how real is the pmdg vs the real 737

[ZachLW 37]

A friend of mine just completed his type rating for the 737ng. I adviced him to use the NGX to get a feel for workflows etc. He said that the systems in the sim were very good, however, the flight dynamics were "lolbad" according to his comments.

What hardware is he using? Apparently the wrong stuff. Even Carenado's 172N model feels great. Maybe he just can't discern the limitations of the desktop simulator in the way of hardware/sight picture/etc?

[NM5K 1]

I think the control sensitivities can have a lot to do with how the feel of a PC simcompares with a level D, or real world.To me, almost all of the stock FSX airplanes are way too sensitive if you have thecontrol sensitivity set at default. Elevator in particular.I run my control sensitivities pretty low, elevator in particular, and some of the planes I have to edit either the air file, or cfg to get them more like what Iwould think real world would feel like.A Boeing control wheel should feel fairly "stiff", and not overly sensitiveto movements. Ditto for many other planes.I had to adjust the Baron and Mooney I know.. The elevator sensitivitywas way overdone. Or I think anyway..Myself, I think the flight model and feel of the NGX is quite accurate, *If*you have the FSX control sensitivities set to a normal level.And those can vary from box to box, and yoke to yoke..

[craig89 5]

For systems & procedural training - yes. Particularly I agree with Fred's comment with comparing it more to the LevelD sims as it'll never be comparable to the real aircraft due to the 'life/death' scenario but hey ho thats another debate.Few more fixes here and there and it'll be superb for procedures and systems.As for landing a real aircraft - I'd say a few hours in a LevelD sim coupled with 'MANY' in the NGX then yes you would have a better chance than the older chap sat next to you with just a PPL and having flown Cessnas but It will never be a substitute for the correct Integrated or Modular training AND a type rating that us guys become bankrupt for .... ..... ..... It all comes down to money at the end of the day.

[spotlope 0]

If the weather was perfect and the pressure did not get to them I think someone with a lot of time in the NGX with a yoke and throttle has a decent chance of making a safe (not smooth or good) landing. Two examples were mythbusters where one of the guys on the show landed an A320 Level-D sim with help from someone acting as the pilot on the radio. Another example I saw recently on the t.v. show The Amazing Race, three groups had to land a level-D lear jet sim they were put right up to final and everything. The two person teams had to putn the gear down, flaps and disenage the A/P at 500ft. Two out of the three groups landed the aircraft "safely" not well but good enough to not hurt anyone on the first try. I doubt these people had any type of flying skills as that is what they said in interviews. Landing an airliner safely, no wind conditions is not the most difficult thing int he world to do. Pilots get paid for bad weather, failures, complicated approaches and ATC etc..But I am confident that if a hard-core NGX pilot was vectored to final on a light wind, clear day they would be able to land the aircraft without autoland. I wont be smooth but people would walk out of the aircraft.Just my opinion of course.

That was an interesting episode of the Amazing Race, wasn't it? From the way Marcus was landing the Lear, it was clear that a certain amount of crash tolerance was really dialed-up in his simulator. He kept slamming the jet into the runway at a terrifying, gear-collapsing rate of speed, and all it did was keep rolling. I'm pretty sure in real life they'd have been hosing bits of him and his plane off the tarmac.I had the chance to fly a Level-D 737-400 sim a few years back, and even though I wasn't as familiar with 737 systems then as I am now, I was reasonably comfortable in the cockpit. With some verbal help from the instructor pilot, I was able to land at KSFO without much bouncing. The passengers might not have been happy with me, but they all walked away with no injuries. Naturally, there's more to flying than that, of course.

[Richiebacardi 1]

A lot of people say the systems are well represented. Boeing are happy to put their name to it too. Remember though this is Flight Simulator...which is a desktop/laptop computer game/simulation whatever you prefer to call it.I'm happy and for me it seems as real as I can get while in my pj's!Also remember...the introduction manual quote :- 'This manual is not to be used for training or familiarity with any aircraft' also in red on every page 'Do not use for flight'So I guess to answer your question in a word...No.Hope this helpsRichie.

[paulyg123 135]

Well I did a $1000 expirement to test this theory. I am not a pilot and everything I know about the 737 NG I learned from PDMG's 737. After learning as much as I could by flying every night, I booked 2 hours in a full motion simulator. Let me tell you, I was fully prepared to take the 737 from a cold dark cockpit in KLGA to KBOS in the fog. Every button is exact on, the FMC is dead on. Depending on your perifials (yoke, rudder pedals, throttle), it'll handle closse to the real thing. I had absoletuly no problems taxing, doing ILS ,andings and doind difficult approaches (like LGA Expressway Visual 31) on the full motion simulator. So for a non-pilots point of view - it is right on. And the graphics FSX offers on a high end machine with the add-on airports like FlyTampa simply blows away anything the $17,000,000 full motion Level D simulator can offer. So sit back and enjoy your $69 sim.

[audiohavoc 24]

Also remember...the introduction manual quote :- 'This manual is not to be used for training or familiarity with any aircraft' also in red on every page 'Do not use for

That's just to protect PMDG legally. The manuals are pretty much the same as those that ship with a real 737 NG.

[Richiebacardi 1]

Yup this I know...but I thinik our good man wanted to know if this plane be used for learning the systems for real pilots.I'd say no, but I'd also say yes...Confused??? So am I :unsure:Hopefully someone out ther knows what i'm trying to get at.

[Paul_Smith 92]

That's just to protect PMDG legally. The manuals are pretty much the same as those that ship with a real 737 NG.

If some idiot gets into the cockpit and screws up a real 737, I somehow doubt if their defence attorney will attempt to suggest it was PMDG's fault. :Liar:Actually, I think those messages are not there to protect PMDG so much as to protect the general public from people who think they can fly a $60 million aircraft because of what they learnt in a $60 game. They might be the same as the manuals that Boeing make available to trainee pilots, and they certainly include some of the same pages, but they are not all the manuals Boeing make available, nor do they include the instructors notes, the training excercises, the supervised practise or the exams. In fact, I am pretty sure that there is not a single airline in the world that suggests their pilots get some practice in using FSX.If you already know how to fly a 737, then PMDG's offering might be a great tool for keeping current with little used procedures, but that is not the same as saying it is a good tool to learn on. If you doubt me, simply save the money you would have spent on your next two or three FSX add ons and go and get a flying lesson, but please, for your own sake, do not attempt to impress your instructor with how much you already know, instead, try and get the best value for your money by seeing how much he or she can teach you.

[craig89 5]

I can concur the manuals PMDG offer are very similar to the FCOMs and manuals supplied by my airline, albeit we have SOPs too.As aforementioned it really is a bit of legal dullness - every FS product says the same 'not for real world navigation, for simulation purposes only etc'

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

If you already know how to fly a 737, then PMDG's offering might be a great tool for keeping current with little used procedures, but that is not the same as saying it is a good tool to learn on.

Just because it doesn't fully prepare you for flying the real thing doesn't mean it's not a good tool for learning.

[Louis8 6]

I joined up to Angle of Attack to learn the NGX and maybe i'm wrong but it's very well done in my opinion any way if some one was to use it to learn the real one.

[ZachLW 37]

If some idiot gets into the cockpit and screws up a real 737, I somehow doubt if their defence attorney will attempt to suggest it was PMDG's fault. :Liar:Actually, I think those messages are not there to protect PMDG so much as to protect the general public from people who think they can fly a $60 million aircraft because of what they learnt in a $60 game. They might be the same as the manuals that Boeing make available to trainee pilots, and they certainly include some of the same pages, but they are not all the manuals Boeing make available, nor do they include the instructors notes, the training excercises, the supervised practise or the exams. In fact, I am pretty sure that there is not a single airline in the world that suggests their pilots get some practice in using FSX.If you already know how to fly a 737, then PMDG's offering might be a great tool for keeping current with little used procedures, but that is not the same as saying it is a good tool to learn on. If you doubt me, simply save the money you would have spent on your next two or three FSX add ons and go and get a flying lesson, but please, for your own sake, do not attempt to impress your instructor with how much you already know, instead, try and get the best value for your money by seeing how much he or she can teach you.

You have so blown the general idea out of proportion, it's embarrassing.

If you already know how to fly a 737, then PMDG's offering might be a great tool for keeping current with little used procedures, but that is not the same as saying it is a good tool to learn on.

Seems a bit contradictory to me. I taught myself 737 systems with add ons like this. You seem to follow the belief that everyone who uses this add on is an idiot unless they are 737 type rated. I'm not putting words in your mouth, just give some sim users a little more credit.

[Fabo 213]

plenty of real pilots used simulator add-ons to learn this and that. It is not a replacement to proper groundschool though, just an addition.