I dont know if this has been covered already. I think I remember Robert mentioning something about NGX keeping information of the flights we do in order to keep track of the cycles, kind of a maintenance logbook. Am I right?I've been thinking that given the detail in which the NGX is being made it could be useful to have an "ageing model". It seems to me there is so much work and detail we will never see or even imagine running behind scenes int he form of code, so many formulas being computed, such an elaborate code being put together.. It would be a shame not to use it's full potential giving it some power over the experience.So hear my idea: What if the performance of each part is made variable and affected by its operational life remaining and the operational conditions? Let's see if I can explain myself: Since you have all the parts (or most of them) converted into code, would it be possible to add some factors to the formulas that affect performance and make those values change as the airplane gets older? Or to put in other words : Interactive failure control, the better you treat your airplane the less likely it is to fail. Not only that, depending on where and how you operate your airplane you'll be more likely to have some kinds of failures.Let me put an example: Short hopes between islands (inter-Hawaii for instace) should put more stress on landing gear and pressurization than long continental flights. if the landing gear that keeps track of all the landings and subtracts some % to its total resistance for every landing plus or minus a coefficient consisting of an evaluation of the landing and a random number (Not all parts made equal last the same) and suficient hard landings are made a failure will eventually happen. Flights in the artic regions will make extensive use of anti-icing systems and therefore those should be more likely to fail than flying int he caribbean. At this point Robert and Dr. Vaos probably must be thinking "No way! This is crazy! Impossible! This means months of work!"Probably I'm just dreaming and it will never be done, but let me dream.. Ok? Many of us use FSPassengers or something alike to improve the experience of flight. - What if there were required maintenance and the cost of the scheduled maintenance inspections actually depended on how well you treat your airplane and the number of cycles it makes between inspections?- What if you had an inflight failure and made it to destination with the backup unit and the failure still be there for your next flight so you have to fix it?- What if you had an electrical failure inflight and you can't use the APU which failed several flights back which you never had fixed because didn't have the money?- What if you are due for your next inspection and you decide to keep flying?- What if you are short on money for your next inspection and you decide to not use Autobrake on landings to save some money on brake pads?- What if you abort a takeoff and you ruin your tires and have to change them?I'm sure you see the potential of this.. Basically each one of us would be same flying the same airplane but at the same time also different from others and not only that, it would constantly change so in a way it would never be the same airplane unless we overhaul it. Maybe this is too much for a simulation but I'd love to see someone asking in the forum the price of a Pack change or how long does a new set of tires lasts if you treat them real good.I don't really expect PMDG to fall for this.. I'm just sharing a brainstorming session.Joss M Garcia

Hi Joss, I like to dream with you !Great ideaLouis

I dont know if this has been covered already. I think I remember Robert mentioning something about NGX keeping information of the flights we do in order to keep track of the cycles, kind of a maintenance logbook. Am I right?I've been thinking that given the detail in which the NGX is being made it could be useful to have an "ageing model". It seems to me there is so much work and detail we will never see or even imagine running behind scenes int he form of code, so many formulas being computed, such an elaborate code being put together.. It would be a shame not to use it's full potential giving it some power over the experience.So hear my idea: What if the performance of each part is made variable and affected by its operational life remaining and the operational conditions? Let's see if I can explain myself: Since you have all the parts (or most of them) converted into code, would it be possible to add some factors to the formulas that affect performance and make those values change as the airplane gets older? Or to put in other words : Interactive failure control, the better you treat your airplane the less likely it is to fail. Not only that, depending on where and how you operate your airplane you'll be more likely to have some kinds of failures.Let me put an example: Short hopes between islands (inter-Hawaii for instace) should put more stress on landing gear and pressurization than long continental flights. if the landing gear that keeps track of all the landings and subtracts some % to its total resistance for every landing plus or minus a coefficient consisting of an evaluation of the landing and a random number (Not all parts made equal last the same) and suficient hard landings are made a failure will eventually happen. Flights in the artic regions will make extensive use of anti-icing systems and therefore those should be more likely to fail than flying int he caribbean. At this point Robert and Dr. Vaos probably must be thinking "No way! This is crazy! Impossible! This means months of work!"Probably I'm just dreaming and it will never be done, but let me dream.. Ok? Many of us use FSPassengers or something alike to improve the experience of flight. - What if there were required maintenance and the cost of the scheduled maintenance inspections actually depended on how well you treat your airplane and the number of cycles it makes between inspections?- What if you had an inflight failure and made it to destination with the backup unit and the failure still be there for your next flight so you have to fix it?- What if you had an electrical failure inflight and you can't use the APU which failed several flights back which you never had fixed because didn't have the money?- What if you are due for your next inspection and you decide to keep flying?- What if you are short on money for your next inspection and you decide to not use Autobrake on landings to save some money on brake pads?- What if you abort a takeoff and you ruin your tires and have to change them?I'm sure you see the potential of this.. Basically each one of us would be same flying the same airplane but at the same time also different from others and not only that, it would constantly change so in a way it would never be the same airplane unless we overhaul it. Maybe this is too much for a simulation but I'd love to see someone asking in the forum the price of a Pack change or how long does a new set of tires lasts if you treat them real good.I don't really expect PMDG to fall for this.. I'm just sharing a brainstorming session.Joss M Garcia

Hi Joss,If you like it, I hope it is possible to implement.But please make it possible to switch off this opportunity. I like to fly. I dont want to be busy with financial management and maintenance problems. That's real life. And I'd like to keep it that way Eric

It's getting more and more complicated... Well, NGX will never be able to release because our imagination is without limit. Frankly, I don't really care about the maintenance things or even so called "aging model". I hope PMDG will build a SDK that is flexible enough for us to expand our hobby in the way we want. So, you can model those functions by yourself by programming. For me, I think the most important thing is an accurate aerodynamic model with accurate systems. A fully functional FMS, including all those real things like VNAV Path calculation based on forecast wind, thrust management (R-TO N1 Limit calculation, MAX CON N1, Climb N1, etc...), all Climb and Descent modes available (MAX RATE, ECON, SPD INTV, etc....)What's more, I hope PMDG can try to model a more correct F/D system which can command the correct Pitch and Roll. A lot of FDs in Flight Sim are very short sighted. For example, it commands a 5 degrees pitch up and when I reach 5, it commands 6, when I reach 6, it commands 7 and when I reach 7, it commands 6 again....I would be out of happiness if PMDG can model them correctly and in detail.

What's more, I hope PMDG can try to model a more correct F/D system which can command the correct Pitch and Roll. A lot of FDs in Flight Sim are very short sighted. For example, it commands a 5 degrees pitch up and when I reach 5, it commands 6, when I reach 6, it commands 7 and when I reach 7, it commands 6 again....

Have you ever flown with a F/D? If you have, you'd know that you are taught to fly to the intent of the F/D and combine it with your own judgment. An F/D will really never put you exactly on the desired course. It's a series of calculations running to find an optimum path using over a dozen inputs. Based on that, it's never really going to tell you your flight path is dead on. Aim for it, but don't get lost in it. It's still just part of a computer, after all.If I can find the source for it, I'll post it, but ask any flight instructor out there and they'll tell you essentially the same.Too many pilots think that all of this technology is there to tell us how to fly the plane. It's really there to help us fly better and more accurately, but the true precision and decision-making rests with us. Contingencies are not for computing, unless they're programmed to handle them. Since that programming relies mostly with computer engineers on the ground, you can either place all of your faith in them, or keep in mind that you're still the one who can theoretically handle all contingencies, while the computer will essentially run out of options eventually.

So hear my idea: What if the performance of each part is made variable and affected by its operational life remaining and the operational conditions? Let's see if I can explain myself: Since you have all the parts (or most of them) converted into code, would it be possible to add some factors to the formulas that affect performance and make those values change as the airplane gets older? Or to put in other words : Interactive failure control, the better you treat your airplane the less likely it is to fail. Not only that, depending on where and how you operate your airplane you'll be more likely to have some kinds of failures.Joss M Garcia

Neat idea that has begun to be implemented for the warbirds that A2A Simulations develops as their Accusim line, which so far includes the P-47 Thunderbolt, the Boeing 377 passenger liner, the Piper Cub, the B-17 Flying Fortress, and the MkI and MkII Spitfire...all prop-driven classics. As I'm in awe of their accomplishments on these wonderful FSX birds, I can't imagine what it would take to do something similar for the soon-to-be-released PMDG 737NGX!

If you have, you'd know that you are taught to fly to the intent of the F/D and combine it with your own judgment. An F/D will really never put you exactly on the desired course. It's a series of calculations running to find an optimum path using over a dozen inputs. Based on that, it's never really going to tell you your flight path is dead on.

This is just a bunch of baloney for the lack of stronger words. F/D is a highly precise tool - it must be precise since the whole autopilot depends on it. Flying an ILS approach to its very minimums (perhaps with a decent gusty-crosswind to boot) using raw signal only is a very demanding task for even an experienced pilot, give him an F/D and task becomes almost easy. Yes, I have used an F/D in real life and in something like G1000 it is in fact a phenomenal tool. I share Howie's concern for F/D simulation given importance of this instrument to professional pilots and because we have seen examples in FS of real shoddy work in this area - fortunately we don't have to worry about PMDG.

If I can find the source for it, I'll post it, but ask any flight instructor out there and they'll tell you essentially the same.

Hey Kyle-I'm going to disagree with you rather emphatically here.Sure- i've flown behind some GA flight directors that were sloppy, but in the airline world, the flight directors are smooth, precise and lethally accurate. The reason is quite simple: The attitude information provided to most GA autopilots is provided by rate-based gyro driven systems, not solid state AHRS or IRS.On the airline side, the autopilot itself follows the flight director, and the autopilots are used for all manner of maneuver from enroute to CATiiib... The conclusion being that these things are lethally precise.If they were not, you wouldn't be able to use them for approaches to minimums, etc.The part of the flight director process that is imprecise is the pilot. On the 744 for example, the flight director can be used unaided to fly the airplane down to within 50' of the ground by hand. This is, in itself a difficult task require significant concentration for extended periods of time, but it can be done quite smoothly once you take the pilot-induced-oscillation out of the equation.On the other hand, the same flight director will provide steering cue to the coupled autopilot on the same approach and fly it with precision to within 6" of predicted value... So if the flight director was inaccurate, then the airplane wouldn't have a very precise autopilot.The poster above is commenting on what I perceive to be one of the weakest areas of modeling in many complex FS addons- as it requires some pretty heavy math skills to create a correctly dampened autopilot/flight director. The only person in the business that I KNOW is capable of doing this is the famed Dr. Vaos of PMDG...At any rate- I just thought I would throw my two cents in... I've never seen an airliner with an inaccurate flight director.

It would be good that some developers make to do this. You can see it in Europe truck simulator for example, i now that it isn't similar to the program you want. But is the closest example that i can give you, i don't now if there are more simulators with this degree of realism.I heart once that the simulation is an space where you have the closest factors and conditions like in real live. And a real live pilot has to be very careful with all those factors which afect to the airplane. So the thing that you are saying is the complement that the simulator needs to be strictly a simulator. I have thought the same as you, and looking for all the complements that have been made, with this complement the simulator would be a perfect simulator. The simulator has it, but this is a poor tool comparing with this dream. And while you have to care your airplane it demands more information about the systems and you have to read more manuals. I would like that somebody develop this to have a closer simulation and would be good that this developer was PMDG.Thank you.Regards.

This is just a bunch of baloney for the lack of stronger words.

Hey Kyle-I'm going to disagree with you rather emphatically here.

Misinformed application of little plane logic. Thanks for the corrections.The only flight director I've flown was in a C207, which was nowhere near a G1000 or any glass for that matter. It was by no means imprecise, but I guess the thought was conveyed to me more in terms of if you concentrate on it too much, you'll over-control and chase the thing the whole way. What I was going for was, when hand flying, you still have to keep yourself in check. Hand-flying puts a little pilot imprecision into the equation, and since the thing is running optimizations all over the place (I haven't the slightest clue how all that works, but the doc I was shown had all kinds of crazy math in it), it's always going to find some slight error in your path. Maybe I'm just not good at it yet. Who knows. I could be wrong again. I'll try and find that doc with the mention and see what it actually said. I may have misinterpreted it or started imagining things. It makes total sense that the A/P would fly to the F/D's direction, though, since despite my insistence that we're smarter than the computers, they can run optimizations a lot faster, and better than we can.[/backpedaling]

Neat idea that has begun to be implemented for the warbirds that A2A Simulations develops as their Accusim line, which so far includes the P-47 Thunderbolt, the Boeing 377 passenger liner, the Piper Cub, the B-17 Flying Fortress, and the MkI and MkII Spitfire...all prop-driven classics. As I'm in awe of their accomplishments on these wonderful FSX birds, I can't imagine what it would take to do something similar for the soon-to-be-released PMDG 737NGX!

I was going to mention these planes as well. A2A's Accusim is fantastic. Their Piper Cub has pretty much taken every other plane out of my hangar other than the PMDG ones and maybe the Aerosoft Beaver. Probably 90% of my GA time is in the A2A Accusim Cub. I highly recommend it to anyone. Of course, their engine wear model is likely nowhere near as precise as PMDG would demand for their system. Perhaps they already have implemented one, who knows!-stefan