PMDG GENERAL

[Paul_Smith 92]

Very many thanks for the response and on the strength of advice I have invested in a Level D 767 ER. The reason I have not (yet) purchased a PMDG MD11 or 747 is because I prefer to take off and land without the space of an hour: a policy that rather rules the very large jets out. I think if I were to simulate a transAtlantic crossing, staring at a computer screen for seven and a half hours, my wife would probably have me carted off. Unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the PMDG aircraft is that you don't seem to be able to 'move them forward' during a flight. A pity.Many thanks again,Jim.

What a strange way to make a descsion. Did you know that the pre-flight preparation for the 767 and the 747 is almost identical? And because of the way you have to juggle air bleed air in the 767, it takes me less time to start the 747's four engines from cold then it does the 767's two engines. The FMC's are almost the same with the nod to the 747 for being more complete. Visuals and VC definitly favour the 747 as it is newer but the 767 does have those cute calls from the cabin staff asking that you turn the cabin air up or down.

[masneoquil 66]

Very many thanks for the response and on the strength of advice I have invested in a Level D 767 ER. The reason I have not (yet) purchased a PMDG MD11 or 747 is because I prefer to take off and land without the space of an hour: a policy that rather rules the very large jets out. I think if I were to simulate a transAtlantic crossing, staring at a computer screen for seven and a half hours, my wife would probably have me carted off. Unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the PMDG aircraft is that you don't seem to be able to 'move them forward' during a flight. A pity.Many thanks again,Jim.

And a second option to accelerate time in FSX, you can let it fly and do some other stuff while it's in cruise. Just check time to time, to see everything is normal, change fuel config, etc.Thats what i do. Of course, with failures off.

[DylanC 181]

Very many thanks for the response and on the strength of advice I have invested in a Level D 767 ER. Jim.

May I suggest one additional purchase to go along with the Level-D 767; Turbine Sound Studios 767 (GE, PW & RR variations) Soundsets. You will not be dissapointed.

[DaedalusX 11]

Out of curiosity what tweaking are you referring to?Jack C

Widescreen 2d Panels (http://sdmaus.com/ki...opic,103.0.html)RealityXP GNS 530 addonElevator trim fix (elevator_trim_effectiveness)FSUIPC tweak for heading bug A/P and Course obs select. Also needed to tweak my Saitek fuel level and starter to prevent hotstarts from happeningOther I don't remember ... So yeah, it's not a ton of tweaks but you need to know your way around in FS9 and FSUIPC to make this one perfect.Eric Believe me, it looks awesome in 8xAA 2550x1440 with the 530W.

[Roadburner426 19]

PMDG is very excellent at doing commercial aircraft. I really wish they would attempt to do military aircraft and such, but I realize that is not their company mission. I do think there are a lot of good developers out there, and every one of them has their ups and downs. For me the 2 companies that I purchase aircraft from that top my list are PMDG and A2A Simulations. Closely followed by VRS, and FS Labs. I will agree on the comment with the quality of the Concorde X VC, but for me it is not a major drawback. I am more into the overall systems simulation, and that counter balances it as the bird is pretty resource intensive as it is. I really do not have anything obvious to pick out on PMDG's aircraft though. Obviously the price is high, but you get what you pay for. Not to mention you get the complete package up front on release, and do not have to buy extra modules (ala Accu-sim), sound sets, or do tweaks/multiple service packs (ala our 310) to get it to run well.. Although I think A2A prices their products accordingly as they are only slightly more expensive than conventional add-ons. It just sucks have to do 2 installers with the registration codes and all. Unfortunately I am an aircraft fanatic so I do not have 1 single favorite bird, although my MD-11 certaintly is near the top of the list if I had one seeing as I have spent half my FSX flying time in it. All developers must have some level of pride in doing their aircraft. Certaintly there are some who go above and beyond, and you can tell that in the aircrafts ability to make you feel as if you are really piloting said bird (at least as close as you can sitting in front of the computer). As none of us are getting rich doing this, and keeping forums in check is sometimes more work than making the aircraft it seems. :( If I didn't get up in the morning everyday with nothing but aircraft on the brain I don't think I could keep going on showing up to work to work on aircraft, and then come home to virtually build and pilot planes. Just sucks at the end of this year I rotate back on to sea duty, and my time doing virtual aircraft stuff will be drastically decreased.

[aentwis 61]

MD11X, JS41 and everything the guys at PMDG are currently working on and in the future :)...Anything that A2A and RealAir has done for FSXLotussim L-39, just simply great funVRS F/A-18E SuperbugAnt's Planes TECNAM LSA, along wit his freeware Tiger Moth... check them outNo doubt the list grows with time... too little time and so many nice aircraft to fly to some great scenery!Andrew

[Tabs 2,790]

Very many thanks for the response and on the strength of advice I have invested in a Level D 767 ER. The reason I have not (yet) purchased a PMDG MD11 or 747 is because I prefer to take off and land without the space of an hour: a policy that rather rules the very large jets out. I think if I were to simulate a transAtlantic crossing, staring at a computer screen for seven and a half hours, my wife would probably have me carted off. Unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the PMDG aircraft is that you don't seem to be able to 'move them forward' during a flight. A pity.Many thanks again,Jim.

Both 744s and MD-11s do get used for short range flights in the real world. I'm not sure why you think you can't do a flight unless it happens on that aircraft in the real world - I fly large planes all the time on routes they don't get used on in real life.

[guitarjava 1]

Very many thanks for the response and on the strength of advice I have invested in a Level D 767 ER. The reason I have not (yet) purchased a PMDG MD11 or 747 is because I prefer to take off and land without the space of an hour: a policy that rather rules the very large jets out. I think if I were to simulate a transAtlantic crossing, staring at a computer screen for seven and a half hours, my wife would probably have me carted off. Unfortunately one of the weaknesses of the PMDG aircraft is that you don't seem to be able to 'move them forward' during a flight. A pity.Many thanks again,Jim.

Hi Jim,I fly the MD-11 all the time on short real-world routes. I usually go to flightaware.com and grab a Fedex or UPS flight, some of them are a little over an hour, (KMSP - KIND is usually 50-60 minutes) and make a nice flight for the MD-11. The PMDG MD-11 and 747 are my favorites by far.Chris Bremmer

[wedgantilles 76]

I'm doing the same, of course the plane was probably designed with long range in mind, but that is not preventing them from doing small legs. In real life Air France made a good number of flights between Paris and London in A380 with their third one, and that's obviously not the kind of airplane that you would usually do that with, but nothing forbids it :) And it was in it self a good occasion to climb on the big bird for a decent price without making a long trip :)

[DEINIOLENMAN 0]

Preventing my wife from having me carted off to the nearest lunatic asylum seems to me to be a reasonable basis for making a decision. With a 747 the engines are started in pairs

What a strange way to make a descsion. Did you know that the pre-flight preparation for the 767 and the 747 is almost identical? And because of the way you have to juggle air bleed air in the 767, it takes me less time to start the 747's four engines from cold then it does the 767's two engines. The FMC's are almost the same with the nod to the 747 for being more complete. Visuals and VC definitly favour the 747 as it is newer but the 767 does have those cute calls from the cabin staff asking that you turn the cabin air up or down.

History repeating itself! I remember Air France doing the same thing in the 1950's when they routed one of their Paris - Far East flights via London which gave you the opportunity of doing the trip in a Super Constellation. (The food was a lot better than BEA's!)

I'm doing the same, of course the plane was probably designed with long range in mind, but that is not preventing them from doing small legs. In real life Air France made a good number of flights between Paris and London in A380 with their third one, and that's obviously not the kind of airplane that you would usually do that with, but nothing forbids it :) And it was in it self a good occasion to climb on the big bird for a decent price without making a long trip :)

[wedgantilles 76]

History repeating itself! I remember Air France doing the same thing in the 1950's when they routed one of their Paris - Far East flights via London which gave you the opportunity of doing the trip in a Super Constellation. (The food was a lot better than BEA's!)

yeah that was quite good to fly on this very nice aircraft and really feel the difference (much less noisy than any other aircraft I've flown, barely noticed the engine sound increasing during takeoff :() From what I read here the flights were roundtrips between Paris and London, with smaller price than usual, and that allowed both people to get a short flight with it, but also was use to train personnal. As a matter of facts first landing was quite rough, and second on the way back was soft, but I don't know if it might not have been because the pilot was understandably not very experienced with the real plane or if it was because they use the Automatic Landing.

[badaboom 0]

A2A P-47, Accu-simVRS SuperHornetF1 MustangRealAir B60 DukeMilViz C310All fantastic Flight models,Little or no bugs,Everything works as Advertised.Happy Flying!!

[AirbusCG 52]

Both 744s and MD-11s do get used for short range flights in the real world. I'm not sure why you think you can't do a flight unless it happens on that aircraft in the real world - I fly large planes all the time on routes they don't get used on in real life.

Me too.And if you want to fly a real route with a 744 then fly EDDF/EDDT with it. Lufthansa is doing that in real world because they run out of aircrafts. But they had a 744 left and so they are using that for this route untill they get a new aircraft in "normal" size for this route.Also i often use the MD11 for EDDM/VRMM. Using time accleration you can fly it all in about 3 hours. That's a normal time for a flight i think.RegardsEmi

[fencer 16]

Hi Jim,The Level-D 767-300 is just as realistic as PMDG's 737NG series aircraft. If you have enjoyed PMDG's 737 for FS9 and do not own the Level-D, its an aircraft worth looking into.

Hi Jim (and Michael),I assume you are talking about FS9 sims only.The Level-D 767 is indeed an excellent sim, but I must admit that, not being fond of long range flights either, I rarely fly it. And, in all fainess, if you already have the 737NG, it doesn't add a lot to your simming experience : another Boeing twin...My first recommendation would be to buy FS2Crew for your 737 NG. It really shows you something about the way these airliners are flown in the real world. I have the original version (without voice recognition) and never fly the NG without it.I don't know (yet) the other PMDG products so I can't make make any useful suggestion along that line but if you like short flights in FS9 I would definitely recommend Flight 1's ATR 72 (again with FS2Crew...). Again it's not one of the latest sims (graphics wise) but turbo props are a different ball game and are really fun to learn. And the documentation provided is excellent too.My 2 cents,Bruno PS : Airbuses are also great. But, as mentioned above, there is no top notch Airbus sim on the market today (or at least not yet) as some Airbus features (fly by wire, side stick, thottle characteristics) are difficult to simulate in MSFS. Still I had a lot of fun with the Wilco A320 (and FS2Crew...). It's far from perfect but I bought it in anticipation of a couple of flights in a real Airbus and it really helped me understand the way Airbuses work. Very interesting.

[dwildkat 12]

By the way, one could use The simulation rate feature on FSX and FS9. With 4X simulation rate I cut 12 hour flights into just over 3 hours without losing much of the pleasure long hauls give<br>

<br>Both 744s and MD-11s do get used for short range flights in the real world.  I'm not sure why you think you can't do a flight unless it happens on that aircraft in the real world - I fly large planes all the time on routes they don't get used on in real life.<br>

<br><br><br>