Out of context, but why downvote this comment when it has nothing to do with the original subject material.

This voting system just gives ammo for certain people to peck away at others who "disagree" with them at an earlier time.

 

Sorry, this sort of childish stuff just bugs me.

 

Agreed, but he probably knows I lumped him in with those making dramatically overstated posts...haha.

 

Just a backwards, ineffective way to "get back at the mean guy."

If I quoted the "sign your full real name" rule here, would I receive another downvote as well?  

I mostly agree, but when the product has a serious problem that makes hand-flying difficult (fighting trim and being unable to manage speed with manual thrust because it has its own ideas of what it wants to do) then it should be treated as a "must-fix-now" problem that has a dedicated service pack for it.

 

I started several threads just asking if the FBW got addressed in SP1, to either meet a wall of silence or a locked thread. I can handle having CTD on the ground when changing step climb size, and other things that are wrong, but when the product is fundamentally broken, then it is unacceptable.

 

Customer service makes or breaks companies. Unfortunately, those that it breaks are too slow realizing it.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

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... sorry but that's a bit unfair.

 

I know Robin very well, and yes, he is prone to somewhat hyperbolic outbursts from time to time, but I have no doubt that like me, and like the real world 777 pilots and others on the forum, that  immediatelynoticed the incorrect interpretation of how the trim functions in in a 777, that he does know what's wrong with version 1.0. 

 

There was that much dialogue with a real world 777 pilot in one particular thread, that this had to be the case. The pilot in question even checked the operation of the trim, in the real aircraft, on his next flight.

 

 

No Ryan, we do know what's wrong with the trim, and we won't complain if it's an acceptably accurate rendition of the real aircraft. In fact we thank you for fixing the issue. Your hard work is  very much appreciated.

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:

 

In the normal mode, airplane pitch control characteristics are like conventional airplanes, with improved handling qualities.

...

As airspeed changes, the PFCs provide conventional pitch control characteristics by requiring the pilot to make control column inputs or trim changes to maintain a constant flight path.

 

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.

 

The airplane is *more difficult* to handfly with it than the 1.0 version

 

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

 

Best regards,
Robin.

For what it's worth, I'll offer this:

The only thing I can (personally) remember about Robin and FBW posts is hyperbole.  I can't remember any of the substance of his prior posts because I got so lost in the hyperbolic manner of posting.

 

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.

 

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.  All I was remembering was that "unflyable" was dropped in the FBW threads ad nauseum.  So, all that to say I'm really not surprised at all that Ryan forgot he knew how it worked.

 

I know that probably sounds like an attack.  It really isn't.  It probably sounds pretty rich coming from me, too, since I know people occasionally take issue with the way I post (except generally because it's so matter-of-fact).  Like I said earlier, if people get huffy about how matter-of-factly you post said facts, they'll at least remember them.  Hyperbole just makes people come off as compensating for something, which usually means they don't know what they're talking about.  Not the case here, but people are people, and they read into things.  If someone looks like they're compensating, the mind interprets they're compensating.

All I can say is search the page reference I made - assuming AVSIM didn't lose it in the forum failures they had recently, you'll see I do back up my position by quoting the manual.

 

As Martin already stated, he, myself, and others have debated this (both on and off forum) and real-world 777 pilots have also commented on the behavior not being correct. It's not "just me", and I'm not out to bash PMDG.

 

I hand fly nearly ALL THE TIME so when something is wrong like this, I notice, and quickly.

 

I may be PMDG's great critic on this point, but I'm also the first to praise them. I bought the 777 as soon as their systems were free enough to let me buy it on the day of release. I wasn't a fan of the NGX (great aircraft, but I never "got into it"), but I admired it as a product, and on the strength of that I wanted the 777. They say "first impressions last", and my first impression was of an aircraft that fought my control inputs when hand flying. It has pretty much been in the hangar since then, and I'm desperate to start flying it.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 Autodelete

(...), a response with a cocky one too...

(...)

 

 

Thank you for introducing yourself to the AVSIM community!   :rolleyes:

Thank you for introducing yourself to the AVSIM community!   :rolleyes:

 

Believe or not, I was totally respectful...Simply I coudn`t resist because sometimes I see answers that I think have not a correct tone...and when I dare writing something I think is fair, I inmediately get warned or banned.

 

I'm not planning to post anymore in the forum. I prefer to use it only to be up to date about my PMDG airplanes.

 

I apologize to Ryan and to anyone who feels upset, but I had to answer that...

 

I won't post anymore...but you already know who I am...

 

Best regards.

 

 

but you already know who I am

Actually... We don't, while it IS part of the forum rules. :-)

Probably a "re-entry" ...

All I can say is search the page reference I made - assuming AVSIM didn't lose it in the forum failures they had recently, you'll see I do back up my position by quoting the manual.

 

Not sure this was being directed at me, but re-read what I wrote.  I didn't say you didn't back your point up, or that you were wrong.  I said that the points in previous posts got lost in the hyperbolic way in which it was presented each time - at least for me.

 

Being critical isn't bad thing.  When the point gets lost in the way the criticism is presented, it becomes a problem (I don't mean that as a "bad thing" type of problem; I mean it as a "it's sad that the point is getting lost in the process" type of problem).  I get that you're excited and want nothing more than to use this thing because you're "into it," but emoting about it through overstatement doesn't really encourage one to read your posts (and yes, I realize many could say the same about my own posting manner - didn't say I was the right one, either...just trying to relate on a similar level).  Like I said earlier: the overstatement/hyperbole comes across as compensation, which comes across as covering for something - be it lack of knowledge, lack of in-depth knowledge, or something else entirely.

 

As I said in another thread:

"Just because someone's a pilot doesn't mean they know everything."  What I'd intended by that is "don't believe someone just because they say 'I'm a pilot' - do your own fact checking."  What some in the forum took it to mean was "Kyle assumes all pilots are idiots, and don't know anything they should know."

 

That wasn't my intention, but based on how I said it, it's how they interpreted it.  Same thing here.  You might have quoted manuals, and added all kinds of cool facts, but I got hung up on the assertion that the thing is somehow unflyable when I just got finished flying it.  I know I've probably said this before, but "unflyable," and "not accurately modeled" are two different things.  It may not be "enjoyably flyable," but it's certainly not "unflyable."  Thus, I didn't ever remember that you do, in fact, know what you're talking about regarding how it's supposed to work.

 

Again, just speaking on a pure psych/communication level here.

 

I won't post anymore...but you already know who I am...

 

I honestly haven't a clue in the slightest...

That first paragraph was in reply to you, yes. You seemed unsure, so clarified the situation.

 

To me, this trim issue makes it unflyable. If I forget speed management, and don't care about being too fast/slow on approach, and being within +/- 30 kts of my desired speed in other phases of flight, then yes, it flies, but to me, that is wholly unacceptable. It is to me what a non-functioning FMS or autopilot would be to others.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

i am a developer myself and here is how beta testing can be:

 

beta test starts

a guy finds a huge bug (or a minor.. doesnt really matter)

problem needs to be fixed, which can take some time

problem is fixed, beta test can continue and everything related to this bug has to be checked again

 

so you may call it a loop until everybody is happy. one week beta testing doesnt mean anything at all