Facing an cocky attitude, a response with a cocky one too...

 

CTC

 

Please sign you name per http://forum.avsim.net/topic/361816-pmdg-forum-rules-please-read-before-posting/.

 

Thank you

Michael Cubine

 

 

but you already know who I am

 

We don't have a clue because you didn't sign your posts.

Seriously, I was honestly so distracted that I forgot entirely if he'd ever posted something indicating that he was right in his interpretation of how it was supposed to work.

Kyle really, come on. I take you to be a reasonably smart person, intelligent enough to extract that which is valid from posts that also contain a bit of hyperbole.

 

I can do it, I'm sure you can too.

 

 

Kyle really, come on. I take you to be a reasonably smart person, intelligent enough to extract that which is valid from posts that also contain a bit of hyperbole.

 

In the moment, I might've, but the lasting impression was simply the hyperbole.  If you look back at my responses, you'll note that they all address simply that, and nothing more.  From that, the lasting memory of that situation is simply what I addressed and not all of what was written (perhaps the original purpose).

 

Simple psych.

You will be the first guy complaining about the fixed FBW, I can virtually guarantee it. The airplane is *more difficult* to handfly with it than the 1.0 version is and the fact that you don't understand this tells me you don't even know what's wrong with the 1.0 FBW despite all your crying about it.

Ryan - please tell me that your emotions go the better of you on this one and this is not a reflection of how you value your clients?

In the moment, I might've, but the lasting impression was simply the hyperbole.  If you look back at my responses, you'll note that they all address simply that, and nothing more.  From that, the lasting memory of that situation is simply what I addressed and not all of what was written (perhaps the original purpose).

 

Simple psych.

Honestly - do you have a job or do you just post all day long and fuel these fires??

 

You will be the first guy complaining about the fixed FBW, I can virtually guarantee it. The airplane is *more difficult* to handfly with it than the 1.0 version is and the fact that you don't understand this tells me you don't even know what's wrong with the 1.0 FBW despite all your crying about it.

 

 

Ryan - please tell me that your emotions go the better of you on this one and this is not a reflection of how you value your clients?

As a long time PMDG product user / forum lurker, I would have to say from a consumer standpoint that this response seems downright hostile and charged with emotion. I would hope that this is like AC235 stated, just Tabs emotions getting in on this.

 

 

 

 

If you're going to prove you're right.  Drop facts.  If people get upset at the facts, at least they'll remember said facts.  If, instead, you add in a whole bunch of extra "unflyable, broken," and the rest of all of that, don't be surprised if people don't remember you were right.

 

OOOooooooooohhhhhhhh  nooooooowwww I get it. And all this time I thought the your way of "winning" arguments was just to write replies that were so long and intricate that people would simply lose interest in what they were reading and give up.

All this thread has become is a battleground for people to snipe at each other.

 

Is this really how we want to treat each other? We're supposed to be enjoying a hobby and everyone wants to tear each other's eyes out over a software update.

 

This is really sad.

I have to say, this is the worst thread I've read here in a while. We should all calm down, and stop having a go at each other. 

 

Let's argue and debate objectively and not attack the person - this is no way to argue. Who cares if Scandinavian13 does not have a job and posts on this forum all day? How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? (Note: I am not saying that you don't have a job) He is putting forward his opinion and requesting other's who have differing opinions to put forward their evidence for PMDG's failures. I wouldn't necessarily classify it as fueling the fire, he is just the second side of the argument (as with any argument - always more than one side). 

 

As I said before, let's argue objectively and get through this properly. No need to start feeling hurt or to start disrespecting other forum members. 

 

 

 

Is this really how we want to treat each other? We're supposed to be enjoying a hobby and everyone wants to tear each other's eyes out over a software update.

 

^Precisely.

 

 

Honestly - do you have a job or do you just post all day long and fuel these fires??

 

Well that's a sadly ironic statement...

 

What difference would it make, firstly?  Secondly, I thought I already answered this for you a while back when you - I'm guessing - wanted to somehow discredit one of my points by asking if I was a pilot of the commercial variety.

 

 

OOOooooooooohhhhhhhh  nooooooowwww I get it. And all this time I thought the your way of "winning" arguments was just to write replies that were so long and intricate that people would simply lose interest in what they were reading and give up.

 

If your goal is to "win" an argument, you've already lost.  My goal in arguments is to attempt to either justify my position, or attempt to find truth.

 

I'll make no effort to hide that I've "lost" several arguments here on the forum.  By "lost" I mean that I was proven wrong (often very publicly).  The difference between me and most other people here is that I'm not butt hurt about it.  Those "losses" helped me learn something.  So, is that really a loss?

 

 

 

Let's argue and debate objectively and not attack the person - this is no way to argue. Who cares if Scandinavian13 does not have a job and posts on this forum all day? How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? (Note: I am not saying that you don't have a job) He is putting forward his opinion and requesting other's who have differing opinions to put forward their evidence for PMDG's failures. I wouldn't necessarily classify it as fueling the fire, he is just the second side of the argument (as with any argument - always more than one side).

As I said before, let's argue objectively and get through this properly. No need to start feeling hurt or to start disrespecting other forum members.

 

Thank you.  I'm glad someone sees that I wasn't attacking anyone, personally.  I was simply trying to explain why someone might forget the main intent of a message because of the way it was delivered.  If anything, I was trying to douse it by explaining some of the psych behind Ryan's post.  Of course, nowhere did I say his response was right or wrong.  I said it was understandable based on basic human psych...

 

 

 

Think of it this way:

Back in my PPL training, I had a transponder failure while departing from JYO in the ADIZ (now SFRA) around DC.  Potomac Approach said "get out of the ADIZ."  As our maintenance base was JYO, my instructor radioed back that we were going to return to JYO (we were still in the pattern anyway).  After receiving no response, we continued around the pattern to land.  While on final, we got a rather sharp "N54467, expect a phone call when you get down."

 

When we got inside to call the TRACON back, the supervisor said "you shouldn't have disregarded your instruction, but your action was understandable," and that was the end of it.

 

By the rules, you could argue that it was wrong.  At the same time, understanding the situation, the action was understandable.  You don't have to agree with something to understand it...

Wow. Just wow.

I know this much: in manual flight, the FBW leaves the pilot to fly, whilst compensating for configuration changes.

Specifically, it will counter pitching moments that are the result of gear, flap, spoiler, and thrust. Aside from auto-trimming out these forces, it will NOT trim for speed changes, thus requiring the pilot to trim as he normally would in any conventional aircraft.

I'll let the forum decide if I'm correct in my understanding or not.

 

EDIT: for those with access to the manuals: FCOM Volume 2, Page 9.20.10, "Normal Mode Pitch Control". I rest my case.

 

To quote the manual:

 

 

 

Quite why Ryan thinks it should be harder to fly in SP1 than it already is (allowing for the current problems) is anyone's guess. Boeing think to the contrary.

 

 

 

Let me say now before SP1 is out - it shouldn't be.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

That is all correct.

 

The 777 is easier to fly than the B737.

It feels/is more stable.

(I have 3 years on the (real) B737 and 12 years on the B777)

 

But it is not stable like an airbus which has a fixed attiude when you let go of the stick (if I understand correctly from reading about this aircraft type).

The Airbus will wander and require corrections to the flight path if in turbulence for example (though it has turbulence compensation built into the FBW).

 

Airbus Normal Law is a mix of pitch rate and g demand, depending upon airspeed (it uses C* law, or C star, to be technically accurate; the 777 uses C*U law, or C star U).

 

Basically the Boeing doesn't auto-trim when you change speed or pitch attitude, and you must trim this out yourself.

 

There is a convienient comparison here between the A320 and 777 FBW control laws: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Fly-By-Wire

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Well that's a sadly ironic statement...

 

What difference would it make, firstly?  Secondly, I thought I already answered this for you a while back when you - I'm guessing - wanted to somehow discredit one of my points by asking if I was a pilot of the commercial variety.

 

 

 

If your goal is to "win" an argument, you've already lost.  My goal in arguments is to attempt to either justify my position, or attempt to find truth.

 

I'll make no effort to hide that I've "lost" several arguments here on the forum.  By "lost" I mean that I was proven wrong (often very publicly).  The difference between me and most other people here is that I'm not butt hurt about it.  Those "losses" helped me learn something.  So, is that really a loss?

 

 

 

 

Thank you.  I'm glad someone sees that I wasn't attacking anyone, personally.  I was simply trying to explain why someone might forget the main intent of a message because of the way it was delivered.  If anything, I was trying to douse it by explaining some of the psych behind Ryan's post.  Of course, nowhere did I say his response was right or wrong.  I said it was understandable based on basic human psych...

 

 

 

Think of it this way:

Back in my PPL training, I had a transponder failure while departing from JYO in the ADIZ (now SFRA) around DC.  Potomac Approach said "get out of the ADIZ."  As our maintenance base was JYO, my instructor radioed back that we were going to return to JYO (we were still in the pattern anyway).  After receiving no response, we continued around the pattern to land.  While on final, we got a rather sharp "N54467, expect a phone call when you get down."

 

When we got inside to call the TRACON back, the supervisor said "you shouldn't have disregarded your instruction, but your action was understandable," and that was the end of it.

 

By the rules, you could argue that it was wrong.  At the same time, understanding the situation, the action was understandable.  You don't have to agree with something to understand it...

Its seems odd to me that you carry on like a senior training captain with a world of "real world" experience under your "wings" but in reality, your not.  I would caution you if being a commercial operator is in your future as being "overly knowledge and overly confident" and seen to be a bit of a know it all - will kill you one day when your over confidence gets you in a pickle.  But that's what training captains are for - to quash this mentality.  Trust me, I was full of ###### and vinegar many moons ago and got put in my place quickly.  Very humbling but taught me a lesson.

 

I checked out your videos on you tube.....Leesburg is a great place.  I picked an airplane up we bought down that way - again a few years ago.  Richmond VA is where we picked it up from.

All this thread has become is a battleground for people to snipe at each other.

 

Is this really how we want to treat each other? We're supposed to be enjoying a hobby and everyone wants to tear each other's eyes out over a software update.

 

This is really sad.

I couldn't agree more

 

Can't we all get along...

I wanted to chime in here and echo the frustrations of Robin and Martin regarding the pitch/trim/speed stability issues.

 

PMDG spared no effort in advertising the accuracy of the LR/F's systems. I think we all expected the aircraft to behave as per the real world through the normal flight regime given all of the development and testing that PMDG put into the project, not to mention the fairly steep price tag (not to suggest that the price isn't justified overall). When a select few of us discovered that it didn't work quite the way it should, PMDG's initial response (at least to me) was to suggest that we clearly couldn't know what we were talking about because they just knew better.

 

I think we all understand that PMDG has access to documentation that the rest of us don't have. They have an accomplished tech and beta team who know the airplane in and out. There are FBW kinks that aren't actually explained in the manuals, but are in fact known to the 777 pilot community and are accurately simulated. Still, this doesn't make them infallible. As a paying customer, I found PMDG's reaction to be dismissive. After a back and forth with support, the best answer I got on the pitch/trim issue was "I'll pass it along to the team." Since then, there has been no explanation of the changes to the FBW logic in SP1 other than that it's being "tweaked."

 

PMDG, to my knowledge, hasn't publicly explained what the expected pitch behavior should be, other than the initial response of "we got it right the first time." A few of us, I feel, have shown that it certainly doesn't work as described in the manual and have corroborated that the current FBW pitch behavior is unrealistic with 777 pilots outside the PMDG team. I'm not a 777 driver myself, I'm not going to claim that I know more than PMDG does. But if they feel that the behavior is correct, I think that as paying customers we are at least owed an explanation of how its supposed to work. 

 

PMDG has a reputation for the outstanding accuracy of its simulations, and overall the 777 is no exception. But having bought a product based on their reputation and the advertising of the depth of the simulation, I expected more. I understand that its impossible to get everything right in an initial release, but I feel that the response of the company to this issue has been lacking. 

 

I really enjoy flying the 777, but every time I hit the AP DISCO switch on approach, I know I'm going to be fighting the airplane all the way to the ground. It's frustrating. I just wish PMDG would be a little more forthcoming on this one.