Some days progress just doesn't come easily...

[andysim 0]

I hate 2 D's they are so unrealistic.Michael P

I would not say I hate 2D but I just dont use 2D panels (except the popup ones for the MCP etc) Once you have used a quality 3d panel on a reasonably fast computer with Ezdok and Track IR doing an awsome job of making you feel the aircrafts movement, its hard to go back. Its great that the 2d option is there for people have dont have issues with FPS and for people who just dont like it.You can be sure that without headtracking hardware like Track IR and free track, 2d panels would be alot more common.

[FrankG2625 9]

Just a question that's been bouncing around my head for a little time now: how much of the dev-team could realistically be certified for the real thing in the time frame of a week? You guys have been in the NG cockpit for photos, measurements, etc, and you have a partnership with Boeing, AND on top of all of that you have programmed all the functions of the real thing. You know the aircraft so well at this point, in terms of theory I don't think it would take much for you guys to get type-rated in the NG. Or am I completely misguided?

[yyzflier 11]

"At PMDG we have always taken great pride on our LNAV/VNAV model"So I hope the 737 NGX will be better then my (otherwise fantastic) 747-400X and 8i which have large pitch oscillations of up to +/- 300 feet above FL200 during Vnav Path descent. :( Guy

Thanks. I thought it was just my bird. I find the 747-400 does tend to hunt a fair bit in its descent rate during early stages of descent in VNAV mode. I usually switch to vertical speed to smooth things out.

[Jack_C 1]

I hate 2 D's they are so unrealistic.Michael P

I used to use them 100% of the time until the came out with the Jetstream. PMDG. Does the vc so well now that how can you not use it?JackColwill

[MrPlaneDriver 41]

PMDG. Does the vc so well now that how can you not use it?JackColwill

Amen to that lol.I used to use only 2D before buying the MD-11. Its graphics called my attention and I started to use the VC while on the ground and during take-off and landing and the 2D for cruise flight. The 2D makes it easier to monitor all the instruments at once. The only 2D panel that I prefer to use in every phase of flight instead of the VC is the FMC. The J41 is teaching me some 'techniques' to better use the VC. At first, having no 2D cockpit seemed awkward to me. I wasn't used to moving the camera every time to find a switch or knob or display, but after a few flights I learned the tricks and now I find using VC very easy and intuitive.

[PUP4ORD 1]

From Robert's post, It seem despite working long hours, The NGX work seems to be winding down.:( A few more weeks here or there is nothing at all.:(

[Chock 17,769]

Just a question that's been bouncing around my head for a little time now: how much of the dev-team could realistically be certified for the real thing in the time frame of a week? You guys have been in the NG cockpit for photos, measurements, etc, and you have a partnership with Boeing, AND on top of all of that you have programmed all the functions of the real thing. You know the aircraft so well at this point, in terms of theory I don't think it would take much for you guys to get type-rated in the NG. Or am I completely misguided?

You need a few things for most places to let you have a crack at an airliner rating (as with most things aviation, the chief one is money). Your level of experience on real aeroplanes can make a difference on how you can actually go about it too. For airline pilots with a good deal of experience on certain types, they can do a type rating completely in a level D simulator, but if not, then you'd have to do it on the real aircraft at least for some of the training. You can do a type rating at a lot of major airlines if you have about 25 grand (US Dollars) doing nothing, but there are certainly cheaper ways, 15 grand is what it would cost you at most training places for a course on your own, but that drops to just over half that if there are a lot of people on the course, however... most places that would do it for that price have a few prerequisites, such as a few thousand hours real piloting experience and an IFR rating. Some places will offer what they call a 'restricted rating on an airliner' where you get a type rating that has to be converted to a full rating by flying the real thing a bit and getting checked out on it, which is what a lot of prospective airline pilots do.Having said all that, you are right about one thing, if anyone who had been screwing around with an extremely realistic simulation of an airliner for a long time was to go for a rating on the real thing, there is no doubt it would be considerably easier for them to tackle it.There is a much cheaper way to do it - get a job working for a catering company and make sure both pilots on a 737 have some dodgy fish, and when the stewardess gets on the PA and shakily asks if anyone on board has any flight experience, there's your chance. If you get it down in one piece, give United Airlines a call and tell them you already know how to fly one of the things and if they turn on the news, they'll see some footage of you doing it that proves it :( Al

[Guest Cag40Navy]

I wonder if after the BBJ's of maybe PMDG might consider the P-8A or the C40. Of course, i would love to see a C40 if they can do it. Plus, the C40 is an important aircraft.

[AlexanderBarger 5]

May I ask why the C40 should be an important aircraft? I mean there are according to wikipedia only 19 pieces made.

[blackheart2502 0]

I think they already said they weren't doing a C-40. I wish they would. There aren't many of them but they do fly a lot of routes and missions that you wouldn't do with a normal 737. I think someday we'll probably get a P-8A just based on what PMDG has done with past projects. They did the YAL-1A for the 747-400 and there is only one prototype. Then they did the Hong Kong goverment version of the J-41 and think there are only two or three of those. There will be a couple of hundred P-8A's eventually with foreign sales. There is a freeware P-8A that is pretty neat. I would love to see a really well done PMDG version.Hiram Hunt

[Guest Cag40Navy]

I think they already said they weren't doing a C-40. I wish they would. There aren't many of them but they do fly a lot of routes and missions that you wouldn't do with a normal 737. I think someday we'll probably get a P-8A just based on what PMDG has done with past projects. They did the YAL-1A for the 747-400 and there is only one prototype. Then they did the Hong Kong goverment version of the J-41 and think there are only two or three of those. There will be a couple of hundred P-8A's eventually with foreign sales. There is a freeware P-8A that is pretty neat. I would love to see a really well done PMDG version.Hiram Hunt

Well, we can always hope right? Then again, if they dont, its not going to be the end of the world. (To bad the YAL-1A didnt carry over to FSX, but again, we still got a great aircraft!)

[Tabs 2,790]

Same deal here - half the thread was rule breaking posts.

[mcbellette 145]

I thought this thread got locked?

[ajpongress 467]

So did I.

[pampiermole 37]

So... another mystery. Why is it open again?