Is the 777 really "better" than the NGX?

[martin-w 3,256]

The 777 has a proper working (and brilliant) simulation of Fly By Wire. The NGX doesn't.

 

I wonder why that might be  :blink:

1. Apart from the trim not working correctly that is.

 

To clarify, a one second hold of the trim equates to 10 knots speed change. This is great, if it wasn't for the fact that anything less than one second equates to zero trim speed change. Therefore there's a tendency to find your self over trimming and under trimming, and porpoiseing. The T7 should be easy to trim, as Boeing designed it, not hard.

 

2. Apart from having the capability to auto trim with elevator input, which the real T7 hasn't got. [if my research is correct.)

 

When it is fixed, if it is... then I would rate the T7 as well worth the money. Not until.

[BilboBaggins 82]

It's more a personal preference thing, like as a foreigner quite some years ago, people always ask me if I like this country better or my original country better. I was like... how do you compare??? Completely different culture, different lifestyle, different ways to spend your money/time, different hobby, everything is hugely different! But after a while, I can answer this question based on my preference that I prefer the current country I live in.

 

I see this can be applied here, although different aircraft that are aimed at different types of operations; but at the end of the day, it's an addon, of an aircraft, on a simulation platform (FSX). We can only abstract to the lowest common denominator; that is % accuracy of system modeling, effects (as mentioned before), and the bottom line is what would you prefer? I believe one can do a reasonable comparison between the two based on their normalized accuracy to the real aircraft (ie. how accurate is the NGX compared with 737NGs, vs, how accurate is the 777 compared to real B772?)

 

For me, NGX visuals simply because of a dirty/filthy cockpit that gives me the thrills. System wise, I love them both as they are in a very high % of accuracy (100% accurate = the real aircraft).

 

Other than that, you have the simulation specific features that you cannot reproduce in real world (ie. time acceleration, autocruise etc.), this can also be compared. And if we are talking about sim-based features, certainly from my knowledge, there isn't anything that the NGX has and the T7 don't, in the contrary, there are some features that is new to the T7 that NGX doesn't have.

 

Hope I've communicated my point across reasonably clearly. Again, all my own opinions only.

I like your opinions.

 

I have the Coolsky DC-9 Classic for the same reasons as the NGX737, because they are both retro (the DC-9 is a particularly fun plane for me because of the nostalgia factor; one of the first times I ever flew - as a passenger, mind you! - was in an Eastern DC-9, in the '60's).

 

The 777 is the shiny new plane, and I want it shiny and automated; I can play with the old-school autopilot on the DC-9 if I want more of that. Learning how to master the automation and precision for a huge variety of situations on the 777 is its special strength; you won't get even a fraction of that on any other aircraft, even PMDG's earlier efforts.

 

I got very sick of the "same plane, different graphics" phenomenon many years ago, when EA attempted to massively water down flight simulation with their Jane's series, to reduce cost of development and increase profit. They are the kings of that strategy in software development, and expert at losing their customers as a result.

 

What a relief things are so different now, with companies like PMDG and A2A.

 

[pedroqe 12]

I believe the 777 is closer to the real plane than the NGX. But the difference is not very big. Currently the NGX is working better, since it already had its SPs and is working perfectly, but the 777 will probably get those in a few weeks and be perfect.

 

Have in mind that the NGX development was actually 2 projects in one. First there was the creation of a platform, which sets the base for future projects. Then there was the plane development itself. During the 777 development, PMDG improved that platform, but it is essentially the same base. That's why both products are so similar but so different from the other PMDG planes in a software point of view. (I'm talking about the software, not the aircraft, before anyone tries to kill me).

 

Whenever you feel like flying short hauls don't hesitate on going NGX. It is still part of the best home simulation you can find.

[usaboy 100]

Can't help to concur with all that has already been said. I guest your question is better served if we know what's your "angle of attack" . What I mean and probably echo is from what level of comparison are you in search of? They are certainly two entirely different AC. And anyone would or has enjoyed them both for their specific purpose in the sim. I personally would not allow the new dev techniques sway me away from the success made with the NGX or any other aircraft produced by PMDG for that matter.

My question to you is why don't you have them all? But I digressed, so lets get back to 777. Phenomenal even in its current stage. Other sp to come? I suspect that much. But one amazing feat they accomplished for me (and shut my mount as well) is the infamous VAS usage expanded with AC of this caliber. What an improvement in both this field and the Fps. Sounds, as mentioned by others' comments, incredible from every angle and function.

So my friend I hope get the answer or find what you are looking for. I did and I brought them all from PMDG.

 

Cheers mate

[leezy 0]

I think it's inevitable that comparison are drawn, even though the 777 model is fantastic in it's own right. I guess the capability and potential of PMDG was already out of the bag at the time of the NGX release, so the initial wow factor was perhaps always going to be brought down a peg or two. I think the obvious feature the NGX holds over the 777 is the HUD, it's an obvious feature that sets the 737 apart from the 777. The other in my view is the smaller condensed environment of the 737 that gives it a more complex appearance whereas the 777 appearances are to a certain extent deceiving, with alot more under the hud (no pun intended) than meets the eye.

Speaking of HUD, there is a HUD option to be available shortly for the 777 I thing, real world I mean.

Lise Morgan

[stracenzo 1]

I can't believe I got a 169.000.000.000$ aircraft for just 90 bucks!...

 

Won't be fair in my opinion to make a comparison....but they are definitely the best simulations on the market in their category.

[Dave Rawlings 5]

 I enjoy the NGX HEAPS more than the 777. Something about the 777 does not excite me as much. That is not a direct comment at PMDG they did a fine job of course. Sitting in the NGX cockpit just looks....... "better!"

[hopskip 253]

2. Apart from having the capability to auto trim with elevator input, which the real T7 hasn't got. [if my research is correct.)

 

Are you completely sure about that?

I read the following sentence regarding the real 777.

 

The control column, stab 'pickle' switches, and auto pilot all control the elevators with the elevator offload a calculated function from the PFC's of airspeed and roll attitude, active after a time delay moves the stabilizer to null the elevator.

[Chemanuel 8]

Nope!

 

I still like the 737 better. Every PC is a different monster out there. If I apply the bufferpools=0 tweak, the T7 FPS will drop to 13. I have to write back the pools size applied by Venetubos tweak. I get 22 frames with the  T7 in places I get 35 with the NGX.  For me the NGX 1st, Majestic Dash8 2nd and the T7 comes in 3rd place.

 

Chemanuel

[A320FAN 370]

I agree with this as well. Both are top of the line for each airplane simulation

 

However, I do think the 777 took it a notch higher. Even today on my 10th flight I caught myself pressing the square buttons in and out, giving the poor beacon light a run for it's money as I gazed at the little mechanical switch mechanism working. And, as others have said, the sounds are superb. I have yet to hear a better sound package on a simulated airplane.

 

Also, for the user asking about the graphics card- I have a Superclocked GTX650 1GB with an i5 2500K @ 4.2Gz and I get a steady 30 in nearly all situations so far.

I agree with you

[Parping Couplet 117]

I've been looking at PMDG's website and their recommendation for the 777 is 2GB of video ram? What are your opinions on this matter?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

I haven't seen that quote, but my own feelings are it is not hugely important. It performs better, fps wise, than the NGX, which itself performs very well on my 1GB card.

 

What I am finding more and more is that best performance is achieved by a modest number of important tweaks like HIGHMEMFIX and keeping the number of installed add on planes and airport scenery to a minimum, with no need to compromise your weather, traffic programs etc.

[hopskip 253]

1. Apart from the trim not working correctly that is.

 

To clarify, a one second hold of the trim equates to 10 knots speed change. This is great, if it wasn't for the fact that anything less than one second equates to zero trim speed change. Therefore there's a tendency to find your self over trimming and under trimming, and porpoiseing. The T7 should be easy to trim, as Boeing designed it, not hard.

 

2. Apart from having the capability to auto trim with elevator input, which the real T7 hasn't got. [if my research is correct.)

 

When it is fixed, if it is... then I would rate the T7 as well worth the money. Not until.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/419825-to-the-dev-team-what-feature-of-your-t7-are-you-most-proud-of/?p=2786168

[Azapata87 173]

1. Apart from the trim not working correctly that is.

 

To clarify, a one second hold of the trim equates to 10 knots speed change. This is great, if it wasn't for the fact that anything less than one second equates to zero trim speed change. Therefore there's a tendency to find your self over trimming and under trimming, and porpoiseing. The T7 should be easy to trim, as Boeing designed it, not hard.

 

2. Apart from having the capability to auto trim with elevator input, which the real T7 hasn't got. [if my research is correct.)

 

When it is fixed, if it is... then I would rate the T7 as well worth the money. Not until.

Way to be knowledgeable...

PMDG is not known for modeling stuff that does not exist on the real airplane. Further more diving into the documentation would yield that everything is modeled and simulated correctly and behaves as it does in the real aircraft.

[NGXfanatic 85]

This is an apple to oranges comparison, as they are both suited to different missions and have vastly different styles of operations, one more automated than the other.   The 737 seems to demand a lot more attention in the way of keeping a scan on more switches and dials, whereas the 777 takes most of that workload away from the pilot.   But both products are pretty much flawless in their adherence to Boeing specifications, in terms of both the visual modeling, systems logic and cockpit procedural policies, and flight envelope performance, within FSX limitations of course.

 

In terms of comparing the 777 to the NGX from the perspective of an addon product, there are some notable enhancements that are an improvement over the NGX, that is a given since PMDG is always continually improving the next newer product.   Here is my list of what I like so far that I can't have in the NGX:

 

- Ground Operations.  This is basically a lite simulation of the ground crew that fuels the aircraft and helps with the pushback, as well as some flight attendant duties like arming the doors before pushback.  The pushback is optional, because we have the choice of AES or GSX, or even FS2crew eventually, to manage that task.   But the fuel loading simulation is a nice touch, something that the PMDG MD-11 offered and I was missing in the NGX.   I haven't tried it, but it offers the capability for the ground crew to automatically disconnect the ground power and air conditioning when you start the APU before engine start.    With things so hectic in the cockpit during preflight, it helps to have a helping hand attend to those tasks, and it is much more realistic!

 

- Resuming from a saved flight scenario, say in cruise or even when in climb or descent, will not result in a sudden change of pitch and altitude like in the NGX.  Don't get me wrong, we are lucky that PMDG was thoughtful enough to make the saved situations in the NGX smart enough that we don't have to frantically remember to set up some cockpit switches to the pre-save condition, compared to all other complex addon aircraft, but the violent change in attitude kind of bugged me.  I thought there was no way around it, but PMDG found a way and when you resume a saved flight in the 777, the aircraft's performance is not disturbed in any way!

 

- Frame rate performance is better, because the cockpit uses less complex geometry and I believe fewer clickspots than the NGX. 

 

- Sounds are nicer.   Recording techniques were improved, and there is more variation in the variety of sounds you hear, so the sounds are less "canned".  Not that the NGX sounds are bad in any way, but the soundset is noticeably improved here. 

 

-  The old way of going to the PMDG web page and downloading liveries and installing them though a livery manager program has been replaced by an all in one application that allows you to retrieve liveries and install without leaving the application.   I haven't had a very good look through it, but it promises to make addon maintenance simpler by also letting you update the product, keep track of notices from PMDG themselves, submit tickets, open pdf documents, you name it, it's all self contained in this very polished and handy program!

 

- That nasty baro knob issue of setting the barometer minimums altitude for high altitude airports is somewhat fixed, as there is now a way of holding your right mouse button and pulling your mouse to the side to increase the speed of selection.  It takes some getting used to, but it is an improvement over the old method with the scrollwheel.

 

Those are just a few things off the top of my head that are a major difference from the NGX.  I think some of these items may be rolled into the NGX with the next service pack, but I'm sure a new feature like the ground operations simulation is 777 only.

 

Anyhow, long hauls with the 777 are not everyone's cup of tea, and I welcomed the NGX when it first arrived because I was tired of tiresome long hauls!   But I kind of like the return to the long trips, as with the release of PFPX it is fun, and much more easier and realistic, to plan these kinds of trips!  

[martin-w 3,256]

Are you completely sure about that?

I read the following sentence regarding the real 777.

 

The control column, stab 'pickle' switches, and auto pilot all control the elevators with the elevator offload a calculated function from the PFC's of airspeed and roll attitude, active after a time delay moves the stabilizer to null the elevator.[/size]

Your quotes state that the " stab pickle switches" control the elevators. Which is correct.

 

 

That's not what I'm saying.

 

In the PMDG T7, the following is possible...

 

Fly straight and level, autopilot OFF, Increase speed, nose rises as you would expect. Maintain zero vertical speed with NO TRIM INPUT, no operation of the trim switches, until the airspeed is stabilised. Aircraft will be perfectly trimmed.

 

Everything I've read about the T7 tells me that this should not happen. Elevator input should not trim as well.

 

Any change in airspeed SHOULD require manual trim adjustment, just like any aircraft.

 

It's only configuration changes that are trimmed automatically.

 

 

Unless I'm misinterpreting your quote of course.

 

But that's not the biggest issue for me. some of us are finding trimming to be difficult to manage. The reason is that a one second press of the trim switches results in a trim adjustment that correlates to 10 knots. But unfortunately, less than a one second press has no effect. Thus we find ourselves chasing the trim and porpoiseing. The approach phase therefore engenders a degree of difficulty that shouldn't be there.

 

A stable manual approach is therefore tricky.