PMDG 737 Vs POSKY 737

[sparks86 0]

Unfortunatley that was not a miracle..............................................far from it indeed.

 

All I can say to Miracle is................ :LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO: :Loser:

[WhiteKnuckle 11]

found this 6 hour ago. hyperventilate every time i see it.

 

can't breathe.........cant breathe......laughing too hard.....tunnel vision....

 

Ditto that....but in an attempt to recompose myself...

 

I was just sitting outside and thinking to myself, 'why do I keep coming back to PMDG'? To answer that simply I would say It's because they are so good at what they do. For many, including myself, It becomes a commitment, like a marriage sometimes. I'll still be trying to master the NGX and other PMDG aircraft in five, ten, who knows how many years time.

 

It's a great journey and great value for money, IMHO.

[rictus 7]

If the OP had a genuine feeling something was wrong, it would be nice to help them address that - hopefully all the replies didn't scare him off - however I think the lack of reply by the OP more than certainly indicates the presence of under-bridge dwelling lifeforms ;)

[FLEX1978 373]

I'm surprised some of you think this is a genuine post. It has to be joke by a bored member of the forum. funny how you laugh at someone that makes a comment like that, when 90% of real world aviators laugh at simmers in the same way..

[mcbellette 145]

You're late - April 1 has come and gone nearly two weeks ago...

 

This is a good working merge!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g8x996cl58&feature=related

 

I wonder how much luggage the trunk on that thing can hold?

[Boeing or not going 578]

If the OP had a genuine feeling something was wrong, it would be nice to help them address that - hopefully all the replies didn't scare him off - however I think the lack of reply by the OP more than certainly indicates the presence of under-bridge dwelling lifeforms ;)

 

The replies are pretty justified, you don't accuse one of the most accurate sim companies around that their airplane is not infact, realistic. And something like Posky is better.

[Chock 17,769]

funny how you laugh at someone that makes a comment like that, when 90% of real world aviators laugh at simmers in the same way..

 

I'm pretty sure that percentage has dropped off a bit these days. It would be a foolish pilot who did not realise the benefits that PC flight simulation can confer these days. I can remember being sat on the grass near the flight line waiting for a slot to take off, as far back as 1999 (I just checked my log book to confirm that date incidentally), and a few of us were discussing the practical benefits of photorealistic scenery in FS as a training aid to assist with local navigation, and nobody was laughing about how useful that might be. Things have got considerably more realistic since that time.

 

Nevertheless, I do take your point that most people who fly PMDG's 737 have probably never driven a real one, so they only have other people's word for it that it flies more realistically than the POSKY one. And I include myself in that bunch, since I've only ever driven small aeroplanes in real life, nothing bigger than a twin prop; I had a go in a 'proper' commercial pilot training 737 full motion simulator once (not an NG one either), and I've had a bash in some Airbus ones too, but that in no way makes me some kind of experienced commercial 737 pilot able to comment authoritatively about how a 737 NG really does fly. I'm completely reliant on the expertise of PMDG's processes to confirm that for me.

 

Al

[Miracle 0]

Hello,

 

Waaa I did not expect to have many answers.

 

I'm happy to bring some laught here even if the large part of the comments are little sarcastics and not very constructives.

 

Anyway, it is true that my post is a bit clumsy and has a troll flavor.

 

Compare the PMDG as a cesna is exagerated, it seem that this kind of humor is not usual among hardcore simers community :)

 

I'm just a Sunday pilot and I never fly a real 737 (only fixed base simulator).

 

I have no doubt that the PMDG developers know what they do.

 

However, the fact is, there is a significant difference between the 737 POSKY and PMDG.

 

For exemple, the POSKY is heavier to maneuver and reverse trust is less effective.

 

In the absence of feedback from a real 737 pilot, i ask for arguments to say what is the most realistic model.

 

From my readings, the designer of the POSKY FDE have over 10 years experience in this field. According to him, he reproduces 95% of the real 737 reaction and this FDE was validated by real pilots.

 

If you have any real arguments I'm interested !

 

Cedric.

[Chock 17,769]

I suspect that there are more people like yourself Ced - i.e. Sunday pilots who've never really driven an airliner - on here than there are real commercial pilots (and I'm including myself in that bunch, even though I have worked on some real airliner stuff). But what you have to bear in mind, is that the resources PMDG have available to create a simulated 737, are probably far greater than those available to POSKY's developers, so there is a good chance that they are nearer the mark.

 

After all, if I turned up at an airline and said I was the developer who made the PMDG 747, I'm fairly sure that would open a few doors, since that was pretty much the FS aeroplane which made PC-based airliner simulations credible amongst real commercial pilots. Prior to that one, most people mentioning FS airliners to real commercial pilots would have received a fairly cool reception; all that changed when PMDG banged out that 747. Even moreso when their 737 NG came out of the hangar last year, since that was the one which Boeing were happy to license the real NG SOPs to.

 

Al

[Miracle 0]

Thanks for this fair answer :)

Again, i don't doubt of the very hight quality of PMDG product (the best i ever seen).

All the avionic system is reproduced with a realism level never reach.

But as they say, they create a product that can be use by hardcore simmer and by newbies as simple as "push the throthle and go".

 

My question is about the reaction of the plane.

Here the FAQ from the POSKY 737 FDE designer. I think this guy is not someone who doesn't know what he talk about.

 

I just put the point that are very different beteween the PMDG FDE (and default FSX 737) and the POSKY.

 

Flight Dynamics, Scenario, Effects Designer

Warren C. Daniel

 

Flight model based on a full-flight training simulator used for pilots of a particular airline carrier,

737-700, -800, -900 data, as well as full-motion FAA simulator experience.

 

Q) The FDE is much harder to fly than before. The plane is more difficult to handle.

What happened?

 

A) After spending time in DC-10, 737, 747-400, 757, 767, and 777 Level D simulators, I realized

that the performance for the previous generation of FDEs was there, however, I grossly

underestimated the actual “feel” of large aircraft. In large commercial airliners the control surfaces

are effective, however, the sheer mass and inertia of the plane cause delays in how quickly the

aircraft reacts to inputs.

 

To date, all FDEs I have flown (including my own) have failed to capture this critical element –

inertia. This new generation of FDEs is designed to show the average flight simmer exactly how

difficult it is to fly a large aircraft, particularly in adverse weather or emergency conditions.

 

I have flown small aircraft, Level D simulators, and have been designing FDEs for nearly 10 years

now. I can confidently say now, THIS is how the real aircraft FEELS and PERFORMS. I feel I

have captured about 95% of how the actual aircraft feels in a Commercial Level D simulator and

actual flight. The remaining 5% I could not capture are things such as airframe vibration through

wing flap (fueled wings which are off-center have quite a lot of inertia of their own) and control

surface slip (first the control surfaces “bite” into the air, then they begin to move the aircraft after

some point in time– this feeling is difficult to mimic without an actual motion sim, although I have

added more “slip).

The control surfaces are heavy, but effective. If you actually take the time and LOOK at a large

aircraft, you will notice the control surface, say an aileron, has only a small surface area in

relation to the rest of the plane. These surfaces must “push” the aircraft in the desired direction.

As in the actual aircraft, you will find yourself often “overcompensating” and correcting when you

fly manually until you become used to the feel.

 

If you find the aircraft a challenge to fly, imagine an engine out emergency, landing in gusty or

side wind conditions, or on wet/icy runways. My goal is to show you what an actual commercial

pilot experiences.

 

Q) But the controls are SO heavy. Are you sure this is right?

 

A) The control surfaces require 45 – 55 lbs of force to move the yoke, control wheel and rudders.

This new generation of FDEs places emphasis on both performance AND feel. I am not trying to

make a video game – I’m designing flight simulator dynamics.

 

Q) It’s hard to stop. Reverse thrust is very un-effective. How do I stop more effectively?

 

A) The majority of stopping power when landing is from the brakes. The thrust reversers do

almost nothing to stop the airplane. Set your auto brakes to position 2 on initial decent, but don’t

be afraid to use position 3. On shorter fields and higher gross weights, it may be necessary to

use position 4 or max braking.

 

Q) The thrust reversers are very ineffective. I can’t stop? Is this right?

 

A) The thrust reversers are very ineffective. 80% of the stopping power actually comes from the

wheel brakes.

 

Q) When I taxi, I can’t turn. What’s wrong?

 

A) You must slow down to 30 knots for high speed turnoff taxiways, 8 to 12 knots for 90 degree

turns, and about 3 - 5 knots for turns over 120 degrees. Basically, the maximum turn angle of the

737NG nose gear is 78 degrees. Slip causes you to only achieve 75 degrees of effective steering.

Attempting to turn at higher speeds will result in tire rollover and push, resulting in the airplane

still going straight ahead.

...

 

To conclude, i'm not very satisfied with answer like.

 

"LOL LOL LOL ... Don't say B..S.., PMDG is the best addon, nothing more to say !"

 

I don't say that PMDG is a bad product, it's the best addon i ever buy. I just ask about the flight model that is very close of the default FSX 737.

I talk to other simer and they say to me that the Wico 737 addon react the same way that the POSKY, but i don't own this addon.

 

Cheer

Cedric.

[AFAGNC 0]

maybe your hardware yoke is too sensitive...?!!?

[Chock 17,769]

There is the subject of perception to consider, which may be more your point. With the best will in the world, there are, and have to be, compromises and design choices with even the very best add-on aircraft for FS. Trim is a case in point; anyone who flies for real will tell you that trimming a real aircraft is the work of seconds and not difficult to achieve, but in flight simulators such as FS, it is nowhere near as intuitive, so making an FS aeroplane fly exactly as per the real thing is not something that is always quite as straightforward as it might appear.

 

Some developers will make FS add-ons which attempt to convey the feeling of heavy mass and inertia, others will go for making the thing react to inputs as per the real deal. This is where a choice comes into the equation, should a developer try and make something appear convincing as an entertainment product, by adding their own perceptions to what they think will be convincing, or should they go for making it react to control inputs exactly as per the real deal, and leave the perception of several tons being moved about up to your imagination? It seems that PMDG go for the latter, and POSKY went for the former.

 

Which you prefer is up to you, but if you want realism, then the PMDG route is likely to be the one that most people would appreciate; airliners are a lot more sprightly than most people imagine, it's just that they are rarely seen flying in a way which makes that apparent, but if you have seen the famous picture of the prototype B707 being rolled inverted, or seen a 757 being stunted at an airshow, you will know that this is the case. I've personally seen a 757 being thrown around the sky like a jet fighter on one occasion at an airshow, it was very surprising how nimble the thing was, with it pulling chandelles and all manner of other surprising manuevers. Frankly, it was the best and most thrilling display at the entire airshow, and that was a show where there was stuff such as F-16s, F-111s, Harriers, Saab Viggens and Sukhoi 27s doing routines too. That 757 routine blew them all away.

 

Al

[Miracle 0]

Thanks for this answer.

Did you say the same thing about the trust reverser ?

[FLEX1978 373]

Miracle, the simple answer is neither products are realsitic regarding actual handling of the aircraft... It will give you an idea of what to expect while using your plastic controls with zero feedback but thats as far as you will ever go.

 

Ever driven a 'realstic' simulator using an expensive force feedback wheel, while the deveolper tells you all about the little details behind the programming? Ever driven a real high performance vehicle? I hope you get my drift, desktop sims have a long way to go before they are anywhere near close, and when all that data is available you will still need realistic hardware, not the plastic we all use or the $2000 yokes.

 

Flightsim developers are creating breathtaking 'Study Sims' that match performance data almost perfectly, nothing more. If you want to get the feel of a real aircraft, then go to your local flying school or shell out a $700 for some LVL-D time, with the latter don't fool yourself that that is also an exact match.

[Chock 17,769]

Did you say the same thing about the trust reverser ?

 

Well, the comment you quoted which states that 'the thrust reversers do almost nothing to stop the airplane' is a bit questionable to say the least. It is true that the old clamshell thrust reversers on 737-200s were a bit iffy, and in fact used to lift weight off the wheels and make main wheel braking less effective, but even those were capable of literally backing up 115,000lbs of aeroplane from a standstill, and what is more, the 737-200 didn't even have nose wheel brakes until Boeing made the ADV variant, although that does at least confirm that the main wheel brakes on the 737 are indeed fairly capable.

 

The braking available from high bypass CFM-56 engines is in fact very effective. If this were not so, it seems unlikely that all users of the CFM-56 would go to the trouble of making its cascade reverse thrust capability part of the aircraft's systems if the brakes alone were an adequate substitute. The direction to use the MAX braking autobrake setting instead is highly questionable, since that is the equivalent of quite literally standing on the brakes and something which is generally only used when passenger comfort is thrown out of the window in preference for a desperate need to stop, which means there will be peanuts everywhere.

 

On runways which are wet or icy, reverse thrust is infinitely preferable to standing on the brakes, even if they do have an anti-lock system. Anyone who has ever had the brakes lock up in the wet on landing will confirm that you might as well be sat on a tray going down a snowy hillside when that happens.

 

Al