Hello all,

 

I have seen a lot of information regarding the service pack updates and the massive changes that the 300 and SP1d bring in terms of flight controls model and autopilot logic.

 

Q1: How come that such a radical difference had to be implemented after the initial design?

• Was it due to latter discoveries about the real design/behavior of the aircraft?
• Was it to make it more user friendly?
• Was it to make it more realistic?
• Was it to reduce complexity as compared to the real airplane and therefor easier to run on a limited environment (FSX) and hardware resourced at a minimal cost to realism?

I am assuming that given your (PMDG) expertise you know from the start what it is that you want implemented and then just corrections follow as it is a massively complex undertaking.

 

Q2: As they stand now, with all latest patches on 200 and 300, are there differences in the FBW and AP implementations of the two models?

• What are these differences and why? I know the two airplanes have a real massive difference in terms of size and performance but the FBW and AP basic logic should still be the same is it not?
• Which of the two stands closer to the real thing?

My main interest is in how close to the real C*U behavior are these birds when hand flying them. I know that this is a very hard intellectual property of Boeing and this is what really makes this awesome aircraft what it is; as such, aside from a few publications that I read on the subject, it is after all a real industrial secret and real equations are not given away.

 

I apologize in advance if this topic has been addressed before and there are other threads close to this topic.

 

Sincerely,

Ionut (John) G. Micu

Q1: How come that such a radical difference had to be implemented after the initial design?

• Was it due to latter discoveries about the real design/behavior of the aircraft?
• Was it to make it more user friendly?
• Was it to make it more realistic?
• Was it to reduce complexity as compared to the real airplane and therefor easier to run on a limited environment (FSX) and hardware resourced at a minimal cost to realism?

I am assuming that given your (PMDG) expertise you know from the start what it is that you want implemented and then just corrections follow as it is a massively complex undertaking.

 

I remember reading somewhere in the manual that inaccurate information of the FBW was given to PMDG by a trusted source when they implemented and released the RTM version.

As far as Boeing intellectual property goes, PMDG has a commercial relationship with Boeing and access to engineering. As far as simulation fidelity I don't think you'll find any better any products in this price bracket for the simulation platforms they target.  Each current product has a technical advisory team to assist in the development that only includes type rated pilots for that product.

Hi, Ionut,

 

The original 777 RTM was actually a bit easier to fly than the current version, because autotrim was active when it wasn't

supposed to be.

 

I remember the same explanation as Henry in Post #2; not sure if it is in the manual or somewhere in the PMDG forums.

 

Mike

Thank you for your responses, it does fly very smooth and it if for sure second to none! I can't wait to build my dedicated controls for it ...

 

Ionut (John) G. Micu

C*U is not Boeing proprietary as far as I know. Even if it is, the way it works is public knowledge. The current FBW model replicates C*U fairly well (unlike the original release which was in effect C*) but is not perfect. From what I can see as an outsider (so I could be wrong), the effects of C*U control have been simulated, but not by using C*U control techniques. Maybe that wasn't possible in FSX, though it is fairly straightforward mathematically.