Hehe good spot Mark you are correct as I am quoting from the 3/4/5. But wouldn't the idea be the same? Is the PMDG correct in that you can't verify APU voltage/cycles before applying it to the busses?

I.am using the info out the B737-700/800/900 technical training Manual.

Okay but is PMDG correct? Can you surmise anything that states that APU voltage/cycles can not be viewed unless the APU GEN is connected to either Bus?

I have to say YES they are correct.

K PMDG is probably correct as usual! Ref: 737 6/7/8/9 (this time hehe) 24-22-00 TASK 24-22-00-860-815

© Do this task: APU Starting and Operation (AMM TASK 49-11-00-860-801 p201). (d) Make sure the APU GEN OFF BUS light on the P5-4 panel comes on.(e) To energize the 115V ac transfer buses, set both of the APU GEN switches on the P5-4 panel to the ON position. NOTE: Either of the APU GEN switches will connect the APU ____ generator to both TRANSFER BUSES. However both of the APU GEN switches must be set to the ON position to make both of the SOURCE OFF lights go off. (f) Make sure these lights on the P5-4 panel go off: 1) APU GEN OFF BUS 2) 1 SOURCE OFF 3) 2 SOURCE OFF 4) 1 TRANSFER BUS OFF 5) 2 TRANSFER BUS OFF

Don't see anything about monitoring APU Voltage/Cycles so it probably is correct. Phew, worked through that one!...and I thought I had actually found something wrong! hehe.

I have to say YES they are correct.

From NG AMMDo these steps to supply the APU generator power to the 115V AC transfer buses:(A) Set the BAT switch on the P5-13 panel to the ON position.(:( Set the BUS TRANS switch on the P5-4 panel to the AUTO position.© Do this task: APU Starting and Operation, (D) Make sure the APU GEN OFF BUS light on the P5-4 panel comes on.

Edited August 7, 201114 yr by ajacied551

K PMDG is probably correct as usual! Ref: 737 6/7/8/9 (this time hehe) 24-22-00 TASK 24-22-00-860-815 Don't see anything about monitoring APU Voltage/Cycles so it probably is correct. Phew, worked through that one!...and I thought I had actually found something wrong! hehe.

If you are looking for a fault ? Than check the Brake pressure indicator. Specially when brake press is deflated to 1000 PSI (Hydraulics OFF) than supply Hydraulic system A. I can say I thing to you Patrick (Hyd B = Brakes)

What about the logo lights and the recirculation fans which are still working after flipping the CAB/UTIL switch?

What about the logo lights and the recirculation fans which are still working after flipping the CAB/UTIL switch?

Yep !! That is also a fault and I got many more faults. It's a good thing that this is simulation other wise this bird is grounded !!!!!!!..

It's a given that PMDG strives for ultimate realism, and as such, any errors or ommissions pointed out are certainly welcomed, I'm sure. But... Why the insistance on dragging out the AMM and going through with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes in the software? It seems like a contest to see who can find the tiniest fault and post it on the forum. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd have thought you'd get far more enjoyment out of flying the airplane rather than parking it in the hangar and giving it a D-check. I see the irony in a "beta tester" encouraging others not to look for mistakes, but it's only because I'd rather see you flying and enjoying what I personally feel is a product that truly advances the state of the art.

Honestly...haha...some of us may get more enjoyment in a D-Check then flying! Na...It was more of an exercise in trying to get our heads right into the airplane. The ol' Ground Pounders don't get to fly the things...so we have to find our enjoyment elsewhere every once a while hehe. I assure you it's not a contest for me. I hate the trolls just as much as the next guy. The fact that we have a simulation with sufficient fidelity to be able and try and investigate these things is part of the enjoyment, and I've been looking forward to it since the NGX details started to surface. The ability to have such detailed discussions with fellow enthusiasts is part of the package to me.

It's a given that PMDG strives for ultimate realism, and as such, any errors or ommissions pointed out are certainly welcomed, I'm sure. But... Why the insistance on dragging out the AMM and going through with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes in the software? It seems like a contest to see who can find the tiniest fault and post it on the forum. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd have thought you'd get far more enjoyment out of flying the airplane rather than parking it in the hangar and giving it a D-check. I see the irony in a "beta tester" encouraging others not to look for mistakes, but it's only because I'd rather see you flying and enjoying what I personally feel is a product that truly advances the state of the art.

I see nothing wrong with wanting things as accurate as possible, that's half the reason I purchased the printed manuals, so I could cross check the little details with the sim. Certainly not a big deal, but would like to know if it was intended this way (the CAB/UTIL switch and logo lights) or is it just a small mistake? As RSR stated, they put fourth so much effort to model things in such depth, and also that the majority of simmers wouldn't even notice the small things, but some of us want to appreciate the little details, so wondering why something doesn't work quite like it should is understandable. No trolling intended and certainly not trying to offend anyone

It's a given that PMDG strives for ultimate realism, and as such, any errors or ommissions pointed out are certainly welcomed, I'm sure. But... Why the insistance on dragging out the AMM and going through with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes in the software? It seems like a contest to see who can find the tiniest fault and post it on the forum. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd have thought you'd get far more enjoyment out of flying the airplane rather than parking it in the hangar and giving it a D-check. I see the irony in a "beta tester" encouraging others not to look for mistakes, but it's only because I'd rather see you flying and enjoying what I personally feel is a product that truly advances the state of the art.

Hey Nick, This is just a way of learning things - I for instance want to understand the logic how the bird's internals work, just in case somethign goes wrong in the air and I quickly have to make decisions. And if you want to quickly understand the logic, you just click through it, try different things, see dependencies etc. In doing that you rely on the plane accurately simulating all internals. When I hit something strange, it either means I need to read FCOMs some more, or there is a bug. For most of the cases it is the former, which makes this plane even more wonderful. :-) cheers,Jakub

If this cab/utility and logo lights is a bug, I hope it will be fixed. Other than that, the plane has behaved perfectly for me.

It's a given that PMDG strives for ultimate realism, and as such, any errors or ommissions pointed out are certainly welcomed, I'm sure. But... Why the insistance on dragging out the AMM and going through with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes in the software? It seems like a contest to see who can find the tiniest fault and post it on the forum. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd have thought you'd get far more enjoyment out of flying the airplane rather than parking it in the hangar and giving it a D-check. I see the irony in a "beta tester" encouraging others not to look for mistakes, but it's only because I'd rather see you flying and enjoying what I personally feel is a product that truly advances the state of the art.

I'm not looking for errors or anything to pick on, infact I didn't bother making a thread about them but when I saw a related thread I brought them up. The reason it may seem like I am looking for mistakes is because I am going through the manuals and through the systems learning and enjoying them. To me thats much of the fun of the aircraft and I will have plenty of time to enjoy it's flight aspects yet with a deep knowedge of what is going on all the time in the system level. I find it amazing we can go to such depths into the system and worry about small things like paticular current draw of items and busses, going through schematics. I don't want to take away anything from the hard work the whole team has put into the NGX, it's brilliant :) Things like the interior lights, logo lights, recirc fan related to the CAB/UTIL switch could be something to do with a limitation of FSX, who knows. I would love a post from a developer when they have time to tell us they're looking into it, or tell us how wrong we are, it will only make the sim that much more better or us look that much more silly