flight guidance is simulated perfectly if you use it properly. The reason for the 'primitive' comment is, I think that much of the aircrew interaction with the aircraft's systems is simply missing from most other aircraft, and that means a good amount of reading and research is necessary in order to slowly become familiar with driving this bird. It's not easy.

The DC-9 base aircraft has been around since 1965, and widely used.

It sure is! Even the new Chinese built Comac ARJ21 uses the Cross Section, nose and tail from the DC-9 series of aircraft. Sure is a good design!

It sure is! Even the new Chinese built Comac ARJ21 uses the Cross Section, nose and tail from the DC-9 series of aircraft. Sure is a good design!

Didn't know that. That's very interesting. Thanks!

It's designed for the Old Farts among us, Ben! The 80-series came about as a new version of the DC-9, but under the new ownership of McDonnel-Douglas in 1980. The DC-9 base aircraft has been around since 1965, and widely used. The 767 was the beginning of a new wide-body stream of aircraft, using the latest technologies throughout the aircraft..............

I would agree. I have always considered the MD80 as the last of a long line of aircraft that needed to be manually configured. It's certainly a plane that requires a 'pilot" in comparison to a "systems manager" that is representative of more modern aircraft from all manufacturers. I'm not sure about the commonality of the pilot rating for the older (more manual) DC9 series prior to the "-80", and the "-80" itself (that later became known as the "MD80" series). If there is one common rating for both then this would explain why much of the manual flying technology has remained in the MD80 (to preserve that common rating), much as how Boeing have attempted to preserve the rating commonality in the entire 737 series (the overhead panel is most obvious in that respect). As mentioned, at that same point in time when the MD80 was being developed, Boeing were working on a brand new aircraft that could never have any backwards commonality, it was too revolutionary (the B757/767) at that time. And Airbus had even more revolutionary ideas...... But for better or worse, the MD80 is unique in shape and form, and always takes my breath away when I see one take-off or land closeby. The highly cantilevered forward fuselage (the preserve the center of gravity with the weight of the aft-mounted engines) is awesome. And if you get a seat in the front half of the aircraft, it is so silent. The very rear is very noisy, of course!Good thread. I have this product (most recent version I believe), and always come back to it when I get sick of just programming a glass panel (although I believe both the MD80 and the B757-767 are known as "semi-glass").Bruce.

I've been eyeing this for awhile as well. However, I have an older Quad machine (two years old now). There has been some mention in their forums about framereates. I was wondering if those of you who have it on an older machine (XP and not W7) are able to fly it with decent framrates. I have UTX and GEX and that's it. Just wondering. My CS757 works well on my machine by the way (upper teens to low 20's). That works for me.Chris M.