After a guy called "clum", took a look at my opinion and tested it, he now also agrees with me.

Hold on a second there matey, I don't necessarily agree with you that it is a problem. My only point is that it does seem to take a long time to stabilize compared with what you'd hear from the cabin. I don't know what that equates to on an N1 readout though so it's irrelevant. I have confidence that PMDG have this modelled as close as it's possible to do, so am not going to worry about it either way. It seems that most people are misunderstanding what you're on about here though to be fair to you. Slightly OT, I always find it amusing when people here are so in awe of the fact that real world pilots have had a hand in designing the software, as if that means every single detail will be accurate. I think of it in terms of if someone were to ask me to help design one of the small aircraft I fly, they'd probably end up with something resembling a shoe box. Even if you don't fly, could you intricately describe every system and nuance of your car's handling/systems if asked? What RPM does the engine idle at on a winters morning after it has been running for 3.5 minutes, with AC on? See my point? I think there's inevitably going to be errors and inconsistencies in a product, even if these god like real airline pilots had a hand in it.

So that means PMDG is aware of it. Shame nothing can be done about it, but that's the way it is unfortunately. And it's not only that real jet engines accelerate faster, but also they establish waaayyy faster at the N1 input of the pilot.Arjen Vandervelde

I personally have no problems with the bird, they did a great job, I have no regrets with buying it.

I don't have any problems with the plane either. Infact, I really enjoy it and I love it. But this, the engine modelling is just something that could not totally be simulated as realisitic as the real engines, due to FSX's own limitations. It's unfortunate (for the hard hardcore simmers like me), but that's just the way it is. Arjen Vandervelde

Hardcore simmers are not going to care about the spool up time being off less than a few seconds..... Hardcore complainers on the other hand, this is a whole different story. Some of these posts lately I seriously think people just sit there, and sit there, turn up the volume some more, move in closer, just to find something to say is wrong or a bug..... Enjoy the product, if it isn't good enough start saving to get yourself into a Level D.......

I would gladly trade some engine variances for my panels locking up. Anyday. Pardon my rant -- just a little frustrated. Cheers --- Bob

What a useless original post...Nice video though. Thanks!

I was talking about the 747 there. i'm talking about the N1 percentages before TO/GA. On the 747X the engines just don't want to establish. Way different on the real plane. On the 737NG it's 40% N1 before TO/GA. Now put it in, and it takes very long for the engines to reach 40.0% N1 and fully establish. From about 50% N1 and higher, the dynamics have been very well simulated. Fast acceleration, fast establishing. But this fast acceleration should already start after about 30-35% N1. Then you guys can say that I'm wrong, just because of a Youtube video. But let me tell you this, I have pilot in my family, for KLM, my uncle. I asked him and he said I was right.all GE engines are very stable and accelerate really fast after a certain percentage of N1. In the 737 it's 30%. in the 747 it's 50%, same for the 777.That's just been simulated wrong.And you can say that real pilot tested the NGX, yes that's true. But maybe they didn't care about that detail, or maybe they thought it wasn't that important. Arjen Vandervelde

With all due respect, your data is wrong. I timed the acceleration rate with a stopwatch on the real ng. I will take that data over your youtube anytime. I take offence to your "not caring about detail" comment. Ask EV how nit picky I was about some of this stuff. The N1 dies NOT quickly accelerate after 30% N1 by the way.

I think I am going to believe Jack in this case !

+1 +1 +1 +1

And a +1 to you to.

"To the best that we can given the limitation of the FSX engine model - it's well known that it doesn't accelerate as fast as the real life ones do. Nothing can really be done here past a certain point, this is part of what makes a jet engine a jet engine in FSX." - Ryan of PMDG http://forum.avsim.net/topic/336416-manual-reversion/page__p__1993630#entry1993630

Arjenfsx, like was said earlier, due to the limitations of FSX its not possible to simulate every little detail of the real aircraft. However compared to previous PMDG products this is the most realistic and best product released yet. If your truely a hard-core Simmer and can't accept the facts, maybe you can get a million dollar loan and get a 737-NGX simulator and then you will finally be happy. Another example is Activesky. While it is the best Weather Simulation on the market there are some limitations due to the fact that FSX simulation of Turbulence and Winds is not realistic. The developers made it the best it can be given the limtations of FSX. You can blame Microsoft for the Poor Coding in FSX, maybe you should write to them and complain. I would not expect a response though as it will probably end up in their recycling bin before anyone gets a chance to read it. This gripe is about the engine spooling is just about as nuts as the guy that wanted thicker glass in the front windows. Fly and enjoy what you have, you could do worse, you could be flying the I-Fly.

When I was trying to help EV on the engines acceleration he described a bit of the give and take with fsx. Beyond my scope! When I first got the NGX one of the VERY first things I did was time the engine acceleration. In the real plane it was 8 seconds from idle to 40%. On the NGX it was EXACTLY 8 seconds. I was thinking "This is gonna be good". What I did notice was the acceleration after that was a bit slow. In the end what happened was EV got the 40%+ acceleration WAY better BUT he had to give up a second or so in order to get the higher end of the acceleration more accurate. It was a more than fair trade. Who really is going to notice a second anyway?

It's unfortunate (for the hard hardcore simmers like me), but that's just the way it is.

So now you know from the real 737 driver who actually used stop watch that everything is fine (within a second), there is no FSX limitation involved here and you are simply wrong.

When I was trying to help EV on the engines acceleration he described a bit of the give and take with fsx. Beyond my scope! When I first got the NGX one of the VERY first things I did was time the engine acceleration. In the real plane it was 8 seconds from idle to 40%. On the NGX it was EXACTLY 8 seconds. I was thinking "This is gonna be good". What I did notice was the acceleration after that was a bit slow. In the end what happened was EV got the 40%+ acceleration WAY better BUT he had to give up a second or so in order to get the higher end of the acceleration more accurate. It was a more than fair trade. Who really is going to notice a second anyway?

So you're real 737 pilot? That's awesome. In that case if you really think it's that accurate, I'll have to believe you. And by the way. I wasn't talking about the exact rate of acceleration, but I was talking about the point where the engines are starting to accelerate and establish really fast. As far as I have seen, on the EICAS of a real 737, and also in the video, that point was a bit lower. Around 35%. And if you say I'm wrong, I'll have to believe you.And also please excuse me for my other post when I said that the test pilot wouldn't care about it, I wasn't intending to be offensive! Sorry for that.And also, people are thinking that I'm not happy with the NGX. Infact, I'm REALLY happy! It's the best PMDG plane ever made. This was just one thing I didn't really like. But unfortunately I'm experiencing a glitch with LNAV. When I disengage the AP at cruising altitude, and for example change heading a little bit, and then engage the autopilot again, it's not getting back on the LNAV flight path! I don't know why. And no I'm not disengaging it on purpose because I accidently hit the hat switch on my yoke. And the strange thing is, even when I correct it myself, the autopilot keeps heading away from the LNAV path. I suppose it's not supposed to do that, is it?But mr. Pilot, I have another question to you. At the moment I'm 16 years old (yes a young simmer), and I'm from the Netherlands. I want to become a pilot later on (obviously). But unfortunately I have -6.25 of sphere in my eyes, and the limit is -6.00. I heard that in the USA there is not limit for that, is that true? If so, I'm gonna do everything to come to the US. Thanks in advance,Arjen Vandervelde