I have decided to withdraw the pending release of SP1 and push it forward...

I completely expected this, and I'm glad I didn't get my hopes up this weekend.PMDG has consistency going for it, that's for sure.

...as of this moment I am going back to our long standing policy of not guessing release dates. As you can see it is a waste of time.....and it isn't any fun to come here and tell you that we are moving the date again...

THANK you.110% agreed.

I have a set of Saitek Pro Rudder pedals which were playing up exactley as described. Brakes jamming and general erratic behaviour. However after adjusting the settings of the pedals they are now working perfectley with the737 NGX. Roy Pike

I have a set of Saitek Pro Rudder pedals which were playing up exactley as described. Brakes jamming and general erratic behaviour. However after adjusting the settings of the pedals they are now working perfectley with the737 NGX. Roy Pike

What are the settings?I use Saitek pedals, and I'm sure others do too.

What are the settings?I use Saitek pedals, and I'm sure others do too.

Hi these settings worked for me and I took them from the Saitek website so please don't blame me if they don't work for you Setup in FSX The Rudder Pedals have three axes, one for the rudder and two foot pedal axes that are used for the toe brakes. There is also a rotary wheel in the centre that allows for the tension of the rudder movement to be increased and decreased.Due to the way in which Flight Sim detects the pedals, they need to be correctly configured before you can start getting the most out of them.Start by going opening FSX and going to Settings > Controls > Control Axes. Select the Rudder Pedals in Controller Type. Double click the Event Brake (left axis) and depress the left brake when the change assignment box appears. Left toe will appear in the window, and then click ok. Repeat the process for Brake (right axis) and the right pedal. Make sure that there is a tick in the Reverse box for both brake axes. Finally, double click Rudder Axis and perform the rudder movement, so that the Change Assignment window detects the rudder axis. These are the only three axes that should be set to the pedals, if there are any more in the list delete them using the Delete Joystick Assignment command.Now that the axes are set, go to the Calibration window. Select the Rudder Pedals and then select Advanced Controls. Make sure that the sensitivities for both brake axes are set to 75-80% and that the null zones are set to 0% for both. The rudder should be set to 50-75% sensitivity with a small null zone of about 5%.Before you load a flight, you will need to disable Auto Rudder. To do this, go to Settings > Realism and make sure that the Auto Rudder box does not have a tick inside it.Now you are good to go. Load up a flight, when the plane is stationary on the runway depress the pedal, then release it. You will see the brake announcement in the corner of your screen. If all is well the indicator will appear and then disappear when the brake is released. If the brakes stay on, go back to Settings > Controls > Control Axes, and remove the ticks from the reverse box for the brake pedals. Best Regards Roy Pike

I am surprised you do not recommed that the BRAKES should have a small NULL Zone of about 5%. ie You have to appply 5% deflection on the brakes, before they start to have any effect. This would eliminate the risk of any slight drift, or any noise spike, starting to apply any braking, when there is no deflection on the Brakes. ( and triggering any "the brakes have been applied" responses to the 737's Brake logic) Maybe this is already simulated in the PMDG 737NG .. to ignore the first small amount of brake deflection.? Interesting thoughts: Brake failure, maintenance, air in brakes, spongy brakes etc etc Also, why the 5% Null zone in the Rudder ? Here it would seem to make sense to have the rudder movement, a smooth response, throughout its travel, and not have a "dead zone" in the middle of it's travel. ( same for other control surfaces) Note: Experience of many with the Saitek Yokes, has indicated that the Pots get noisy pretty quick -- one can imagine that the same might be true for their Pedals)

I am surprised you do not recommed that the BRAKES should have a small NULL Zone of about 5%. ie You have to appply 5% deflection on the brakes, before they start to have any effect. This would eliminate the risk of any slight drift, or any noise spike, starting to apply any braking, when there is no deflection on the Brakes. ( and triggering any "the brakes have been applied" responses to the 737's Brake logic) Maybe this is already simulated in the PMDG 737NG .. to ignore the first small amount of brake deflection.? Interesting thoughts: Brake failure, maintenance, air in brakes, spongy brakes etc etc Also, why the 5% Null zone in the Rudder ? Here it would seem to make sense to have the rudder movement, a smooth response, throughout its travel, and not have a "dead zone" in the middle of it's travel. ( same for other control surfaces) Note: Experience of many with the Saitek Yokes, has indicated that the Pots get noisy pretty quick -- one can imagine that the same might be true for their Pedals)

As I said these are not my settings they are recommended by Saitek on their support page, all I can say again is they work for me. Roy Pike

Qoting Ken Nesbitt : "Just release it and update it later. For a lot of people it works fine. I don't mean go all CS on us and release an unfinished product, but at some point it becomes ridiculous to just keep it on the handful of testers computers when you could get an even better idea of issues when the masses have it" This is a clever comment ! 110% agree

People are complaining about having no SP1 or 6/700. They will complain even more if they don't work perfectly! Take your time PMDG!

I think PMDG should stop giving us release timelines; they don't seem to be working to well.

+1

well said +1

but at some point it becomes rediculous to just keep it on the handful of testers computers when you could get an even better idea of issues when the masses have it.

How do you come to think just because the "masses" have it, they would provide better feedback? Although it "seems" obvious, I heavily doubt this is a valid general conclusion. I'm sure you are reading the forums? Browsing through the countless threads clearly indicate a ton of users don't (yet) understand the systems in a depth that allows them to operate the aircraft correctly (not offence meant!!! There certainly is a steep learning curve and I'm just saying this to explain my thought) so how exactly would you think to get (more) qualified feedback in this regard? Isn't there something smart to it giving it only to a handful of people that however know more than anyone how the thing should behave? I understand and appreciate the fact that 'more users' equals to 'wider variety of hardware configurations', but add-on-system wise I think it's better to let her outta the cage once at least the NG-inherent systems are working in an acceptable way. And as we can see that is probably nothing to be testes by the "masses". The PC-hardware and compability problems will come in any way...Just a thought, and anyways it's been discussed at length before. Oh, and I just noticed, eureka! - that I got some Saitek pedals attached here LOL Must've missed that since they aren't actually mine and I rarely ever use them...

Ryan.... Bus..... Ha, maybe is Airbus... these guys are getting jealous, 85% of the online traffic is Boeing 737-800. Thanks for the update and looking forward to fly the 600 to Lukla.

Captains-<snip>From experience I can tell you that the problem is likely in the exceptionally poor design methodology used by FSX to manage functionality such as brakes... It never ceases to amaze me that a product designed/built in 2006 is still using some hackneyed methods that were first used in FS4.0 or earlier... but I don't want to go off on a rant who's roots predates the birthdates of many folks here. <snip>

Hi Robert, What you are writing in the above quote has been common use of Microsoft all the time - for the sake of downward compatibility (as they tend to argue). Enclosed something to proof it:

/*   TOP SECRET Microsoft(c) Code   Project: Chicago(tm)   Projected release-date: Summer 1998*/#include "win31.h"#include "win95.h"#include "evenmore.h"#include "oldstuff.h"#include "billrulz.h"#define INSTALL =3D HARDchar make_prog_look_big[1600000];void main(){   while(!CRASHED)   {	display_copyright_message();	display_bill_rules_message();	do_nothing_loop();	if (first_time_installation)	{   	make_50_megabyte_swapfile();   	do_nothing_loop();   	totally_screw_up_HPFS_file_system();   	search_and_destroy_the_rest_of_OS/2();   	hang_system();	}	write_something(anything);	display_copyright_message();	do_nothing_loop();	do_some_stuff();	if (still_not_crashed)	{   	display_copyright_message();   	do_nothing_loop();   	basically_run_windows_3.1();   	do_nothing_loop();   	do_nothing_loop();	}	}   if (detect_cache())	disable_cache();   if (fast_cpu())   {	set_wait_states(lots);	set_mouse(speed, very_slow);	set_mouse(action, jumpy);	set_mouse(reaction, sometimes);   }   /* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.11"); */   /* printf("Welcome to Windows 95"); */   printf("Welcome to Windows 98");   if (system_ok())	crash(to_dos_prompt);   else  	system_memory =3D open("a:\swp0001.swp", O_CREATE);   while(something)   {	sleep(5);	get_user_input();	sleep(5);	act_on_user_input();	sleep(5);   }   create_general_protection_fault();}***********************************************************************

Sometimes it seems to me that a lot of things could be quite easier for you and PMDG's development team if you could get rid of the aged FS history (if your are writing about FS4 code it might be even a remaining of FS3 ). What's about building a new FS around your wonderful products? In 64bit of course and avoiding the existent restrictions but nonetheless respecting the introduced interfaces and parameters. Well, I know, it sounds like a joke (and actually it's true) but the idea contains a dash of truth...

I am surprised you do not recommed that the BRAKES should have a small NULL Zone of about 5%. ie You have to appply 5% deflection on the brakes, before they start to have any effect. This would eliminate the risk of any slight drift, or any noise spike, starting to apply any braking, when there is no deflection on the Brakes. ( and triggering any "the brakes have been applied" responses to the 737's Brake logic) Maybe this is already simulated in the PMDG 737NG .. to ignore the first small amount of brake deflection.? Interesting thoughts: Brake failure, maintenance, air in brakes, spongy brakes etc etc Also, why the 5% Null zone in the Rudder ? Here it would seem to make sense to have the rudder movement, a smooth response, throughout its travel, and not have a "dead zone" in the middle of it's travel. ( same for other control surfaces) Note: Experience of many with the Saitek Yokes, has indicated that the Pots get noisy pretty quick -- one can imagine that the same might be true for their Pedals)

I have CH pedals but I think the same general philosophy for setting the pedals up would be the same. Anyway my guess why there is a recommendation to have 0 nullzone and turn down the sensitivity for the brakes is probably because you have checked to reverse the brake axises and for that reason the sensitivity in face becomes the nullzone and vice versa...? Anyways I tried this after having LOTS of problem for a LONG time with my CH pedals as far as brakes go where the main problem has always been that I can hardly even put my feet on the pedals (without applying any brake pressure) but still FS thinks I pressed the brakes and off the parking brake go... Tried what was suggested here and it did work but I found that I needed to turn the sensitivity way down so then I decided to try assigning my brake axises using FSUIPC instead (have read about this many times but never bothered to try it) and FINALLY I can put my feet on the pedals without having the parking brake release until I actually press the pedals. What I found looking in the calibration and axis assignment tabs in FSUIPC was that it seems my pedals never actually return fully to "no brakes applied" looking at the values produced by the axises when you move the pedals and I guess this is simply because my pedals are many years old by now so I guess one can't expect them to be 100% perfect anymore. Solved this by setting new minimum values for the brake axises in FSUIPC so FS is "tricked" to belive my brake pedals are all the way up even though the axis values are not. Maybe this can help someone else with the same kind of problems, however I belive you need the registered version of FSUIPC to be able to adjust the controllers this way.

My new Saitek pedals (combat edition) work great with the 737NGX. I have had no issues with them.