But whats you're time from 280 to 250 mine is not twice as long. What is your descent rate? 

Earlier I posted that my numbers are very close to the FCTM.

 

And camrad please post with your full name its a rule in this forum.

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. 

Comrad1983

 

You Desire Max Reality But would you Pay MAX Price for it???? I think not you would be the First one to complain about the Price. I could understand if it was about some other developers but come one we cant get any better than the Guys at PMDG

 

Yep I desire max reality.

 

If I didn't I would just use the default FSX 737, and so would you.

 

And if company XYZ can produce a more realistic 737 than PMDG then I would buy XYZ 737 instead.

 

That's called market reality.

 

So if someone finds an issue regarding realism, why not let PMDG know, so they can evaluate the validity of the criticism, and perhaps address it in a future service pack or their next airplane?

So if someone finds an issue regarding realism, why not let PMDG know, so they can evaluate the validity of the criticism, and perhaps address it in a future service pack or their next airplane?

 

Thank you! At least some people understand why all of this is here.

And PMDG would be even happy, that people are helping them to better their product by spending time and testing it, because that's what we here for.

Most if not all Service Packs come out from user's notes, the same thing that is happening right now with P3D2.0.

So far, I 've seen maybe a few people in this topic that are actually looking on things globally.

The rest are: trolls, popcorn lovers and one's who just don't care.

I did a test flight at 18000 and with lvl/chg 280 knots gave me a 2100 ft/min descent rate. 

280 to 250 took 30 seconds.

But I think many factors can influence these numbers. FCTM given numbers are for 736 to 739. Don't think they will perform the same during descent.

I think PMDG must have some real world 737 pilots in their test team. 

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.

 

 

At least in Afghanistan they seem to be using FSX for training of some kind, I came across of this pic when looking for some pics to help creating a scenery for Kabul:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/66185998@N07/6114688807/in/photolist-ajknX6-ad6tVY-9U9Zpc-9UcMjQ-bAzeVB-8ziaFN-8ziaiG-8zi9WG-8zibx1-iPA4XP-9kpZbD-9kpYKa-9ks45G-9kp1wt-9krS2y-9ks3ws-9koZTT-a47Vch-a453Er-a453Hc-a47Vas-e7vAnd-e7pWkP-e7vArd-e7pWup-e7pWnZ-e7vAqj-e7pWrH-e7vAmh-e7vAhQ

 

 

That's the default Cessna and a 100 dollar Saitek Yoke, exactly the same that I use.  :lol:

http://flytherellc.com/index.php/services/redbird-fmx-simulator/

the other one at windy city flyers, thats all in my homebase airport KPWK.

You can log hours on those.

FAA doesn't care about what platform to use, could be FSX or X-plane, doesn't matter

But that's all offtop

At least in Afghanistan they seem to be using FSX for training of some kind

 

FYI, all Afghan airlines are currently banned from EU member states.     There is a reason for this.          I'm sure in this particular case FSX is actually a valid training aid for those intrepid souls though.    

 

I think the late great Freddie Mercury said it best:

 

 

 

EU directive is here:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/safety/air-ban/doc/list_en.pdf

I remember how before release RSR made a big thing about how accurately the electrical loadings had been simulated. If PMDG go to such efforts over such small detail, it's not unreasonable to expect that the flight model will also be simulated in the same detail.  If someone comes on this forum and points out that they feel that the simulation is not as accurate as PMDG seem to imply he is immediately attacked. Yes FSX is an old programme and may cause problems in simulating flight models but one other aircraft add on for FSX uses a flight model simulation that runs outside FSX. Maybe this kind of lateral thinking is now required if FSX add ons are to become even more sophisticated.Everybody can learn from constructive criticism(even PMDG) and it's clear from camrad1983's posts that his criticism is just that.   

My dad used the old PSS 747-400 to brush up on stuff before checkrides so since the ngx is modeled a lot better I'd expect most pilots to think highly of it.

Settle down kids.

 

Constructive criticism should be as welcome as praise.

 

If the criticism is inaccurate, I'm sure someone in the know will let us know :-)

 

Dude get real, if I thought the PMDG 737 was a "toy" I wouldn't have bought it.

 

I spend my *hard earned* cash on PMDG products because I believe the are currently the most realistic product on the market.

 

Now if another company comes along and produces an even more realistic aircraft in a similar price range, which one are you going to buy?

 

 

Yep I desire max reality.

 

If I didn't I would just use the default FSX 737, and so would you.

 

And if company XYZ can produce a more realistic 737 than PMDG then I would buy XYZ 737 instead.

 

That's called market reality.

 

So if someone finds an issue regarding realism, why not let PMDG know, so they can evaluate the validity of the criticism, and perhaps address it in a future service pack or their next airplane?

 

 

I remember how before release RSR made a big thing about how accurately the electrical loadings had been simulated. If PMDG go to such efforts over such small detail, it's not unreasonable to expect that the flight model will also be simulated in the same detail.  If someone comes on this forum and points out that they feel that the simulation is not as accurate as PMDG seem to imply he is immediately attacked. Yes FSX is an old programme and may cause problems in simulating flight models but one other aircraft add on for FSX uses a flight model simulation that runs outside FSX. Maybe this kind of lateral thinking is now required if FSX add ons are to become even more sophisticated.Everybody can learn from constructive criticism(even PMDG) and it's clear from camrad1983's posts that his criticism is just that.   

 

Agree with all of these statements. What I see the OP is doing is just giving some constructive criticism to improve our hobby and make it more realistic. In the end we all benefit from it. No need to bash someone for trying to improve something  :rolleyes:  If it' FSX's limitations that's making it impossible to implement some of these features, then why not, but if there's room for improvement, why not, eh?  ^_^

You never criticize someone in their own home.  :t0148:

You never criticize someone in their own home.  :t0148:

If that's the case then they are not often home.

Chaps, if you really want it to be 100% realistic go study and get your ATPL.

 

I can recall that PMDG stated somewhere that the NGX and the 777 are both within a 5% margin to the real aircraft in terms of performance. I know many 737NG drivery who use this tremendous software and they all say that it's very close to the real thing - the systems are all extremely accurate. There are some odd things like the way too big windows and the minimums dial but that's really just cosmetics. 

 

 

I can recall that PMDG stated somewhere that the NGX and the 777 are both within a 5% margin to the real aircraft in terms of performance.

I can recall that PMDG stated somewhere that the NGX and the 777 are both within a 5% margin to the real aircraft in terms of performance.

The gospel according to PMDG. They may be right but am also interested in hearing other views. Free exchange of opinions and ideas is surely a good thing. 

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.