Externalities and the NGX

[Tabs 2,790]

Ok, complements said, I'd like to ask Ryan or Robert about some effects not related with the plane itself. What causes me to do it is because of the affirmation that you guys gaveabout the limit of effects been reached. So will be included things like vortex on the wingtips or the vortex(or void I dunno) above the wings, the water spray of the turbines when rainningeven with the reverses, the waterdrops on the shield and the engines/APU heat effect...Pardon me if it was already asked and aswered, but I'm following the delevopment since the start and I really forgot a lot what was already said hehe!!!Best wishes,Bruno.

Most of those things are done with .fx files, not animations and are already in. Water drops on the windshield take a ton of animations to do though in FSX because you can't animate textures the way you could in FS9 - every drop is it's own animation. Highly unlikely we will be doing those - it caused problems in the J41 anyway.

[rX 1]

Don't scream too hard.

Matt, I won't. I can't. It's 4 AM over here. :( It's just one of those "European" things which people over the pond just don't care about. Been to the US a couple of times and most everyone had never heard of my country or if they had they thought it was somewhere in Asia :( It gets to you after a while. By the way, welcome to the forum :(

[brantz 0]

Thanks so much for the reply!!! So sad the wipers will be used just for fun and not for the real function but thats OK I really understand the reason.Thanks again Ryan and best wishesBruno Fontanella.

[WestAir 2,530]

I doubt it, FSX doesn't give you real time volume control over stuff that way.

Ryan,I don't mean to interrupt here, but wouldn't it be as easy as creating two wind.wav files with different names, then switching between the two when the user changes the vortex generator options in the FMC? It seems like the easiest work-around to FS' lack of sound control would be to simply use two small .wav or .mp3 files with different loudness.I am probably wrong, but I figure it never hurts to bring new idea's onto the table.

[MrGreen 0]

Thanks for that. I was actually considering getting a complete cockpit from flight deck solutions but at $150,000nzd id rather buy a cessna of some description after my ppl in june(aiming for it).Id be happy with a joystick, not so much a yoke. Dont ask me why because I dont know, but any recommendations for a joystick with force feedback perhaps would be good. Otherwise its the saitek.

I recently bought a Saitek Pro Flight Yoke system and before that i've had a CH Yoke. I can't give any opinions on the Joysticks but my experiences with the Saitek has not been very well. Now this is only me and others might have had other experiences, but after trying to use the Saitek for a couple of weeks i finally gave up and returned to my CH Yoke. Although Saitek is more robust (when it comes to the Yoke, I've heard the opposite about the joysticks, but don't take my word for it) and has more buttons, and has a better throttle (longer range of motion, you can put it where you want and it has buttons), it has a very strange stiff center of pitch and aileron. What i mean is that when turning the yoke from left then center and over to the right it wants to stick in center. This feels very strange, and feels unrealistic (according to my very limited experience of the real thing) and also makes it hard to do those small corrections on final approach. The same thing is true about the pitch, it wants to stick to the center. This has the advantage of making it easier to trim the airplane to a certain airspeed/pitch but makes it harder to follow the flight director on takeoff for example where you might need to lower the nose briefle for thrust reductions or speed increase. It also, again makes it harder to do small inputs in pitch on final approach. It seems that this has been experienced by other people. (Google search)And i have also read about it in a thread where people had the exact problem. I have also had the problem of the yoke being sticky while in motion, mostly in roll, but also in pitch, i read that this might have to do something with the internal stick being of teflon. When returning to the CH Yoke i was reliefed to see that my "stick-and-rudder" skills were not so bad as the Saitek Yoke had made me believe. Again this is only my experience and although as i said i've seen others with the same problems we might be in a small minority...The CH Yoke ofcourse has its own quirks and bugs, the biggest is that the pitch-center is too "loose" instead and makes it harder to trim the airplane, still i'd much rather have this problem than jerking around in the sky like i were trying to fly a tank..Lastly, if i were you, i'd give the Yokes a shot, whether it be a Saitek or a CH, if boeing/MD airliner flying is your primary focus of FSX. It makes it alot easier, and more realistic to fly the iron, so to say.

[Roadburner426 19]

Ryan,I don't mean to interrupt here, but wouldn't it be as easy as creating two wind.wav files with different names, then switching between the two when the user changes the vortex generator options in the FMC? It seems like the easiest work-around to FS' lack of sound control would be to simply use two small .wav or .mp3 files with different loudness.I am probably wrong, but I figure it never hurts to bring new idea's onto the table.

Good evening Mr. Smith. The problem with adding sounds of this nature is the file size would increase enormously. For us our biggest part of the installation is the sound files. With textures being not to far behind... If you start adding say a high and a low sound set you are effectively doubling the install size. I think at best you could give users an option during the installation to cut down on room, but at the same token it takes a lot of time to sometimes go through 100's of custom sounds just to redo the volume... As far as the use of MP3 files I think FSX only supports the .wav format (which is huge). You probably could get around this by creating your own custom structure outside FSX, but this again creates a long development process. So the best solution for you would be to go in yourself and manually alter the sound level of the few offending files that create the most noise. I have done this on a couple aircraft, and it is not to hard to do once you isolate the sounds you wish to turn down.

[Maxthrust 0]

Hello everybody, This is my first time ever posting something in a forum, I m sorry for my english but is not perfect. The main reason that forced me to post something in here was This beautifull BIRD. Congratulations for the hard work that you are all performing. I just love the way the exterior model is turning out to be, like The Wings, the engines, landing gears, ailerons, flaps, cabin windows, fuselage but the Nose or the Face of this magnificent BIRD. It is almost perfect like the real deal, But in my own personal opinion i think that there are some small details here and there, that might need to be adjusted or corrected, I think that the exterior model is as important as the interior. In my opinion when talking about the exterior model and detail I would pay more attention to the nose or face of this Boeing. For example; The Eyebrows-- The angles, size and width of each widows' frameworks --The nose, and some other details that make this aircraft UNIQUE by its own LOOK , --->( A BOEING that can be recognised from any angle) I know you build this bird based to blueprints, it looks great. but not everythink turns out to be like in the blueprints, so it needs adjustments, and there is where the human eye comes in to judge our process in any project right or wrong our Eyes and the Brain connected together make the last touch of Perfection and detail. I Love this Bird inside and outside Thanks for the hard work trying to make this bird look like a REAL BOEING. but then again I might be Right or Wrong you be the judgeSERGIO D. SALAMANCA

BUMPI think Sergio has done a really nice job with comparing the real plane vs. the PMDG NGX. Any comments on this from the team? Bozhan Ozsoy

[rgamurot 1]

Although Saitek is more robust...it has a very strange stiff center of pitch and aileron.

I had a similar problem but if you take time to 'break it in' it works really well. Basically move the yoke through it's full range a couple of times and it loosens up. I've had mine since it came out and it still works and isn't too lose either.

[MrGreen 0]

I had a similar problem but if you take time to 'break it in' it works really well. Basically move the yoke through it's full range a couple of times and it loosens up. I've had mine since it came out and it still works and isn't too lose either.

You are right. The intentional "hard" center is still there though, which was the most annoying thing for me.

[Joel 10]

This doesn't really match the flow of the conversation right now but I was wondering, what order should someone read the manuals that PMDG gives us and how long should it take to get an almost complete understanding of the airplane? I'm talking about the NGX by the way.

[rgamurot 1]

This doesn't really match the flow of the conversation right now but I was wondering, what order should someone read the manuals that PMDG gives us and how long should it take to get an almost complete understanding of the airplane? I'm talking about the NGX by the way.

I read the FCOM vol. 2 first only because everything else talks about the systems in that book. From there I read vol. 1 and then the FCTM

[Joel 10]

I read the FCOM vol. 2 first only because everything else talks about the systems in that book. From there I read vol. 1 and then the FCTM

And how long does that take for you?

[ricky76 46]

You are right. The intentional "hard" center is still there though, which was the most annoying thing for me.

I fully agree! I have flown with CH gear for years. Then a year or so ago I swithched to the Saitek yoke ( still use CH pro pedals). I like the feel of the Saitek yoke, but I wish it had a smoother pitch/roll feel. I have opened it up several times and mucked with the guts a bit to try to smooth it out a bit. If the Saitek yoke had the roll feel of the CH yoke, I'd be alot happier. Just my oppinion of course.

[alvin 0]

Hello everybody!I wanted to share a few thoughts with you.First - even though it has been repeated many times, I think it should be repeated over and over - congratulations for the PMDG team for the highest ambitions, and as it starts to turn out now - for the product that matches these ambitions. From what I can this is going to be really awesome! The thing that I'm most happy about is, that for the first time really, it seems I will be able to trust, that anything that happens to the airplane, and every little interior or exterior part of the airplane I can see, is as realistic as it can be. That I can learn from the behavior of the airplane, and trust this is not an oversimplification. The thing that I'm particularly keen on is the "logic of the onboard systems" part of realism. I like the idea that small troubles now can lead to bigger troubles later. What I fear is that most of the effort put into the realistic making of those systems will go unnoticed. I hope some day somebody will create a number of scenarios, or missions, that will focus on these complexities of the aircraft simulation, such that on a certain point of flight a preprogrammed system breaks down, then maybe another one (following a coherent scenario), and this will be the pilot's task to figure out whats actually going on, and circumventing any serious risk to the airplane. This could be based on some real accidents, technical reports, or just imagination. It would be a great way to learn about the aircraft and practise real-time decision making under a stress situation (unless somebody pauses the game ;-) ).Keep up the good work!

[SMITI07 53]

Jakubs suggestion would go well with the mentioned shared cockpit functionality. Especially if both are useing printed manuals