Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Yankee Clipper

One Possible Reason For The Delay

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that Boeing has cooperated with PMDG on real 737 data for the flight manuals. RSR has stated that he could have released the 737NGX earlier but wanted to present us with as cleanest product as possible. This is admirable and is reflected of his high standards. He has stated that the amount of amperage used has been modeled accurately out to 1/1000th of an amp, based on the airplane's certification data. He has said that The hydraulic Electric Motor Driven Pump (EMDP) consumes 7.824 amps of energy while running. But, if fails or is shut down, the energy consumption increases by 4.3amps to a total of 12.124 amps. This is remarkable detail but I think would be ignored by most of us. I have 3500 hours over a ten year period of Commercial flying and this probalbly would have gone by me. (yeah, I know, I should pay more attention) My point is that besides giving their customers that best product they can offer, they have to impress Boeing with their accuracy of detail because the enginneers and the brains that make decisions are watching this outcome and who knows, this might lead to more lucrative opportunites with Boeing...pilot training with PMDG products, etc. So I would expect them to take as long as they want to turn out an impressive product. I may be wrong, and if I am, just chalk it up to pre-release silly conjectureJack Hancock(I moved this message because I put it in another forum by mistake)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they go to that detail, they should try and model the heat generation gained when a 737-800 is fully loaded with PAX on the cabin temps. $5 says the pneumatics system works harder to keep the cabin temps cooler with a full load than an empty one, and this increase in recirc fan workload and pneumatics workload should be simulated.Robert, don't let us down! [Disclaimer: The above post was made tongue-in-cheek. The team works so hard to simulate every single plausible detail I thought it would be funny to suggest some unnecessarily insane simulatables LOL.gif ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they go to that detail, they should try and model the heat generation gained when a 737-800 is fully loaded with PAX on the cabin temps. $5 says the pneumatics system works harder to keep the cabin temps cooler with a full load than an empty one, and this increase in recirc fan workload and pneumatics workload should be simulated.Robert, don't let us down! [Disclaimer: The above post was made tongue-in-cheek. The team works so hard to simulate every single plausible detail I thought it would be funny to suggest some unnecessarily insane simulatables LOL.gif ]
The insane thing is that I'm pretty sure one of the guys posted that it did, in fact, do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cassis

Good thing they did not intend to launch an A320..... we would be waiting untill the end 2016...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yankee: do you really think PMDG would release commercially sensitive information like that? How naïve.Best regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way that it would be legal to train pilots using consumer grade software, this has nothing to do with it lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no way that it would be legal to train pilots using consumer grade software, this has nothing to do with it lol
That is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no way that it would be legal to train pilots using consumer grade software, this has nothing to do with it lol
There are several levels of training set ups airliner manufacturers have, and some of them are very simple indeed, in fact, you've probably got a fancier set up at home than some of the basic Boeing 787 procedure trainers used at Boeing's fancy new training centre for prospective 787 pilots. Sure, there are full motion sims in there, but one of the trainers consists of little more than a chair, and a couple of monitors, there aren't even any switches, instead one monitor is mounted facing upwards at the side of the chair and is used to represent the centre pedestal's switches on a touch sensitive screen, there are several of these in one room in a set up not dissimilar to a high school language lab.For a set up like that, it is more about getting pilot's hands moving to the correct locations when learning initial procedures as much as anything, and you could certainly use what FS can do to train that kind of thing, in fact you could use two bits of cardboard with switches drawn on them if you liked. It's also worth noting that Lockheed Martin evidently think you can use FS to train with, since that is essentially what their Prepar3d system is. In the UK, the FAI approved the BGA's use of the commercial sims - Silent Wings and Condor to train pilots on basic techniques.All of these things are far more sophisticated than the old link trainers that used to be used to train pilots.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, It is very feasible to use FSX and the NGX as a procedural trainer for new pilots, or pilots switching from earlier non glass 737s to NGs, just to learn the layout of displays and possibly as a method of practicing QRH failure responses.You don't need a perfect representation of the real world flight model and hydraulic powered motion simulation for initial training on work flows and scans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The insane thing is that I'm pretty sure one of the guys posted that it did, in fact, do this.
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/111824-hvac-simulation/page__view__findpost__p__742713Alas, there was no interest in my nit picking.But the heat generation of 180 people is certainly different than that of 90 people. In fact, HVAC engineers go further. 10 students taking a test have a higher heat load than 10 students sawing logs during a boring lecture. I'm not sure if they have an entry explicitly for airline passengers stuck on a runway with no food, water, or restrooms for 10 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yankee: do you really think PMDG would release commercially sensitive information like that? How naïve.Best regards,Robin.
If I understand you correctly, PMDG could have a separate in house agreement with Boeing without releasing sensitive info (that is, after their lawyers go over it with a fine tooth comb) while still providing the rest of us with their latest releases. The PMDG team has, through their videos and screen shots, given us proof how close to the real 727NGX this upcoming product is.As to the rest of your thinking, it may be "what the definition of is...is"I recall vaguely years ago the Navy used software to transistion their pilots from the C-172 as primary to the Intermediate military version of the T-34 Mentor. Then on to flight deck training.Try to have an open mind and not be judgemental. You might as well learn that now as you sure as hell won't be able to talk to the Captain like that when you're First Officer.Remember, this is all playful conjecture until the NGX is released.Jack Hancock :( :( :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can infact train pilots with software. It is just that though. Training. Right now the FAA in the US does not recognize any simulator time as actual flight time, but merely a tool to practice emergency procedures that you normally would not get to practice on a real aircraft. I think eventually the simulator technology (not FSX, but real Level D type) will get to the point where it will be acceptable to use in place of actual flight hours. Will take a lot of lobbying Congress and studies though I am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tamadeez

^ now way. Flying hours should FLYING hours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now the FAA in the US does not recognize any simulator time as actual flight time, but merely a tool to practice emergency procedures that you normally would not get to practice on a real aircraft.
This is not exactly correct.USA FAR 61.51 allows the logging of simulator time. You're right that it doesn't go under flight time, but it can be logged and counted toward ratings and used to maintain instrument currency or establishing instrument proficiency.I've logged simulator time. There were no emergencies. The simulator was so generic and simplistic that FS4 would have been more a step up in system details and certainly graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not true.
Actually, sort of true and not true FSX is not legally able to be used for training even though it COULD be used. It is specific in the EULA and ANYONE using it for commercial purposes is breaking the EULA. Prepar3D is able to be used in a commercial setting. Your software on Prepar3D for training would be fine. Commercial sim builders that are providing FSX are putting them and their users at risk legally and anyhow, why would I put a $50 unsupported piece of software that is now dead in a new simulator that might have cost $50,000 +? Doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you misread the statement. In Sekstifire's comment, he never mentioned "FSX" but "Consumer grade software".I'm quite sure it is legal to train pilots with commercial grade software. I am 100% sure they do it in Belgium, with some older, modified, version of Lock-On. They use it to test and improve your situational awareness.Basic training (trimming, engine performance,...) is also done using some commercial software, although I can't remember the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, sort of true and not true FSX is not legally able to be used for training even though it COULD be used. It is specific in the EULA and ANYONE using it for commercial purposes is breaking the EULA. Prepar3D is able to be used in a commercial setting. Your software on Prepar3D for training would be fine. Commercial sim builders that are providing FSX are putting them and their users at risk legally and anyhow, why would I put a $50 unsupported piece of software that is now dead in a new simulator that might have cost $50,000 +? Doesn't make sense.
My opinion is that is not training BUT... It is very very helpful for practise for the real thing. Getting in the classroom and knowing most things well is good. Going in new would be a struggle. I'm using fsx and excelant add ons as way to help overcome those struggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must have to do with aiming for another level, cause 95% of the guys which will buy it will never ever use the capabilities which the 737NGX obviously possess. And it is also almost impossible to use in a single pilot concept, which the FSX is. Try to handle the workload when something goes wrong all by yourself, isnt really that fun stuff. First when we have shared cockpit, or something similar makes it worth all that stuff. Which hobbypilot really cares if even the secondary heat exchanger and the expansion turbine are modeled to the deepest, or that you have the real cabin airflow. Only pros will see it.So ist it necesarry to have all that stuff for an homesimulator, no not at all. Is it nice to have, for sure.Regards Sven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, HVAC engineers go further. 10 students taking a test have a higher heat load than 10 students sawing logs during a boring lecture. I'm not sure if they have an entry explicitly for airline passengers stuck on a runway with no food, water, or restrooms for 10 hours.
Nah. We could. But we don't. ;)Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which hobbypilot really cares if even the secondary heat exchanger and the expansion turbine are modeled to the deepest, or that you have the real cabin airflow. Only pros will see it.
You might be surprised how many flight simmers do care about that stuff, especially the ones who buy PMDG's products. Just look at how many people go to the extent of knocking up a convincing 737 cockpit in their basements.It's worth remembering that the PMDG 747 was pretty much the first FS aeroplane that genuine pilots were not afraid to own up about using for practice, so it did kind of open a floodgate on that score, and it was the legacy of PMDG's approach to creating their FS9 737 which began building that credibility. Go back before then and you would have been hard pressed to find any airline pilot that would have admitted to using FS seriously, now pilots are queuing up to get involved in producing flight sim stuff, and it was PMDG who drove that state of affairs more than any other developer.Back with people who don't fly for real, but who have a passion for flight just the same though their simulation hobby, one only has to look at the amount of times a topic crops up on forums along the lines of 'do you think I could land a real airliner because I know it in the sim?' Fifteen years ago when everyone was flying around in FS95 and looking forward to FS98, such a question would have been shouted down as a complete joke by any real world pilot, but it doesn't get that kind of reaction these days. I suspect there is probably more than one simmer out there who knows more about all the systems on an airliner than some of the people who drive them for real. After all, many of the people who create detailed FS add-ons these days have never driven anything more complex than a GA aircraft, and some of them have never piloted anything for real.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me I don't need a full in depth systems, I just enjoy flight sim as a hobby, which I think is the majority :( Always remember, two sides to every story :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question: If a "consumer grade FS software" exceeds and surpasses the demands on current day "commercial grade fs software" - what prevents the use of that consumer grade software to be used in schooling pilots? If it is the best, shouldn't they use it simply because using anything but the best is a lesser way of teaching and training said students?I'm not so naive though. I expect commercial grade software to have passed rigorous tests with official establishments as part as being certified for commercial training. That process is not needed for consumer grade software. But if PMDG wanted to, could they pursue the certification of their NGX as BOTH consumer and commercial use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me I don't need a full in depth systems, I just enjoy flight sim as a hobby, which I think is the majority :( Always remember, two sides to every story :(
That's true...this will be a two day a week evening deal for me as i just finished uni and start my new job full time Monday....simply don't have the time or interest for too much system depth, but looking forward to learning as much as I can:) The default 737 looks like.... and some of the older titles just don't give immersion factor that is capable in today's machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ, for me I want this to be a product that I'm still learning about 6 months from now, a year even. If the whole thing seems 'canned' and predictable after about a month of use, then it'll feel like a disappointment. We all have those add-ons, many of them good ones too, that we sit there and think "OK, 15 seconds after lightoff it'll peak at x degrees and will roll back to exactly x% N1 etc"...What excites me about the NGX is that I'll still be discovering little idiosynchrasies months down the line, which - after all - is what gives us "hardcore simmers" (I hate the term!) the best value for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...