Perhaps they did this for a reason? I don't know but it's just an idea.

+1

This thread is really crazy. PMDG has worked on this for 3 years, countless hours, 30,000 pages of documents from Boeing, technical contacts from Boeing and even going as far as having people live in the real simulator feeding back information to the development team as they test things. PMDG have modeled each system as it is in the real aircraft rather than just programming climb performance or any other factor based on estimates, etc., and you guys are going to reprogram parts of it after having it in your hands for just a few hours of flying time and based on how it felt in seat 22C on a recent flight. Nuts! Mark.

So you are all saying it should take 30 minutes to climb from FL300 to FL390, when in real life as a passenger we got to FL360 at full load flying from oakland to Chicago midway in about 30 minutes? I timed it, and the pilot came on after about 30 minutes from take off saying we have leveled off at FL360. hmmm lets do some math here. 0 - 36000 feet in 30ish minutes in real life at near full load.... and PMDG NGX 30,000 to 39,000 at 50% load in 30 minutes.... Something doesnt add up.

Lol. So you could see the instruments from seat 22L?! Through the cockpit door??!!! Did you log it?!!!!! I'm more interested in how you got the load information before the flight?! I can't believe the non-pilots in here telling a team of professionals how a given aircraft flies. It's dumbfounding. I fly light singles and twins, so I wouldn't dare make a claim that this simulation doesn't fly like it's real world counterpart. You should probably follow suite. No hard feelings, I just think this whole post is ridiculous (and juvenile and nonsensical and misguided and etc).

Lol. So you could see the instruments from seat 22L?! Through the cockpit door??!!! Did you log it?!!!!! I'm more interested in how you got the load information before the flight?! I can't believe the non-pilots in here telling a team of professionals how a given aircraft flies. It's dumbfounding. I fly light singles and twins, so I wouldn't dare make a claim that this simulation doesn't fly like it's real world counterpart. You should probably follow suite. No hard feelings, I just think this whole post is ridiculous (and juvenile and nonsensical and misguided and etc).

i can understand your frustration ut your post is quite demeaning to the OP. who cares what you fly. Who cares if he flies. To him things seemed off. Is he correct...maybe and most likely not. However some people on here cant seem to understand that people fly fsx differently. If the OP feels tbat he should get more climb performance and his in house tweak succeeds in that regard....so be it and leave him alone. Since you are so concerned with what you fly and your little joke about him logging time.....you think a commercial pilot like yourself would be a little more professional...

Just took me 23 minutes with 800WL to 33000 at GW 168.2 At minus 11C @ 330After burning 6.0 in climb.

So you are all saying it should take 30 minutes to climb from FL300 to FL390, when in real life as a passenger we got to FL360 at full load flying from oakland to Chicago midway in about 30 minutes? I timed it, and the pilot came on after about 30 minutes from take off saying we have leveled off at FL360. hmmm lets do some math here. 0 - 36000 feet in 30ish minutes in real life at near full load.... and PMDG NGX 30,000 to 39,000 at 50% load in 30 minutes.... Something doesnt add up.

Strange OAT temperatures often cause slow climbs in FSX, but regardless of that you are comparing a climb from takeoff to 30,000 vs a climb from 30,000 to 39,000.

PMDG, I noticed an inconsistency in the cfg file with the realworld 737-800-900 NGX engine rating from both boeing manuals and wiki. [TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain=0.002inlet_area=22.619rated_N2_rpm=13200.000static_thrust=24200.000 // Thrust by EEC [26300 TO SLS here]afterburner_available=0reverser_available=1AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0 -Should read-[TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain=0.002inlet_area=22.619rated_N2_rpm=13200.000static_thrust=27300.000 // Thrust by EEC [26300 TO SLS here] <-------------------- GARBAGE SUGGESTIONafterburner_available=0reverser_available=1AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0 Static thrust is set at 24200, but according to boeing and wiki, Maximum static thrust for the 737-800/900 is 27300. After the 3k rating adjustment the plane behaves far more realisticly now after FL300, and climbs out at much more realistic rates at Climb settings for a reduced thrust take off N1 90-96%. I noticed in the FMC that N1 performance adjustments allow for a 27k max thrust take off which is available, but if the .cfg file is wrong then the plane was only giving 24k, even with 27k selected. If anyone else is having these issues, I would suggest adjusting this value in the .cfg file under TurbineEngineData. I'm sure PMDG knows the proper values, but may have just typed it in as a 600-700 variant by mistake, which have less powerful version of the CFM engines.

Do me a favour : please don't touch stuff and performance items since evidently you have no idea of what we do inside the code or calibrating performance against real data which you do not have. Our source of information is official products, data and software by the manufacturer not stuff picked from "impressions", "forum discussions" or other add on's. OK ? I know you want to help but making the plane fly like something "else" is not the answer and you are ruining pretty much everything for everyone. Thank you

PMDG, I noticed an inconsistency in the cfg file with the realworld 737-800-900 NGX engine rating from both boeing manuals and wiki. [TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain=0.002inlet_area=22.619rated_N2_rpm=13200.000static_thrust=24200.000 // Thrust by EEC [26300 TO SLS here]afterburner_available=0reverser_available=1AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0 -Should read-[TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain=0.002inlet_area=22.619rated_N2_rpm=13200.000static_thrust=27300.000 // Thrust by EEC [26300 TO SLS here]afterburner_available=0reverser_available=1AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0 Static thrust is set at 24200, but according to boeing and wiki, Maximum static thrust for the 737-800/900 is 27300. After the 3k rating adjustment the plane behaves far more realisticly now after FL300, and climbs out at much more realistic rates at Climb settings for a reduced thrust take off N1 90-96%. I noticed in the FMC that N1 performance adjustments allow for a 27k max thrust take off which is available, but if the .cfg file is wrong then the plane was only giving 24k, even with 27k selected. If anyone else is having these issues, I would suggest adjusting this value in the .cfg file under TurbineEngineData. I'm sure PMDG knows the proper values, but may have just typed it in as a 600-700 variant by mistake, which have less powerful version of the CFM engines.

Also doing this, there is a good chance you'll screw up the fuel burn calculations in the FMC!

Oh god... I have a question, is ASE like REX or what?

and you guys are going to reprogram parts of it after having it in your hands for just a few hours of flying time and based on how it felt in seat 22C on a recent flight. Nuts!

Nuts indeed. Once in a while one can only shake head in disbelief how stupid some of the stuff promoted here sounds.

I think you got em wiki is more accurate then anything pmdg could put together (that was sarcasm for those of you who don't know)

i can understand your frustration ut your post is quite demeaning to the OP. who cares what you fly. Who cares if he flies. To him things seemed off. Is he correct...maybe and most likely not. However some people on here cant seem to understand that people fly fsx differently. If the OP feels tbat he should get more climb performance and his in house tweak succeeds in that regard....so be it and leave him alone. Since you are so concerned with what you fly and your little joke about him logging time.....you think a commercial pilot like yourself would be a little more professional...

No. And apparently you missed the rest of the thread.