PMDG 787 Dreamliner

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Is the EFB really that irrevocably integral to the 787? I don't see why we couldn't have a fabulous PMDG rendition of the aircraft without the EFB. I mean, having one would be better as I believe it's standard in the real aircraft, but in sim terms I thought it more peripheral than, say, the FMS or MFDs.

 

For clarity here, I've only been addressing why a high quality, integrated EFB has yet to hit the market. None of my commentary has addressed anything related to "PMDG won't do an aircraft because it has an EFB in it (or prominently in it, for that matter)."

 

So is the consensus that navigraph data via their subscription is not good enough for an integrated efb? - Assuming of course that navigraph allowed subscribers to use their charts in a third party cockpit obviously.

 

Their charts only get updated 4 times a year. Approach charts in the States have the potential to change 13 times per year. While the Navigraph option is suitable for most simmers, it wouldn't really satisfy some of the people who are into higher levels of realism. If a real procedure gets published right after the Navigraph charts go out, I would have to wait another 3 months to see it in my Navigraph subscription.

 

I would have thought everything you need is there.

I realise for some they don't want to pay for charts and airac data but this is a hypothetical answer to the issue regarding the licensing of data for efb type usage.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, and EFB is more than just charts. You'd need performance data to tackle a huge portion of what EFBs do in most modern aircraft.

[tutmeister 695]

Fair enough, thanks for that Kyle.

A potential worst case scenario of one or 2 procedures world wide being delayed by a maximum of up to three months wouldn't bother me but I realise there are people who make me look like a super casual arcade flyer even though I'm always using vox atc, real weather, add on airports, 737 hardware etc.

 

From an educational perspective, what else would be needed? I would have thought the performance data for the aircraft would be known if it was an accurate simulation. Then you need all the airport charts, sids, stars, airways. What else am I missing?

 

Edited - sorry just realised this is going way off topic!

 

Cheers

Chris

[klm251 62]

Tossing my 2 cents in

 

Like Kyle is mentioning above an EFB is not only charts it also comes with performance data which isn't simulated by any FS developer as far as i know.

 

Yes Aivlasoft has an EFB but it only produces charts and notams and checklists but no performance data and even though it's a great piece of software it isn't exactly bug free many times i have to restart it in flight because it doesn't recognize the checkpoints when i fly over them.

[tutmeister 695]

I realise that, that is why I asked the question....what performance data are we talking about when you say you it needs performance data.

I'd imagine the aircraft dev should have accurate climb rates, fuel burn and detailed performance of the aircraft in various configurations if it is a high fidelity sim. Add to that live weather data from asn and ive run out of ideas as to what is missing from a data perspective as I thought the fms already deals with all these variables.

Maybe I am giving too much credit to the performance data devs get from manufacturers but claims are often made about how accurate and realistic an aircrafts performance is in sim. By the way im being generic, I don't just mean pmdg here. Im just trying to understand what would be missing if a dev tried to make a detailed integrated efb type of cockpit add on.

 

Cheers

Chris

[kevinh 409]

The EFB takes into things like account obstacle clearance, contaminated runways and all kinds of other factors not included in the basic takeoff tables in the FCOM, which only represent balanced field length takeoffs. Also if the sim was designed to perform "by the numbers" in the FCOM it would not fly as well as the real aircraft. These figures are certified minima which the aircraft should comfortably exceed.

 

I'm not sure why people are seeing the lack of an EFB as a show-stopper for a 787 sim. Integrated EFBs are used on other aircraft, including the 777 (as an option). Either it could be inoperative or it could simply include FMS data and be an alternative way of entering the data (rather as the data uplink feature in the 777 is simulated).

[downscc 1,327]

ditto Keven.

 

I just started reading this thread and kept wondering why are we so far off topic.  I recommend we show some excitement for a PMDG 787 product instead of finding fault before it's even developed. Geeze guys.

 

I have started to notice many routes in FlightAware that I'd like to fly with the PMDG 777 are actually flown with the B787, and am eager to get checked out in her. In fact, I find this beauty one of the most innovative developments to come out of Boeing since the B772 (my own opinion of course).

 

Add me to the list of PMDG 787 enthusiasts.

[tutmeister 695]

Kevin, I know an Efb is more than the basic numbers that are in the fms. I'm just trying to get an answer to the question I asked.

If you add charts and airac to the sim which should have accurate fms emulation and aircraft data then what else is missing?

I thought obstacle clearance and taxi route availability for aircraft types and all that stuff would be included in the charts database. This is purely me trying to understand what data would be unavailable without huge costs as all people are saying is that data is unavailable.

 

Personally I don't care if the 787 has one or not. I'd buy it anyway if pmdg made it but then I suspect so would a lot of people.

 

Cheers

Chris

[OVRK2010 0]

For clarity here, I've only been addressing why a high quality, integrated EFB has yet to hit the market. None of my commentary has addressed anything related to "PMDG won't do an aircraft because it has an EFB in it (or prominently in it, for that matter)."

 

 

Their charts only get updated 4 times a year. Approach charts in the States have the potential to change 13 times per year. While the Navigraph option is suitable for most simmers, it wouldn't really satisfy some of the people who are into higher levels of realism. If a real procedure gets published right after the Navigraph charts go out, I would have to wait another 3 months to see it in my Navigraph subscription.

 

 

Hello! When do you plan to start developing PMDG 777 for the X-Plane 10?

[kevinh 409]

Kevin, I know an Efb is more than the basic numbers that are in the fms. I'm just trying to get an answer to the question I asked.

If you add charts and airac to the sim which should have accurate fms emulation and aircraft data then what else is missing?

I thought obstacle clearance and taxi route availability for aircraft types and all that stuff would be included in the charts database. This is purely me trying to understand what data would be unavailable without huge costs as all people are saying is that data is unavailable.

 

Personally I don't care if the 787 has one or not. I'd buy it anyway if pmdg made it but then I suspect so would a lot of people.

 

Cheers

Chris

For example, charts will show you the terrain and the required minimum climb gradient. The EFB performance calculation will tell you if your aircraft can achieve that performance on that runway, at that weight and in those conditions.

 

If you already knew the FMC takeoff data wasn't the same thing why did you ask the question? The question you should perhaps have asked is why a 787 sim can't be produced without an EFB simulation (as some people seem to think). It's funny that they seem happy to accept that QW can make a 787 sim without a full implemented EFB but somehow PMDG can't.

[tutmeister 695]

Thanks for the clarification kevin.

I asked the question because I wanted to know what would be needed to do a decent efb.

I understand that the fmc might have more basic functionality than an advanced integrated efb solution but, irrespective of what an fmc may or may not be able to do, the calculations and data an efb would be using are already being done by the sim anyway aren't they?

If the sim cant calculate if the aircraft can make a certain climb gradient then it's not a very accurate sim is it?

Assuming the dev can calculate correct performance data for any given weight or configuration and then add in charts data they should be able to implement an efb providing they have access to charts data.

 

Which brings me back to my original question. If you were allowed to use worldwide charts data and airac from for example a navigraph subscription and the dev has accurate performance data then what else is missing? Is there still some extra data that isn't in the charts or the simulator? That is what I am trying to understand.

(Thanks to kyle I now know navigraph charts are only updated every 3 months but for home use lets accept that is good enough as this whole thing is hypothetical anyway!)

 

 

Ps I didn't ask the question why pmdg couldn't make a 787 without an efb as I know the answer. No reason at all!

Now if only they actually did.....ah well 747 v2 will fill my time for quite a while.

 

Cheers

Chris

[kevinh 409]

Thanks for the clarification kevin.

I asked the question because I wanted to know what would be needed to do a decent efb.

I understand that the fmc might have more basic functionality than an advanced integrated efb solution but, irrespective of what an fmc may or may not be able to do, the calculations and data an efb would be using are already being done by the sim anyway aren't they?

If the sim cant calculate if the aircraft can make a certain climb gradient then it's not a very accurate sim is it?

Assuming the dev can calculate correct performance data for any given weight or configuration and then add in charts data they should be able to implement an efb providing they have access to charts data.

 

Which brings me back to my original question. If you were allowed to use worldwide charts data and airac from for example a navigraph subscription and the dev has accurate performance data then what else is missing? Is there still some extra data that isn't in the charts or the simulator? That is what I am trying to understand.

(Thanks to kyle I now know navigraph charts are only updated every 3 months but for home use lets accept that is good enough as this whole thing is hypothetical anyway!)

 

 

Ps I didn't ask the question why pmdg couldn't make a 787 without an efb as I know the answer. No reason at all!

Now if only they actually did.....ah well 747 v2 will fill my time for quite a while.

 

Cheers

Chris

You are confusing a performance calculator with a flight simulator. A flight simulator has the data to compute what lift, drag, pitching moment, etc are for the current flight condition. On Ground before takeoff lift and drag are zero. The simulator can't predict what they will be after takeoff, what climb gradient will be, etc. It will hopefully behave like the aircraft during takeoff of course and so climb as the aircraft would, or stop on the runway as the aircraft would.

 

Sim developers don't use FCOM takeoff data to design flight models. You might verify performance exceeds that data having designed the model, and possibly adjust things if it was too good, or not good enough. Also please remember that the performance numbers in the EFB are a minimum. The real aircraft, and therefore the flight simulator, will perform at least as well as those numbers predict and hopefully rather better.

 

PMDG could run their simulation model for all the various possible conditions, apply the same safety factors that the FAA apply and so create a performance data table to use in an EFB. But that would be an enormous amount of work. Boeing won't release that data without someone paying for an expensive licence fee.

 

So it isn't true to say the accurate performance prediction data is already in the simulation model. Even the most advanced Level D flight simulator would not be able to derive the EFB takeoff performance calculations.

[WebMaximus 372]

Sorry for waking up an old thread but just found it searching for a potential B788/789 made by PMDG.

 

Wouldn't the performance data found in a product such as TOPCAT be good enough for the simulation market?

 

I read through the complete thread and I fail to understand why the same data used by Navigraph for charts and by TOPCAT for performance couldn't also be used in this case. Sure, the data is not updated as often as IRL but like someone else said...this is and will always be a simulation and not reality and there will always be some limitations.

 

Personally in this specific case I would be more than happy if the only drawback would be the data used might sometimes be a couple of months old but I would still be able to operate the aircraft in the same way it's operated IRL. And for people not willing to pay for a charts and performance subscription a la Navigraph/TOPCAT simply make the EFB inoperable unless you have those other products just like with AS and the wx radar.

 

After reading this thread I realize the odds of seeing a B788/789 made by PMDG aren't the best but I'll keep my fingers crossed things that are out of the question today won't be tomorrow as we've seen in the past because this aircraft truly is a very interesting beauty and it would be nothing short of amazing to see it in PMDG quality down the road!

 

Also I don't see a problem if it would take a couple of years considering the age of the NG for example which is still very much enjoyed at this date both in the world of simulation as well as in the real world.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Sorry for waking up an old thread but just found it searching for a potential B788/789 made by PMDG.

 

Wouldn't the performance data found in a product such as TOPCAT be good enough for the simulation market?

 

I read through the complete thread and I fail to understand why the same data used by Navigraph for charts and by TOPCAT for performance couldn't also be used in this case. Sure, the data is not updated as often as IRL but like someone else said...this is and will always be a simulation and not reality and there will always be some limitations.

 

Personally in this specific case I would be more than happy if the only drawback would be the data used might sometimes be a couple of months old but I would still be able to operate the aircraft in the same way it's operated IRL. And for people not willing to pay for a charts and performance subscription a la Navigraph/TOPCAT simply make the EFB inoperable unless you have those other products just like with AS and the wx radar.

 

After reading this thread I realize the odds of seeing a B788/789 made by PMDG aren't the best but I'll keep my fingers crossed things that are out of the question today won't be tomorrow as we've seen in the past because this aircraft truly is a very interesting beauty and it would be nothing short of amazing to see it in PMDG quality down the road!

 

Also I don't see a problem if it would take a couple of years considering the age of the NG for example which is still very much enjoyed at this date both in the world of simulation as well as in the real world.

 

I feel like I've already answered this...

 

Oh right...I did:

 

For clarity here, I've only been addressing why a high quality, integrated EFB has yet to hit the market. None of my commentary has addressed anything related to "PMDG won't do an aircraft because it has an EFB in it (or prominently in it, for that matter)."

 

 

Their charts only get updated 4 times a year. Approach charts in the States have the potential to change 13 times per year. While the Navigraph option is suitable for most simmers, it wouldn't really satisfy some of the people who are into higher levels of realism. If a real procedure gets published right after the Navigraph charts go out, I would have to wait another 3 months to see it in my Navigraph subscription.

 

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, and EFB is more than just charts. You'd need performance data to tackle a huge portion of what EFBs do in most modern aircraft.

 

And for the one, tiny aspect that this post didn't cover directly: no, some other program's data is not enough.

[WebMaximus 372]

If you re-read my post Kyle you'll find that I did read what you said and I also said I did read through the complete thread before posting and I did comment on the very things said by you that you quoted above so you don't need to get arrogant.

 

I just expressed my thoughts on this as one of your many long-term customers but I should really have learned better by now...

[Maxxue 0]

I have an idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make it.