General Update on In-Development Products 04JUN12

[emvaos 13]

Perhaps it's time you started listing features that your aircraft does not simulate.

 

Now that's a good idea. Would shorten print space and time spent on advert frames considerably

[BillC 135]

Maybe $50 for version 0.00.00001642316943b.

 

(Currently it is just a zip file with a README.TXT in it....)

 

You think anyone will bite? :LMAO:

 

It's good to see PMDG moving with the times Robert! I would definitely go for that so I can get the Woodpigeon ReadMe before anyone else (even though I know it won't actually open as advertised). I'd be more than happy in paying another $50 for any readme expansion packs that you come up with. Now, I demand to know the release date or I will never buy another PMDG product and you will go bust. I hope this helps.

[dolek 0]

Hope PMDG team wouldn't be offended if i answer instead of them. Ryan told me that it's too expensive to buy performance data for other engine ratings from Boeing. So they are developing only satndarts: 26K for the 800 and 900, 24K for the 700, 22K for the 600 and 900ER has 27K.

Changing the thrust rating is far more complex than simply updating the software in the EEC...

You can derate your thrust in the NGX as it stands currently. But to give you an engine that has a lower (or higher, for that matter) thrust rating we need a significant amount of data in order to simulate the change accurately. For example, what happens to fuel burns, internal temperatures, EPR pressure ratios, etc...

Purchasing this data is significantly expensive- and would probably double the price tag of the NGX software- so we decided to give you a standard set of options from which you can work. Adding the ability to change your thrust setting via an FMS menu is so simple a chimp could do it... Simulating the resultant thrust change, performance changes, engine parameter changes and such- that takes quite a bit of data...

Honestly it simply isn't worth it in terms of financials or developer time...

 

Thank you very much Rostyslav and Tebin.

 

That's the reason which I can fully understand now - the purchasing another 3 times more sets of Boeing's data should be expensive and may be even more expensive should be to insert and implement them all realistically inside NGX. Better to know that I have to forget this dream than wait forever for it.

 

It looks that this will be the first one thing for me where iFly has beaten NGX because they have some way how to define also less powerfull engines (but not via FMC, just via some external config utility and ini file and also the level of simulation is different, I know ;-)).

 

So operators have lower power engine variants?

 

No, I think that the almost of them have standard high power engine variants. But by the words from my friend and still active 737 CPT they are selecting less power engines (22K or 24K in 738 case) in around 80% of flights. May be he had/has the luck for all times long and dry RWYs and not fully loaded machines on trips with Quantas, CSA, SkyEurope and Travel Service in his career... :Just Kidding:

[503(V) Driver 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does TO-1, TO-2 and such not equate to the lower rating engines? They are the fixed de-rates as opposed to the variable temperature methods?

[PHXMD-11 86]

 

No, I think that the almost of them have standard high power engine variants. But by the words from my friend and still active 737 CPT they are selecting less power engines (22K or 24K in 738 case) in around 80% of flights. May be he had/has the luck for all times long and dry RWYs and not fully loaded machines on trips with Quantas, CSA, SkyEurope and Travel Service in his career... :Just Kidding:

 

I don't mean to be nit-picky but it's Qantas not "Quantas"), Some airlines will only use full thrust if the runway is contaminated, a brake is inop., first flight of the day, windshear is reported, or if aircraft performance demands full thrust. If you don't need it why use it? It'll just increase the engine maintenance bill.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does TO-1, TO-2 and such not equate to the lower rating engines? They are the fixed de-rates as opposed to the variable temperature methods?

 

That is a fixed derating (not the same as an assumed temperature). So if you have a TO-2 derate it will derate the thrust by 15%. Not exactly derate the engine to a lower rated engine.

[503(V) Driver 0]

That is a fixed derating (not the same as an assumed temperature). So if you have a TO-2 derate it will derate the thrust by 15%. Not exactly derate the engine to a lower rated engine.

 

Ah. It was explained to me before that if the aircraft had a 26, 24 and 22K engine option, then TO, TO-1 and TO-2 were basically the same thing. The fixed percentage makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

[dolek 0]

I don't mean to be nit-picky but it's Qantas not "Quantas"), Some airlines will only use full thrust if the runway is contaminated, a brake is inop., first flight of the day, windshear is reported, or if aircraft performance demands full thrust. If you don't need it why use it? It'll just increase the engine maintenance bill.

Sorry for my stupid mistake, you are fully right also with the rest of your post. The same I heard from my friend and this is why I am so praying to have this possibility to select also lower rated engines 22K or 24K via FMS in NGX 738. But by the evidences above it will reasonably never become in NGX :-(.

 

That is a fixed derating (not the same as an assumed temperature). So if you have a TO-2 derate it will derate the thrust by 15%. Not exactly derate the engine to a lower rated engine.

Please, do you or anybody know if selecting lower rated engines 22K or 24K is resting for the whole flight or it is being inactive past some phase of ascending phase of flight (e.g. like CLB-1 derating)? I mean on the real airplane.

 

Thank you.

Martin Dolecek (dolek),

Prague

[PHXMD-11 86]

Please, do you or anybody know if selecting lower rated engines 22K or 24K is resting for the whole flight or it is being inactive past some phase of ascending phase of flight (e.g. like CLB-1 derating)? I mean on the real airplane.

 

It should be the entire flight. Ratings don't change. You can "de-rate" the engine but it should always be able to provide full thrust at any given time if you need it.

[Alaaar 34]

Hello Robert, thank you for the update I do appreciate it. Now to an old man’s question and sorry if it was asked before, I went through the thread quickly and didn’t find it, ok here it comes: when you guys released the NGX you set a new slandered for planes / models for FSX. Simply I could not fly any other plane since then (to tell you the truth 99% of my time I spend inside the NGX’s cockpit) So, the T7 will be in higher or lower or similar category in terms of systems, textures, flying dynamics etc. ?

Best wishes

[davidz 26]

Simulating the resultant thrust change, performance changes, engine parameter changes and such- that takes quite a bit of data...

 

Thanks for the explanation, Robert. I hadn't considered that the EECs would control the engines quite that differently for different thrust ratings.

[PHXMD-11 86]

Hello Robert, thank you for the update I do appreciate it. Now to an old man’s question and sorry if it was asked before, I went through the thread quickly and didn’t find it, ok here it comes: when you guys released the NGX you set a new slandered for planes / models for FSX. Simply I could not fly any other plane since then (to tell you the truth 99% of my time I spend inside the NGX’s cockpit) So, the T7 will be in higher or lower or similar category in terms of systems, textures, flying dynamics etc. ?

Best wishes

 

I would have to say that the T7 will push the bar even higher.

[duchman 1]

just had an idea how about the Curtis c46 commando for the next classic aircraft

 

dutchman

[Kerlix 99]

just had an idea how about the Curtis c46 commando for the next classic aircraft

 

dutchman

 

Really? Again?

 

I'm starting to think PMDG hired somebody to keep us entertained while they work on the T7.

[PHXMD-11 86]

Really? Again?

 

I'm starting to think PMDG hired somebody to keep us entertained while they work on the T7.

 

I don't think PMDG is that cruel to pay someone to jump into the shark tank. Wait, they just love to see us entertained. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Kerlix 99]

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be mean. I just find it fascinating that "somebody's" post never really have relevance to the topic at hand. They are always just questions/suggestions for PMDG's "next" project. They have already stated their business strategy multiple times, in multiple formats (posts/Munich/etc.), yet this person almost always posts suggestions for the "latest, greatest" idea. I find it more entertaining than anything else. I ALWAYS find time to read it haha.

 

Again, I apologize. Only PMDG employees have the right to say/decide what is relevant. If my posts get deleted, I fully understand. Just something I've been thinking for quite some time now...