Sign in to follow this  
WebMaximus

The future of the NGX

Recommended Posts

Haven't been in here for some time and was wondering what's the latest regarding the NGX...is a service pack adding new features still on the to do list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Haven't been in here for some time and was wondering what's the latest regarding the NGX...is a service pack adding new features still on the to do list?

Hi Richard, welcome back.  There's no news for the NGX.  PMDG will be putting the 747v2 into beta soon and we are beta testing the DC-6 in the X-Plane platform, which is a long development cycle because of X-Plane... like ducks in the pond. Looks quiet but the feet are working hard underneath the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan: You mean the 747 is still not in Beta testing as of now?  Damn, looks like a 2017 release!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan: You mean the 747 is still not in Beta testing as of now?  Damn, looks like a 2017 release!!

Beta testing will take 8 months? Stop already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they do the best they can, but I wish it didn't take so many years from announcing a project until release. The real 747 was designed and built in one year. Not slamming PMDG, I'm just getting old' and am afraid I'll miss out on these fantastic new productions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about opening a similar thread just yesterday!

 

In my opinion, with the SP1C the NGX is working very well with no issues at all. Therefore, maybe a (paid for) upgrade (rather than update) would be appropriate?

 

My 'wish list', so to speak:

 

  • B737-900ER
  • split scimitar winglets and according performance improvements
  • (maybe a model with smaller cockpit windows when flying w/o the HUD)
  • T/O CONFIG, CAB ALT warning lights
  • more configuration options (non-aspirated TAT probes, R-TO rating instead of D-TO, ...)
  • perhaps a visual revision with clean/new and 'worn & torn' cockpit textures
  • automatic loading/fueling in a given time like on the 777
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real 747 was designed and built in one year.

 

Sorry but that's not true. Work on the 747 started at least in 65 and the first flight took place in 69. It was designed in at least 2 years, which is EXTREMELY fast. Also you can't really compare the amount of people and resources of Boeing vs. PMDG.

 

Guys, let them do their thing. Let them BETA test for a year if it's necessary. What's important is that the end product is polished!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish these companies could put me on a mailing list.  I really don't have time to check the boards to see if the LD757 is out,  or the QW787 is out or the new 747 is complete.  Do you know how many times in the last decade I checked the LD site for news on the 757?  Wasted time. 

How about a mailing list and when a new release it out, send me an e-mail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


split scimitar winglets and according performance improvements

 

What performance improvements? You are going to notice literally zero difference in performance in the sim here. The scimitars only bring better fuel economy in the long run. There are very minimal improvements on a per-flight basis.


I wish these companies could put me on a mailing list.  I really don't have time to check the boards to see if the LD757 is out,  or the QW787 is out or the new 747 is complete.  Do you know how many times in the last decade I checked the LD site for news on the 757?  Wasted time. 

How about a mailing list and when a new release it out, send me an e-mail.

 

I think Aerosoft have a mailing list. They will announce it's release pretty quickly after PMDG do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What performance improvements? You are going to notice literally zero difference in performance in the sim here. The scimitars only bring better fuel economy in the long run. There are very minimal improvements on a per-flight basis.

 

That is what I meant, better fuel performance. Which I assume would require a lot more work to implement than just the adding the new winglets to the aircraft model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but that's not true. Work on the 747 started at least in 65 and the first flight took place in 69. It was designed in at least 2 years, which is EXTREMELY fast. Also you can't really compare the amount of people and resources of Boeing vs. PMDG.

 

Guys, let them do their thing. Let them BETA test for a year if it's necessary. What's important is that the end product is polished!

Your right Jaime. Wikipedia says 28 months. I was going by a Smithsonian channel documentary I saw.

Beside the point, for PMDG or any other company customer interest and enthusiasm is a good thing and should be an encouragement to them.

As a side note the 747 wasn't that polished when it came out. Minor issues like engines that would over heat taxing in a tale wind. If I remember I think the first PAN AM maiden flight was canceled for some anomaly. If PMDG was around then they could have Beta tested it for them. :smile:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish these companies could put me on a mailing list.  I really don't have time to check the boards to see if the LD757 is out,  or the QW787 is out or the new 747 is complete.  Do you know how many times in the last decade I checked the LD site for news on the 757?  Wasted time. 

How about a mailing list and when a new release it out, send me an e-mail.

 

You would have to be living under a rock not to find out when a new aircraft is released. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a side note the 747 wasn't that polished when it came out. Minor issues like engines that would over heat taxing in a tale wind. If I remember I think the first PAN AM maiden flight was canceled for some anomaly. If PMDG was around then they could have Beta tested it for them. :smile:   

 

Oh yes that's true! And the problems with the Cargo Door locking mechanism! And the problems with the Rudder on the 737 also comes to mind...

 

There's a very interesting book on this by Jan Roskam: Lessons Learned in Aircraft Design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


That is what I meant, better fuel performance. Which I assume would require a lot more work to implement than just the adding the new winglets to the aircraft model.

 

Like I said, you're not going to notice it on a flight-by-flight basis. You'd have to fly your NGX 2-3 times per day almost every day of the year and tally your fuel used vs non-scimitar to see any difference.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Also you can't really compare the amount of people and resources of Boeing vs. PMDG.

Spot-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Boeing are not trying to accurately simulate an existing airplane, they pretty much do what they want, and then document the things characteristics once it is finished and tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Boeing are not trying to accurately simulate an existing airplane, they pretty much do what they want, and then document the things characteristics once it is finished and tested.

Maybe, but instead they have to ensure performance exceeds the promises made to customers. The problem with simulation is not accuracy, but the way fixing one thing tends to break something else. Testing a complex piece of software is a lengthy business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion, with the SP1C the NGX is working very well with no issues at all. Therefore, maybe a (paid for) upgrade (rather than update) would be appropriate?

 

 

I disagree, off the top of my head, the fmc freezing if you try to enter winds before selecting an approach is a big issue to fix. Also the engines do not go to idle power in flight and that makes it difficult to slow the airplane down especially the larger -800 and -900 - David Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the engines not going to idle in flight, is that really a bug or is it dependant on the altitude and also how the real aircraft behaves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the engines not going to idle in flight, is that really a bug or is it dependant on the altitude and also how the real aircraft behaves?

 

FSX only has one idle, and we had to side-step that to get it to realistically model more than the one. Most jets (and props) today have some sort of ground idle and flight idle, along with a thrust bump of some sort on gear down (approach idle). I think David is getting confused as to which 'idle' he thinks should be provided in a certain case.

 

The 800 is a slippery plane (how many years have we been reminding people of that now?) and it requires a little more forethought to get it down without having to hang speedbrakes out. All the same, it's not entirely uncommon to see them come out from time to time on today's more modern STARs (constant descents instead of a stepped layout). The 900 is similar, but not as tough to manage, at least from that perspective. I believe Matt might be able to comment more directly, as I'm pretty sure he flies both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Also the engines do not go to idle power in flight and that makes it difficult to slow the airplane down especially the larger -800 and -900
When the PFD shows ARM, press F1 below FL300. The thrust levers come back to the stop position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX only has one idle, and we had to side-step that to get it to realistically model more than the one. Most jets (and props) today have some sort of ground idle and flight idle, along with a thrust bump of some sort on gear down (approach idle). I think David is getting confused as to which 'idle' he thinks should be provided in a certain case.

 

The 800 is a slippery plane (how many years have we been reminding people of that now?) and it requires a little more forethought to get it down without having to hang speedbrakes out. All the same, it's not entirely uncommon to see them come out from time to time on today's more modern STARs (constant descents instead of a stepped layout). The 900 is similar, but not as tough to manage, at least from that perspective. I believe Matt might be able to comment more directly, as I'm pretty sure he flies both.

I thought this was a bug in the ngx and 777 but fixed in a recent 777 patch.  - David Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I thought this was a bug in the ngx and 777 but fixed in a recent 777 patch.

 

Not sure what you're referring to here, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this