Boeing 777 Worldliner Professional vs PMDG 777

[MdMax 233]

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Laminar could bring so many more people over to X Plane if they added some commonality to FSX.

 

Landing gear is "G" ! :wink:

 

Laminar Research made a page here to help MSFS users and developers:

http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/switching-to-x-plane/

 

They also added a Quick Flight screen:

http://www.x-plane.com/v10-online-desktop-manual/#flightinx-plane

 

And they made a kind of scenery.cfg file called scenery_packs.ini:

http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/07/scenery_packs-ini-what-was-i-thinking/

http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/09/scenery-packs-the-new-rules/

 

Since version 10 there's also ATC that can make you laugh or drive you crazy just like in FS. :smile: That's why most users want to fly on networks like IVAO, VATSIM or PilotEdge.

 

Please don't ask them to add a fsx.cfg file. :biggrin:

[jcomm 5,882]

 

 

X-Plane has superior flight dynamics than FSX at least for helicopters.



EDIT: and of course for thust vectoring or composite vehicles (e.g. autogyros).

 

Exactly my oppinion.

 

In it's concept, X-Plane has the potential to be able to provide more accurate simulations of flight, but the fact is that, at it's present state it doesn't, and we still can find excellent examples in FSX of fixed wing aircraft that perform very well, in in some cases better than their best counterparts in X-Plane 10.

 

Rotary wing, vectored-thrust, lighter than air, space vehicles are possible to model acceptably ( very acceptably in the case of helos  for instance ) and that is not possible in FSX.

 

But when we try to desing an aicraft for X-Plane 10. following blueprints and real world data, and expect it to work close to the real thing, we find out it doesn't, so, we are forced to tweak, pluginize, etc...

 

Of course the  best aircraft for FSX also need tweaking of course, or in some cases the use of external modelling. PMDG tweaks, A2A tweaks, RealAir tweaks, LES tweaks...

 

In X-plane 10 we can try to use realistic techniques to overcome some aerodynamical effects. Unfortunately the end result is not how we would like it to be. In FSX we can also cant the engine, but the result is completely irrealistic... We can use some tunig parameters, and A2A has done it on their best models, but are now moving to their own code ( tweaks ) to be able to achieve realistic prop effects ( as they claim ).

[Robert McDonald 167]

But unfortunately not realistic. None of the 3 flight system laws are correctly simulated.

 

The PMDG 777 has a problem with the interpretation of some aspects of the Normal Law, but even with that small quirk, it does a tremendous job at simulating the kind of "support" the Boeing variant of the Fly-By-Wire provides, and is completely inexistant on the FF 777. Probably that is the reason why you find the FF 777 more interesting to handfly...

 

On the real thing, and in the PMDG 777, when handflying you can start a turn and it'll keep you level on the flightpath up to 30º bank.

It'll also keep your flightpath when changes in configuration ( flaps, gear, spoilers ) or thrust  are operated.

 

Like several here, I own both versions FF & PMDG.  Each has some nice qualities to it, and if you're an XPlane fan, you likely are grateful for the FF version, the best jet on XPlane at this time (IMHO) with the best default FMC by far.  In XP you can clip a 3rd party HUD to your visor and improve your landing skills, of course that's not modeled in the PMDG version (although it IS available on the NGX).  

 

I fell in love with XPlane 10 demo and the fabulous freeways and automobiles.  They are far superior to FSX.  Then it dawned on me, at FL400, you don't really  CARE  about the freeways and the neat police cars with flashing lights.  You sort of CARE that you can't see the horizon, and you don't have the fabulous weather that REX Essential HD gives in FSX.  You sort of NOTICE that your expensive hardware MCP panel from VRInsight 'works fine' in FSX and doesn't operate AT ALL in XPlane 10.  It begins to irritate you when you fly into a major airport like Dallas Fort Worth in XP and there are NO buildings - just runways and taxiways, unless you find and install optional payware/freeware airport sceneries for EVERY AIRPORT you fly to!  BUZZ KILL!

 

It begins to GRATE on you that XPlane 10 is stalled waiting for 10.3 release, which in turn is delaying new airplane releases.  If you fly only in 64 bits, it ANNOYS you you can't communicate with Vatsim.  If you are flying the FF777, that's the last plane that can also fly 32bits, though the next update, FF has stated will be 64-bit only.

 

It actually STINGS when you are able to make even mighty XP 64-bit slow to a crawl with a high-end gaming system and a $1000 USD graphics card.

 

Eventually you realize you're smelling the coffee and you're fully awake, and you find yourself reinstalling FSX.

 

 

Well I don't think that it would mean faster development since they are already working on their first X-Plane conversion for some time, and they also said that it wont be the last. Think about how long the PMDG 777 was in development while the FF 777 had in its first version less than a year under its belly by a much smaller team.

 

PMDG can't release a plane in XPlane 10 until 10.3 version releases.  There is no official release date for 10.3 (nothing publicly stated by Laminar).  This means virtually all developers are stymied and progress is stagnant.

 

+1

Count me in as well!

Having PMDG on a 64bit platform such as X-Plane would make me join X-Plane right away.

For now i am still "on hold" but sure and just as You have described it, certainly "... on the fence about jumping to X-Plane ..." as well!

Cheers, Christoph

... but i assume we are moving a bit "Off topic" here now!

 

Yes, it really boils down to both the airframe AND the platform together.  You can't enjoy one without flying it in the matching sim environment. 

 

Can you give me a short list with the 60% missing in the X-Plane 777? (As I said, I'm seriously interested in such facts, because most people on judge based on gut feelings.)

 

1.  Automatic Time Compression up to 16x << this is HUGE and a game changer.  Welcome on very long oceanic flights.  How much ocean can you really watch slide by beneath your wings from 40,000 feet?

 

2.  PMDG is by far the easier plane to fuel and configure.  The interface is via either the PMDG Ops center or the FMC.  FF has a clumsy and annoying separate "menu" screen.  I consider the PMDG plane much more configurable by far and away, no contest.  

 

3. PMDG wins in terms of livery installations via the very simple Ops Center application, which automagically notifies you of new product updates AND INSTALLS THEM.  

 

4. Vatsim / IVAO works fine with the PMDG.  Forget it on the FF version- as it now is 64-bits only and Vatsim client support in 64-bits is essentially stagnant.

 

5. If you bought add-on hardware panels (example MCP, CDU, etc) these easily work with FSX, in my case were and still are USELESS in XP FF version.

 

6. The soundset on the PMDG is light years ahead of FF.  Hands down - no contest.

 

7. Navigraph FMC AIRAC cycle updates are a cakewalk for PMDG pilots, a complex can of corn for the FF crowd.  Navigraph has one download for ALL PMDG airplanes, and it's an "EXE" (executable) file that finds your FSX folder and copies the new AIRAC information to the appropriate folder, all in 1 mouse click.  Not so in FF model.  You have to download a separate airac, and then unzip and then know precisely where to drop it into your XPlane Folder.

 

8. Hand-Flying the PMDG bird on visual approach is a joy.  IMHO far easier to control and land than it's XP competitor.

 

If both planes were offered for sale in both XPlane 10 and FSX, I would only buy the PMDG for BOTH platforms.  I think that sums it up.

[tf51d 284]

 

 

Eventually you realize you're smelling the coffee and you're fully awake, and you find yourself reinstalling FSX.

 

Wow! I never thought I'd hear you say that!! I got the impression you were XP all they way, but all good and valid points!!

[MarioDonick 752]

Robert, thanks for your post and the list

 

I think you bring it down to one important aspect: X-Plane was always more about GA flying, not airliners (that's why Austin has started to create X-Plane for, after all. For training his private pilot license), and I think this shows in many areas. (Unfortunately it does _not_ show in the ATC, which is IFR only.)

[Murmur 3,940]

In it's concept, X-Plane has the potential to be able to provide more accurate simulations of flight, but the fact is that, at it's present state it doesn't, and we still can find excellent examples in FSX of fixed wing aircraft that perform very well, in in some cases better than their best counterparts in X-Plane 10.

 

That might be true. However, it's not by chance that the flight simulator with the best flight models (DCS) would _never_ use a look-up table flight model, but uses instead an approach quite similar to X-Plane (with better results, for now). :wink:

 

Wow! I never thought I'd hear you say that!! I got the impression you were XP all they way, but all good and valid points!!

 

I'm not surprised at all and was actually expecting that. Be very careful anytime you see a super-ultra-enthusiastic new X-Plane user, he will as easily change idea again.

[Slayer 190]

Both are good products and you will get lots of enjoyment out of both. Functionally both are pretty close. The PMDG does look and sound better, it is a bit more polished.

 

The X-plane 777 also has CDU you can access on any web enabled device like a tablet or smartphone (not much use unless it's a touchscreen) 

 

There are some small things that bug me on the FF 777 model but I won't pick it apart here as thats not what you really asked for. By the looks of it their next project (757) will look even better. There is really nothing better for long haul on XP at the moment.

[LAdamson 240]

That might be true. However, it's not by chance that the flight simulator with the best flight models (DCS) would _never_ use a look-up table flight model, but uses instead an approach quite similar to X-Plane (with better results, for now). :wink:

I do believe that I read an interesting article, which states that all three of these sims are using look up tables..... to a degree. I already knew that X-Plane was. I'll have to find it. I've also read some interesting articles, that show the need for look up tables.; as we would never have enough computing power to do otherwise.

 

edit: An example was a bullet fired at a distant target. A lookup table was able to show impact point, depending on the angles, speed, and wind. It was all figured beforehand, and in the table. To do it in real time, would have taken computing power, far beyond what we have..... at least time wise. (note: may have been an arrow)

[MarioDonick 752]

I do believe that I read an interesting article, which states that all three of these sims are using look up tables..... to a degree. I already knew that X-Plane was. I'll have to find it. I've also read some interesting articles, that show the need for look up tables.; as we would never have enough computing power to do otherwise.

Indeed, the airfoils X-Plane is using are also nothing more than pre-defined tables.

 

This said: Tables are not bad, but helpful. They just need to be done well.

[LAdamson 240]

This said: Tables are not bad, but helpful. They just need to be done well.

Exactly. Much depends on how many data points, and accuracy.

[Robert McDonald 167]

Wow! I never thought I'd hear you say that!! I got the impression you were XP all they way, but all good and valid points!!

 

I was initially 'in love' with the idea that 64-bits was the magic silver bullet to remedy any stuttering or performance issues such as was having in FSX.

 

Truth is, 64-bits only eliminates the VAS issue (the inherent limitation of 32-bit Operating systems of 3.5 to 4 GB ram depending on whether it's a 64-bit operating system running a 32-bit program (4gb) or a 32-bit operating system (Windows 7 32-bit) running a 32 bit program (3.5gb).  While OOMs went away, I was still able to flood my video card with too many textures and make XPlane crawl.  Once I saw that, coupled with no 64-bit Vatsim client... I went back to FSX.

 

HINT:  I found with FSX that for me, Orbx FTX (Global) is the smart ticket for scenery, quite decent looking overall.  I did NOT put my other ORBX scenery back on (example, Orbx PNW).  While offering higher detail for specific regions (like PNW), the performance hit was something I wasn't prepared to accept.  I still put all my high-end airports back on (FSDreamteam and Flightbeam Studios) and of course Rex Essential Weather.  Rex alone is Godspell beautiful.  I could live in those puffy clouds. FSInn running networked off a second PC is the hot ticket.  I can use my FSX headset off my FSX PC but actually be running FSInn off a different PC which helps frames and allows me to put a HUGE radar 'scope' up on the 2nd PC and not block my virtual cockpit on the FSX system.  Same thing with the Chat box and list of active ATC controllers.  All running on the 2nd PC and NOT blocking my view!

 

Yes, Virginia, these remarks are a little off topic!  Both flight platforms have their devotees.  I thought FSX OOM problems and graphics stutters were unsolvable, but have come through in the end to live with a little less highly-detailed textures for ground mesh and quite acceptable flight experience.

 

Oh, and having buildings at every airport is a huge BONUS.  Sure, they are 'default' and not the prettiest, but pulling a 777 up to a blank piece of blacktop with NO buildings (XPlane) at a default airport is far less than a lot of fun.

[jcomm 5,882]

And DCS uses tables as well.

 

The only way for a flight simulator not to use tables, and talking only about the flight dynamics, would be to include CFD, which would require a super-computer to be run.

 

Approaches like those of the flight unlimited series, x-plane, some of the flight dynamics models for flight gear, condor soaring and silent wings, and of course dcs and the soon to be released il2 sturmovik, only introduce the idea of decomposing the aircraft into many components and calculate, for each, the aerodynamic forces, summing it all into a resultant vector in a 6dof reference system, and adding to it the external weather factors...

[Murmur 3,940]

I do believe that I read an interesting article, which states that all three of these sims are using look up tables..... to a degree. I already knew that X-Plane was. I'll have to find it. I've also read some interesting articles, that show the need for look up tables.; as we would never have enough computing power to do otherwise.

 

Of course any simulator is using look up tables to a degree. But the point at which those tables are used can make all the difference. In FSX the aircraft is a big look-up table, while e.g. in DCS, look-up tables are used at a much lower level.

[LAdamson 240]

 

Of course any simulator is using look up tables to a degree. But the point at which those tables are used can make all the difference. In FSX the aircraft is a big look-up table, while e.g. in DCS, look-up tables are used at a much lower level.

The big look up table would allow you to know the bullet's impact point, before it's ever fired. Pretty cool!

 

In my book, as a long time real life GA flyer............I don't see any real advantages between look up tables and other methods, such as blade element. When getting out of the normal flight envelope, it's up to the programmer to supply additional information.....for the sake of realism. BTW--- this statement won't exactly apply to helicopters. I hate the buggers anyway...

 

Note: Not exactly hate. I flew R/C choppers for years, and have some time in real ones, with the controls. It's just that I lived next door to a helicopter flight school, and those buggers were always hogging the pattern. And they're noisy too!

[jcomm 5,882]

I have used a great add-on for X-Plane, unfortunately only 32 bit - the IL-14 by  Felis. There is also an An-24, already 64 bit, but I do not own it.

 

These models, such as Rollon's CRJ (don't have it but have seen / read a lot about it...), the MU2j, the recently released Saab 340, which I did not buy but was already well informed about by a friend who is using it, are remarkable examples that it is also possible to design a very complex and sophisticated aircraft for x-plane.

 

The il-14 had pop-up panels, the interaction with it's cockpit was rather easy. One of the aspects that annoys me the most in X-Plane is the interaction with the instruments, specially not being able to use the mouse wheel, and sometimes finding it really difficult to change values / settings with the built-in interface.

 

Weather effects are a very complex subject as well. As a very interested user ( and long time beta tester for a well known brand of weather injectors for MSFS / P3D ) although I still think that turbulence and the triggers for it's generation and intensity have to be revisited by Austin, appart from the default turbulence in MSFS and P3D, which is rather convincing, other weather effects feel less realistic to me in MSFS / P3D than in X-Plane 10, partly because the gusts, updrafts / downdrafts are applied to the whole aircraft, while in X-plane I have the sensation of different surfaces of the aircraft being independently hit, and the consequences of it.

 

BTW: as a side note, MS FLIGHT, another great simulator with lot's of potential we have lost in terms of future, has, IMO, the best weather effects I have ever seen / "felt" in a flight simulator, even considering the extraordinary results obtained with FU2 and later FU3, and not taking into consideration specific weather effects reproduced in soaring simulators like condor or sw.

 

Ground handling is another area where I clearly prefer the feeling X-Plane provides to that of MSFS, with or without the ground friction mods... Even with the problems we have with the somehow overdone effect of winds while on ground at taxi speeds and duing takeoff, the interaction wih the various types of surfaces and their state / contamination is, IMO, very well done in X-Plane.

 

In terms of flight dynamics, I would say that the IL-14 by Felis and the DC-3 by Goran/LES are the best, and I can't forget Peter's modelling of the fly-by-wire system in it's A380 - superb! and nothing I could find on any MSFS airliner add-on representing an Airbus-type, or even a Boeing ( the PMDGs included ).

 

When I use these models I am taken to believe in X-Plane and it's potential!  When I fly a good helicopter model in X-Plane, I can only compare it to DCS's uh-1h or the mi-8 - they are way ahead of anything available for MSFS, including DODOSIM Bell 206!

 

So, even when I am mad at X-Plane ( more at Austin actually... ) I think about these aircraft and, I forgive him for sometimes being so... stubb... difficult to convince :-)