This is very interesting.. I was originally told about the V/S anomalies by a real life 747 driver many years ago, and it was recommended by her to just avoid it. I believe it may have been company policy as well at that time.. But i didnt know about the Bombardiers. Not having any real experience in them, i can only go by the simulations i have seen which indicate that Bombardiers have a different type of V/S control than Boeings. But i could be incorrect..

I have heard similar stories about using VS mode in the B737, both classic and NG. I believe Boeing prefers pilots to use FLCH/LVL CHG/VNAV instead of VS mode. There have been many instances of pilots using VS and getting too slow or too fast. "Speed on elevators" modes like LVL CHG ensure that an unsafe flight condition is much less likely to develop than is the case using VS. As result, Boeing and perhaps Airbus take more time to ensure that these modes are "passenger friendly", i.e. are smooth and are not excessively affected by turbulence and/or temperature variations with altitude. Unfortunately, for the majority of business aircraft that I fly, that is not the case. VS ends up being the predomonint mode used for altitude changes, though not always. I guess it's the difference between a few millon dollars. :) Rich

I think Mendoza has some legitimate concerns. PMDG can't use the excuse that they implemented systems in their own way for whatever reason and then not be compatible with products that every other plane is compatible with. If the NGX implements its own flight dynamics and uses its own internal flap settings, it should still make sure that the FS variables are set correctly, so FSP and FSFK can properly read them. Ditto for lights and the anti-ice settings. This plane should be flyable with FSP and in multi-player without issues. If it does not, PMDG should take some steps to remedy the situation once the more important problems are ironed out. Which brings me to my last point. A plane as complicated as the NGX cannot be properly tested by a small team of testers who know how to operate every system and follow the proper procedures. The real test comes when the average user starts pressing buttons whenever they please. The plane should behave correctly in all of these situations and for PMDG to think that there will not be dozens of bugs discovered in the first 24 hours after release is rather unrealistic. One would hope that the NGX will be updated and not end up with a reputation of "it's great, but does not have this or does not do that or is not compatible with other popular software, etc".

In a Boeing, you can be going 150 knots and set the V/s for a 2000 fpm climb. The result is a nose high stall because V/S does not engage the engines. It only adjusts the attitude of the aircraft to accomplish the climb/decent profile you program in. Thats on a Boeing though. i cant say anything about any other aircraft. i'm not a real world pilot, and I've never flown anything bigger than a Cherokee. But ive made flight models for a living for six years and i have read lots of manuals.. Still, i could be incorrect..

Rich. I truly believe that the aircraft you fly have a more advanced form of V/S than the Boeings.. I cant say for certain, but thats my gut instinct..Pam

I think Mendoza has some legitimate concerns. PMDG can't use the excuse that they implemented systems in their own way for whatever reason and then not be compatible with products that every other plane is compatible with. If the NGX implements its own flight dynamics and uses its own internal flap settings, it should still make sure that the FS variables are set correctly, so FSP and FSFK can properly read them. Ditto for lights and the anti-ice settings. This plane should be flyable with FSP and in multi-player without issues. If it does not, PMDG should take some steps to remedy the situation once the more important problems are ironed out. Which brings me to my last point. A plane as complicated as the NGX cannot be properly tested by a small team of testers who know how to operate every system and follow the proper procedures. The real test comes when the average user starts pressing buttons whenever they please. The plane should behave correctly in all of these situations and for PMDG to think that there will not be dozens of bugs discovered in the first 24 hours after release is rather unrealistic. One would hope that the NGX will be updated and not end up with a reputation of "it's great, but does not have this or does not do that or is not compatible with other popular software, etc".

Sooo you are saying for example that the Concorde made by another company it is incorrectly made because FS Flight Keepr can't read the flaps?

Sooo you are saying for example that the Concorde made by another company it is incorrectly made because FS Flight Keepr can't read the flaps?

If the Concorde has flaps and they can be set with FS commands, then reading the relevant FS variables should return the correct flap setting and not some incorrect value. This is the expected behavior from all FSX planes and neither the Concorde nor the NGX should be different.

Hi, Just my opinion. I would rather have a realistic aircraft that works right, than one that relies on FSX code to work and talk to FS Flight Keeper. PMDG has made it known for awhile now that the 737NGX would have a lot of custom code outside of FSX. I'm on the test and support team for the other 737. You have been amazed at the people that came on the forum and stated the plane was broken since they did things that they were not supposed to do. You can test all you want with 10 people or 100 and people will still think you missed things. I was taught by a real world 737NG pilot that V/S should only be used to make small climbs and descents and it is never used on climb out after take-off.

Hi, Just my opinion. I would rather have a realistic aircraft that works right, than one that relies on FSX code to work and talk to FS Flight Keeper. PMDG has made it known for awhile now that the 737NGX would have a lot of custom code outside of FSX.

That's good for you then. However, the people who use FSFK and rely on its flight reports or who use FS Passengers, this plane is going to be a problem. Given these incompatibilities, it is only a matter of time before you find one that you don't like. By the way, putting the correct flap setting in an FS variable is not a major update and I am sure PMDG will make that change at some point.

Exactly the point....PMDG has raised the bar but some are more concerned about their personal view/bad habits. So, stop complaining!!!!... learn to fly the way it was designed to fly and you won't have any issues. Until you've done/attempted to do thatand/or stop yielding to your own understanding of how you think it should wrok, you'll remain the same. E

If the Concorde has flaps and they can be set with FS commands, then reading the relevant FS variables should return the correct flap setting and not some incorrect value. This is the expected behavior from all FSX planes and neither the Concorde nor the NGX should be different.

Do you know that the real Concord doesn't have Flaps right?

That's good for you then. However, the people who use FSFK and rely on its flight reports or who use FS Passengers, this plane is going to be a problem. Given these incompatibilities, it is only a matter of time before you find one that you don't like. By the way, putting the correct flap setting in an FS variable is not a major update and I am sure PMDG will make that change at some point.

I doubt I will find any problems since the NGX works perfectly well with the only piece of software I use when flying other than weather. My VA's ACARS program.

Do you know that the real Concord doesn't have Flaps right?

Right, witch is why I spelled it out, since you could not have been talking about the real Concorde. ;)

Sooo you are saying for example that the Concorde made by another company it is incorrectly made because FS Flight Keepr can't read the flaps?

That can custom codes used for a proper PMDG737NGX, I have no objection to that.But something you should not forget that there is also life outside the PMDG in FSX environment. So not only for flight keeper but to all other addons that are related to flight data’s.

Right, with is why I spelled it out, since you could not have been talking about the real Concorde. ;)

OK then, did you use it along with FS Flight Keeper?The FlightSim Labs Concorde use the normal Flaps Keys to drop the nose down, but then they are not flaps. Also, it only have Navigation and Position light.Then, FS Keeper will complain that the strobe are not on. Would you complain to FSL because they not made it so FS Flight Keeper can read it?

That can custom codes used for a proper PMDG737NGX, I have no objection to that.But something you should not forget that there is also life outside the PMDG in FSX environment. So not only for flight keeper but to all other addons that are related to flight data’s.

They can't make a peace of software that work on very other software that is out there

They can't make a peace of software that work on very other software that is out there

I think you do not understand what I say or you want just do not understand. We discuss a simulation and not a game that does independent work.