Camrad 1983 maybe you should have just sen't PMDG an email. It would have saved the forum from what is currently happening. You also need to sign all posts in the PMDG forum with your name otherwise they will be deleted.

Why? How can some ones opinion on a piece of software be so upsetting that it can't be discussed in a public forum?

Why? How can some ones opinion on a piece of software be so upsetting that it can't be discussed in a public forum?

I was not talking about sharing opinions as much as the flame war that started. It happens every time that PMDG is insulted, and gets old to the point that PMDG should just say that they will only reply to feedback by email or support services.

I regard all opinions as just that...opinions.  However I first started looking at this thread because of the subject line, yet nowhere in here have I seen someone claim to be a real life NG driver and a PMDG user and then go on to compare the two.  Disappointing, because I was really curious about their opinion.   Kudos to this thread for it's entertainment value, but KITA for it's educational/informational value.

 

One thing I always try to remember...it's a hobby for most if not all who participate.  No different than for someone who wanders the forest and collects animal droppings for their growing collection of preserved scat in the basement.  To them its fascinating.  To me, disgusting.  A hobby is for enjoyment, not chastisement.

 

I really would hate to see this thread get locked before a bonafide 737NG Pilot chimes in with his or her opinions and insight.

 

Randy

 

According to this:

Losing airspeed can be difficult and may require a level flight segment. For

planning purposes, it requires approximately 25 seconds and 2 NM to decelerate

from 280 to 250 knots in level flight without speedbrakes. It requires an additional

35 seconds and 3 NM to decelerate to flaps up maneuver speed at average gross

weights. Using speedbrakes to aid in deceleration reduces these times and

distances by approximately 50%.

 

Vertical below 10000 (idle power)

270kts 2000f/m

250kts 1500f/m

230kts 1200f/m

flaps up 1000f/m

 

Flare

 

Maintaining a constant airspeed

and descent rate assists in determining the flare point. Initiate the flare when the

main gear is approximately 20 feet above the runway by increasing pitch attitude

approximately 2° - 3°. This slows the rate of descent.

After the flare is initiated, smoothly retard the thrust levers to idle, and make small

pitch attitude adjustments to maintain the desired descent rate to the runway. A

smooth thrust reduction to idle also assists in controlling the natural nose-down

pitch change associated with thrust reduction. Hold sufficient back pressure on the

control column to keep the pitch attitude constant. A touchdown attitude as

depicted in the figure below is normal with an airspeed of approximately VREF

plus any gust correction. Ideally, main gear touchdown should occur

simultaneously with thrust levers reaching idle.

Avoid rapid control column movements during the flare. If the flare is too abrupt

and thrust is excessive near touchdown, the airplane tends to float in ground effect.

Do not allow the airplane to float or attempt to hold it off. Fly the airplane onto the

runway at the desired touchdown point and at the desired airspeed.

 

My results on default PMDG:

 

280-250 deceleration A/T on - 40 sec.

280-250 deceleration A/T on, speedbrake - 30 sec.

280-250 deceleration A/T off - 40 sec.

280-250 deceleration A/T off, speedbrake - 30 sec.

250-Vman deceleration A/T on - 40 sec.

 

Vertical below 10000 (idle power)

270kts -2000fpm - unable to keep 270, gained 20-25 knots (290-295), withing 4000 feet of descend.

250kts -1500fpm - maintained within 10knots

230kts -1200fpm - maintained.

flaps up -1000fpm - maintained.

 

Speedbrake is half efficient to real thing.

 

It was not only tested by me. I have got approx same results from few real world 737 pilots.

This is for the people that missed something:

I never said that PMDG done a bad job, I never mentioned that I could build a model better, I never said you could and suppose to train on flightsim to be able to fly the real 737.

It's not even criticism, it's just bare facts based on FCTM and numerous real world 737 pilots knowledge.

And just to make sure, wind was 0 kts right ?

 

Pmdg have a tech team which consists of several real world pilots, mechanics etc etc

 

The pov thing will be fixed

There is some fsx limitations. This means pmdg had to work around some things like the ground friction model making them reduce the n1 values on thrust reverse ( as I recall it)

I'm sure pmdg has crushed the numbers and it's probably some % off

 

Just be assured that they tried hard to make it as accurate as possible.

I was not talking about sharing opinions as much as the flame war that started. It happens every time that PMDG is insulted, and gets old to the point that PMDG should just say that they will only reply to feedback by email or support services.

PMDG have not been insulted. A difference of opinion is not an insult, instead it forms the basis for healthy debate. Healthy debate is not a flame war.

 

I never said that PMDG done a bad job, I never mentioned that I could build a model better, I never said you could and suppose to train on flightsim to be able to fly the real 737.

 

I fail to see how the above can be considered "a Flame war". I also fail to see how supporting the original posters right to express his views can be seen as "a flame war". I am more than happy for you to disagree with my views but am less happy with the various attempts to censor views that may just question or criticise PMDG or their products. In my view it's better to answer such criticism with a well argued response. 

 

 

FYI, all Afghan airlines are currently banned from EU member states.

 

Thanks, I had no idea they had been banned. A couple of years ago I read a blog of an expat pilot who was working for Safi Airways, at that time they were still allowed to do EU destinations... Dangerous place to be anyway, I think he left the airline after a bomb attack to the hotel where he was staying.

 

 

Regards

 

Joona L 

Mijitman, on 19 Jan 2014 - 9:26 PM, said:

, and if you're talking about a flight simulator meant for real world flight instruction and loggable time, I doubt they run primarily on either X-Plane or FSX.

 

I wouldn't be so sure....... The RNZAF's P-3K2 Flight Deck Trainer runs on X-Plane...X-Plane 7!  It is certified to JAR FSTD A, Flight Training Device (FTD) Level 2.

 

Yes this is for real-world instruction, annual checkrides etc. But honestly with what Majestic, and to a lesser degree PMDG, are doing outside the actual sim regarding their FDE it would be even better using FSX, especially the graphics/terrain mesh!!

 

To be honest my PC at home running Majestics Q400 does a better job as a simulator at a fraction of the cost, but you don't sit in the actual seat and learn muscle memory with the real switches...which makes a big difference.

 

We just make certain sacrifices and there are 'known differences' with the FDT compared to the real aircraft - you just take it into account and realise it is not a 'perfect' simulation of an aircraft - but it gets the job done much more safely when training new flight crew, and inputting faults into the real aircraft in flight is not advisable (we are not allowed to induce any fauilts in the real aircraft after a fews 'incidents' where the instructor thought they knew what they were doing...but didn't!). 

 

Just remember these 'professional' simulators cost millions of dollars, and still have limitations regarding absolute realism etc. What you can get on your home PC from companies like PMDG and Majestic these days, combined with other add-ons like Active Sky Next + FS2Crew, for an absolute tiny fraction of the cost of a full-size 737 or 777 sim blows me away...some of you guys maybe need to lighten up a little and enjoy!  :unsure:

There was a post here recently who achieved his dream of flying high.

 

Here it is. Just read his first post.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/430775-a-little-something-to-entertain-you-guys-and-wish-you-a-happy-new-year/

 

it is quite recent a few weeks.

FAA approved for what? To what level are they "approved" to simulate? Could you get instrument current or an IPC check in them? Can you log it? I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just curious.  FAA "approved" means a lot of different things, and if you're talking about a flight simulator meant for real world flight instruction and loggable time, I doubt they run primarily on either X-Plane or FSX.

 

I forget the level, but both X-Plane and "FSX" are certified in certain instances.  It's not quite FSX, though - thus the quotes - it's ESP, which is just the commercial version of FSX (which, in many instances is now P3D, specifically if the sim is a RedBird).

 

I know I can log time in, and get recurrent in the RedBird at one of the local schools.  It's comparable to a FRASCA in certification level.

 

 

For planning purposes, it requires approximately 25 seconds and 2 NM to decelerate

from 280 to 250 knots in level flight without speedbrakes. It requires an additional

35 seconds and 3 NM to decelerate to flaps up maneuver speed at average gross

weights. Using speedbrakes to aid in deceleration reduces these times and

distances by approximately 50%.

 

I'm going to try to avoid diving head first into a battle for once, but I do have to point out that you're trying to justify a strict metric through citing a source using "approximately."  The text doesn't cite the tolerance (e.g. "25 seconds, +/- 3 seconds"), and it also says "for planning purposes."  It's a notional value, not a performance value.  Some manuals also give you a nifty rule of thumb for calculating your descent for planning purposes.  It doesn't mean it's going to be perfect.

Not wanting to disregard the value of the information posted so far, but I'm still waiting a "review" of a 737NG captain or first officer.... specially if he is using Active Sky Next...

 

Maybe, with P3D things are going to get better. Maybe Lockheed listens PMDG and other developers more than Microsoft did...

 

 

A doubt: do Boeing sales the 737NG performance data for using in simulators or is that a "top-secret" information?

 

 

do Boeing sales the 737NG performance data for using in simulators or is that a "top-secret" information?

 

Boeing licenses data for use in simulators, yes.  It is probably considered "proprietary" information, not "top secret."  If it calls the data proprietary, it also generally defines how the data may be used, contractually (generally, "you may not disclose the data to anyone, directly," and so on), along with any penalties that would occur in the case that the data is actually disclosed.

 

Top secret is more of a government term, though it's similar classification of data that is protected somehow.

Wow, a lot of hostility over the last few pages.. Guys, views these products as very accurate system trainers, that's as far as it gets. Everything else is a bonus.

 

Even with Boeing data (which PMDG doesn't have) the flight model would still be inaccurate.

 

To the OP, your pilot friends should already know this, the simulators they train in are not accurate, and once you get into most abnormal flight regimes the data and behaviour of the sim is useless.

 

Have always found it funny when I read the x plane vs FS debates around here, both sims are Incapable of accurately simulating flight to a high degree.

 

If you really are looking for realism take a trip to your local flight school and strap yourself into a machine that has real air flowing over the wings.

I forget the level, but both X-Plane and "FSX" are certified in certain instances.  It's not quite FSX, though - thus the quotes - it's ESP, which is just the commercial version of FSX (which, in many instances is now P3D, specifically if the sim is a RedBird).

 

I know I can log time in, and get recurrent in the RedBird at one of the local schools.  It's comparable to a FRASCA in certification level.

 

Just a quick note here.

 

I'm a Commercial Pilot who spent quite a bit of time in simulators.

 

I spent alot of time in a Diamond DA42 Level 5 simulator during my Multi and IFR training. It is a fixed simulator with a fully realistic cockpit, fully functional G1000, wrap around display screen etc. Basically, all it was missing was motion. It is fully certified for recurrent IFR checkrides. This simulator cost at least USD $100,000.00. These are my observations:

 

 - The ground handling was not accurate at all. Steering was off and taxiing was far more difficult than the real aircraft. It also required more power (sound familiar?)

 

 - The single-engine flight characteristics were far better than the real aircraft. Instructors had to increase the ambient temperature to +50C to approximate the actual single-engine climb performance at ISA conditions.

 

 - The real aircraft was much easier to trim than the simulator. (both elevator and rudder)

 

 - The simulator cruised and climbed faster than the real aircraft.

 

 - The real DA42 was much easier to land than the simulator. It also floated more in ground effect.....though the effect of pulling the power to idle was more pronounced in the real plane as the props started producing more drag than thrust (through about 12% power)

 

 

These are all differences which were pointed out when transitioning to the real aircraft. Despite the differences, the simulator was an excellent training platform, making both the Multi and Multi-IFR ratings in the real plane a breeze.

 

 

 

I also have time in an FTD which ran X-Plane, as well as a Redbird (full-motion) running P3D. In both cases, the aircraft being represented was a twin-piston prop....namely, the Piper Seminole and Seneca. The FTD running X-Plane allowed for sim time to be logged, while the Redbird also allows for recurrent IFR checkrides. These are my observations from both sims:

 

 - In both cases, the aircraft performance was wildly exaggerated. While I have no real word time in the Piper aircraft, the amount of power available on takeoff was way higher than what would be realistic.

 

 - The Seminole is known to be a bit of a dog on one engine. I had no problems whatsoever climbing at a healthy rate on one engine once the dead one was feathered. 

 

 - I'm fairly certain I was holding altitude with one engine feathered and the gear down. Anyone who's flown a light twin know's that the odds of that happening are slim at best.

 

 

 

Point is......these are expensive, professional-level simulators that are used for commercial pilot training. The discrepancies in performance between the sim and their real-world counterparts were quite a bit larger than what's being described between the PMDG NGX and the actual B737NG.

 

 

Put it into perspective.....brand new simulators costing tens of thousands of dollars are in many cases less accurate than what PMDG have managed to reproduce for less than $70 on a 7 year old software platform....

 

 

Bravo PMDG. I'm sure they have seen the posts on the inaccuracies of their product and will continue to improve, as they always have. They IMO, are on the leading edge of Flight Simulation development and (while not alone), will continue to push the boundaries beyond what anyone could have imagined the day FSX was released. 

 

In other words....give them some time....at some point their products might even be more realistic than the real thing  :wink:

 

Cheers,

David Brown

Hmm did anyone read the link I have provided above ? that would answer most of the PMDG questions.

I think most people had already read that post. Not sure what your point is or how that topic is relevant?

 

Kind regards