I don't know if anyone on the beta team is actually rated on the T7 and post here, but I'd be interested to see what they think on this as well.

 

Posts 11 and 12, above.  :wink:

Posts 11 and 12, above.  :wink:

 

Ah awesome I didn't realise you actually had a type rating on the T7  B)

Ah awesome I didn't realise you actually had a type rating on the T7  B)

 

Haha - oops.  I misread what you meant.

I thought you were saying that you didn't think any of the team had type ratings, but would be interested in hearing what we said anyway.

 

The people who had it before the beta team (the tech team) has a few people who fly it.

 

 

I can only agree with what Luke says, she follows the fly by wire logic of the real aircraft to the letter. Well actually not a letter, maybe a novel, as there is an awful lot of that logic going on behind the scenes. No-one need have any concerns as to whether the last nuance of the FBW system is modelled as the short answer is that it is all there.

 

Very cool stuff, thank you Jane.     Should be a blast to fly!   

I don't think any PMDG aircraft process the flight inputs externally. They use a differant method that they call fly by software.

 

Which is exactly what "fly by software" is - we've been doing this since the original NG in 2003. We intercept and reprocess control inputs outside of FSX.

Which is exactly what "fly by software" is - we've been doing this since the original NG in 2003. We intercept and reprocess control inputs outside of FSX.

See this is what has always confused me, another add on I am very familiar with does the same, however from what I heard the majestic and superbug do something completely differant and hence claim it is a unique method?

 

 

The VRS Bug, Majestic Dash 8, Coolsky DC9 and Super 80 Pro to name a few blow the NGX out of the water in realism and flight modeling.

 

With this sentence you just tell us that you have no clue what you're talking about, sorry.

The Coolsky DC-9 uses the DEFAULT autopilot from Microsoft, therefore AP and FD are linked together, making the product totally unrealistic regarding to anything that has to do with automatic flight and FD guided manual flight.

AP and FD in those days were NOT linked together, but the developer didn't want to code his own autopilot and FD, a fact that Flight1 marketing managed to hide very well.

 

So this product could never be on a level with PMDG aircraft, or FSLabs or VRS, or Majestic. Programming a custom autopilot when doing an airliner add-on is one area that sets a developer apart from the rest, we need to be frank about this and name the ones who didn't but claim their add-on to be super realistic.

 

Cheers,

Markus

 

 

but to say "blow the NGX out of the water in realism and flight modeling" is a bit (lot) of a stretch.

 

Part of the down side of being the top gun in town, I guess.  Lots of people want to see you "blown out of the water".

Mr. Frooglesim said it on his video review of the Majestic Dash 8.  Are you sure?  Maybe a dev can answer this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_pyJHsGwMw

 

 

PMDG fans need to relax and do some research before posting.  You know, there are other Devs out there making awesome stuff, it's not only PMDG.  The VRS Bug, Majestic Dash 8, Coolsky DC9 and Super 80 Pro to name a few blow the NGX out of the water in realism and flight modeling.

 

 

I seriously don't get you.  You GUSH about some  mediocre products and are ho hum and sometimes down right negative about great ones like the ngx and PMDG 777.  Have you tried the majestic q400?  I have never seen you talk about that plane either.  But if CS or R+P even posts a update your posting a topic in 2 seconds.. OMFG!!!!!  Have you seen the newest update to the R+P 777!!!   :wub:  :wub:   :Party:   :dance:

See this is what has always confused me, another add on I am very familiar with does the same, however from what I heard the majestic and superbug do something completely differant and hence claim it is a unique method?

 

No, they're both doing essentially the same thing - what Majestic does that's different is that they effectively run their own separate flight dynamics system (which is actually an open source library called JSBSim - http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/ - they didn't create this engine, which is another misconception I've seen going around) outside of FSX. They have the Q400 effectively in slew mode inside FSX and use the output of JSBSim to feed the slewing of the aircraft around in the sim. This is a neat technique that serves a free-rotating turboprop well because of how bad the FSX model for that is, but it's not something that's at all necessary for a jet airliner. There's a host of limitations and concerns that go along with doing it that I've detailed elsewhere here back when it came out. (compatibility with other addons that can't see the aircraft because it's not a normal FSX object, lack of any response to FSX weather or turbulence etc are some of the big ones)

 

The VRS Superbug as far as I'm aware is doing the exact same thing we do - they intercept and reprocess joystick commands using Windows APIs and then feed modified input data back into FSX (ie, it does not use slew mode like the Q400).

 

Apparently we need to come up with some slick marketing term for this or something - as far as I know we're one of the original pioneers of this technique (there's a freeware Project Tupolev Tu-154 that did it very early on too that I remember) and yet everyone in 2013 thinks we don't even use it and are being surpassed by everyone - shrug.

Ryan - I suspect that the "everyone" in your post is actually a negligible minority of the flight sim enthusiast sorority...no shrugs or excuses necessary and just keep doing what you folks seem to do so well. Thanks.

No, they're both doing essentially the same thing - what Majestic does that's different is that they effectively run their own separate flight dynamics system (which is actually an open source library called JSBSim - http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/ - they didn't create this engine, which is another misconception I've seen going around) outside of FSX. They have the Q400 effectively in slew mode inside FSX and use the output of JSBSim to feed the slewing of the aircraft around in the sim. This is a neat technique that serves a free-rotating turboprop well because of how bad the FSX model for that is, but it's not something that's at all necessary for a jet airliner. There's a host of limitations and concerns that go along with doing it that I've detailed elsewhere here back when it came out. (compatibility with other addons that can't see the aircraft because it's not a normal FSX object, lack of any response to FSX weather or turbulence etc are some of the big ones)

 

The VRS Superbug as far as I'm aware is doing the exact same thing we do - they intercept and reprocess joystick commands using Windows APIs and then feed modified input data back into FSX (ie, it does not use slew mode like the Q400).

 

Apparently we need to come up with some slick marketing term for this or something - as far as I know we're one of the original pioneers of this technique (there's a freeware Project Tupolev Tu-154 that did it very early on too that I remember) and yet everyone in 2013 thinks we don't even use it and are being surpassed by everyone - shrug.

Thanks for clearing that up Ryan

 

 

(there's a freeware Project Tupolev Tu-154 that did it very early on too that I remember)

 

Yea, I remember that addon, great stuff indeed.

With this sentence you just tell us that you have no clue what you're talking about, sorry.

The Coolsky DC-9 uses the DEFAULT autopilot from Microsoft, therefore AP and FD are linked together, making the product totally unrealistic regarding to anything that has to do with automatic flight and FD guided manual flight.

AP and FD in those days were NOT linked together, but the developer didn't want to code his own autopilot and FD, a fact that Flight1 marketing managed to hide very well.

 

So this product could never be on a level with PMDG aircraft, or FSLabs or VRS, or Majestic. Programming a custom autopilot when doing an airliner add-on is one area that sets a developer apart from the rest, we need to be frank about this and name the ones who didn't but claim their add-on to be super realistic.

 

Cheers,

Markus

He also mentioned flight modelling, but you didn't comment on that. It's an area of the NGX which had some justified criticism. Yet you dismiss the value of his opinion purely on the basis of DC-9 autopilot modelling which he doesn't mention.

 

I agree a custom autopilot is a major defining feature of a high end addon, but the DC-9 doesn't really need a fully custom autopilot (it's a very simple unit), and coupling the FD controls to it is perhaps a compromise they may have felt worth making. The FD's altitude hold appears to be completely independent of the AP, so it's not all bad news. The AP has been set up in such a way that it doesn't operate like the default autopilot, it implements all the modes the DC-9 has, so it's operation is realistic apart from the unrealistic link between the AP and FD mode switches.  I don't think it's fair to attack the DC-9 as a realistic simulation purely because the AP and FD are not fully independent. In some ways it's deeper than the level PMDG goes to (trippable CBs for example).

He also mentioned flight modelling, but you didn't comment on that. It's an area of the NGX which had some justified criticism. Yet you dismiss the value of his opinion purely on the basis of DC-9 autopilot modelling which he doesn't mention.

 

I agree a custom autopilot is a major defining feature of a high end addon, but the DC-9 doesn't really need a fully custom autopilot (it's a very simple unit), and coupling the FD controls to it is perhaps a compromise they may have felt worth making. The FD's altitude hold appears to be completely independent of the AP, so it's not all bad news. The AP has been set up in such a way that it doesn't operate like the default autopilot, it implements all the modes the DC-9 has, so it's operation is realistic apart from the unrealistic link between the AP and FD mode switches. I don't think it's fair to attack the DC-9 as a realistic simulation purely because the AP and FD are not fully independent. In some ways it's deeper than the level PMDG goes to (trippable CBs for example).

I don't mean to sound sarcastic or anything, so please don't take this the wrong way. But when you say, "He also mentioned flight modelling, but you didn't comment on that. It's an area of the NGX which had some justified criticism", are you referring to when the NGX first came out, and it had wrong approach pitch attitudes due to a mistake made by PMDG when interpreting the unreliable airspeed charts? Or is there another incident I was unaware about? Again, this is just complete curiosity on my part.