PMDG777 Xplane

[vonmar 122]

Manuel,

"There is no such a list,"

 

Ok, thanks for the answer.

 

Have a good day.

[mtaxp 666]

Manuel,

"There is no such a list,"

 

Ok, thanks for the answer.

 

Have a good day.

 

There is a list of things that'll not be in v1.0 but will be in next versions.

 

http://forums.x-pilot.com/forums/topic/8526-things-that-are-not-going-to-be-in-v10/?page=1

 

 

also not in v1.03 because all updates for now were hotfixes for bugs.

[vonmar 122]

There is a list of things that'll not be in v1.0 but will be in next versions.

 

http://forums.x-pilot.com/forums/topic/8526-things-that-are-not-going-to-be-in-v10/?page=1

 

 

also not in v1.03 because all updates for now were hotfixes for bugs.

 

Thanks for the followup.

 

I was just wondering which bugs (hot fixes) were currently being worked on and which items (not modeled yet) are currently scheduled to be added at a later date.

 

Thanks for the link, I will have a look see.

 

Have a good day.

[JYW 2,977]

From my personal experience none of the FlightFactor offerings are comparable to PMDG products.

The one and only study-sim jetliner available for X-Plane at this time is the previously mentioned IXEG 737-300.

 

Do you own the Flight Factor 767?

 

I bought this 2 days ago (my first heavy jet payware for X-Plane), and I would say that the systems depth is truly superb and close to PMDG level. In addition there are many additional immersive factors (available through the included iPad feature), for boarding sounds, fuelling, ground support, etc, that go over and above the PMDG features.

 

This is, of course not meant as a detrimental comment to PMDG - they are the best in the business overall - but the Flight Factor 767, to me, is at least as complex than most complex jets in FSX/P3D, and more complex than many.

 

I don't own the IXEG 733 yet, but it looks fantastic, and is on my list.

 

PS..... using FLCH for descent is never a good idea, and will often result in 'uncomfortable' (for passengers!) high descent rates.    FLCH for climbing, VS for descending.

[vonmar 122]

Do you own the Flight Factor 767?

 

I bought this 2 days ago (my first heavy jet payware for X-Plane), and I would say that the systems depth is truly superb and close to PMDG level. In addition there are many additional immersive factors (available through the included iPad feature), for boarding sounds, fuelling, ground support, etc, that go over and above the PMDG features.

 

This is, of course not meant as a detrimental comment to PMDG - they are the best in the business overall - but the Flight Factor 767, to me, is at least as complex than most complex jets in FSX/P3D, and more complex than many.

 

+1 on FF767-300

 

Note: I did not purchase the IXEG737 yet , so cannot compare to it ... but I do study level on PMDG737-NGX (FSX and P3D) and the LD767-300 (FSX) ...... so I can say IMO the FF767-300 is a good study level sim jetliner / purchase.

[Alpha Floor 237]

 

using FLCH for descent is never a good idea, and will often result in 'uncomfortable' (for passengers!) high descent rates

 

Hmmm, I don't agree on neither part: The one that says that FLCH is never a good idea and the one that implies that FLCH results in uncomfortable rates.

 

When VNAV starts a descend and goes into VNAV SPD it's basically the same thing as FLCH. And regardless of that, FLCH has its purpose in descents on its own right.

 

Also, passengers don't feel vertical speed. They feel cabin vertical rate which is independent of the AFDS mode. They might also "feel" the aircraft's attitude (deck angle), but that's true for every other mode.

 

Finally, you can adjust the rate of descent when in FLCH by simply advancing the thrust levers above idle.

 

So I don't really see the sense in stating that "FLCH is never a good idea for descents because of descent rates". 

[Tom Wright 438]

 

 

PS..... using FLCH for descent is never a good idea, and will often result in 'uncomfortable' (for passengers!) high descent rates.    FLCH for climbing, VS for descending.

 

High descent rate does not feel uncomfortable. It's how fast the initial push over/acceleration is which gives you that sinking weightless feeling. Once you've established a steady rate of descent, even if it's 6000ft per min, you're still only pulling 1G. A good example is Concorde, which sometimes they used the thrust reversers in idle reverse if they needed to get down quickly. When those things opened it went down like an elevator at sometimes up to 10000ft per min!

[YukonPete 585]

To many FSX biased and misinformed I don't like X-plane because its not FSX/P3D or I don't like IXEG because its not PMDG etc.... So sick of hearing all the comments from biased people who actually have no idea what they are actually talking about. 

XP and FSX/P3D are different platforms. Both have good and bad points. This does not make one better then the other. The same goes for PMDG v IXEG. Different platforms and developers.

Please don't take advice fom biased people who bash the hell out of XP and have to run down every product released for it no matter how great it is. These people will always find a fault because its not from FSX/PMDG.

[alexcolka 183]

Yes, those sims and developers are amazing and top notch.

[rdb 44]

Do you own the Flight Factor 767?

Yes, i own every product released by FF so far (none installed at the moment). Don't get me wrong Bill, i'm happy it works for you (and others).

Being a simmer for 20+ years now (flying airliners almost exclusively) i cannot fool myself enough to not to notice all those little details FF did wrong. I highly recommend you go and grab IXEG. Get a copy of FCOM for 767 & 737 and compare. Then watch some cockpit videos and compare more. If you have the opportunity, get a jumpseat on the real plane and compare even more The devil is in the details ...

IXEG is far from perfect at this point, but the level of attention to details (and support!) is years ahead of what we have had in X-Plane before.

It is all a matter of our expectations. We could possibly agree that product XYZ is a poor replica, but then someone else would jump in and disagree saying that it is "a true masterpiece" ...

 

[tutmeister 695]

High descent rate does not feel uncomfortable.

 

It absolutely does feel uncomfortable. It is nothing to do with G. It is the rate of change of air pressure that causes complaints and screaming children! Slow and steady is definitely the most comfortable. Remember, the whole point of you being up front is to deliver your biological cargo to their destination in as efficient and pleasurable experience as possible.

 

Children and inexperienced fliers don't understand the need and arent as capable at constantly equalising pressure in their ears as experienced fliers do so they experience a lot of pain during fast descents.

Try flying with a cold or with small children during a required quick descent over mountains to get down to the runway. That will soon change your opinion regarding rate of descent!

 

Chris

[Tom Wright 438]

It absolutely does feel uncomfortable. It is nothing to do with G. It is the rate of change of air pressure that causes complaints and screaming children! Slow and steady is definitely the most comfortable. Remember, the whole point of you being up front is to deliver your biological cargo to their destination in as efficient and pleasurable experience as possible.

Children and inexperienced fliers don't understand the need and arent as capable at constantly equalising pressure in their ears as experienced fliers do so they experience a lot of pain during fast descents.

Try flying with a cold or with small children during a required quick descent over mountains to get down to the runway. That will soon change your opinion regarding rate of descent!

Chris

True, but in a pressurised airliner the rate of change of the cabin pressure (or the cabin altitude) would be controlled completely independently from the actual rate of descent would it not? Therefore it shouldn't matter in theory how fast you were going down, unless the pressurisation system failed or an emergency descent was made following a rapid depressurisation? Only then it would be uncomfortable, or I suppose more uncomfortable than it would normally be for some people.

[signmanbob 592]

All of these claims are wrong!

 

- FLCH does work just like the real one and we have not had one single complaint on it by the loads of 737 real pilots that have tried it for over 1000 hrs of block time.

- Autobrake, which I personally gave Austin the documentation on is 737 values.

- We have a 100% custom engine model which is most likely the most accurate jet-model ever made in ANY sim in terms of thrust and drag at all altitudes, mach and temperatures.

 

The FMC is still missing a few functions as we stated long before release, but will be implemented.  And yes, we had our share of bugs - like everyone else.

 

 

I purchased the IXEG 733 and I am in love with it every bit as much as I am with PMDG's NGX in P3D.

IXEG has set the standard in X-Plane so much higher now, that it will take a PMDG to produce a simulation that is comparable in its class.

[mmerelles 78]

True, but in a pressurised airliner the rate of change of the cabin pressure (or the cabin altitude) would be controlled completely independently from the actual rate of descent would it not? Therefore it shouldn't matter in theory how fast you were going down, unless the pressurisation system failed or an emergency descent was made following a rapid depressurisation? Only then it would be uncomfortable, or I suppose more uncomfortable than it would normally be for some people.

 

 

Yes they are independent, BUT:

 

-Cabin is not pressurized to ground level, they are typically pressurized 6000-8000 ft, this is due to cost and engineering issues (airframe stress)

 

-While you are descending the the pressurization system will accommodate the cabin pressure (rate).

 

-Humans inner ear is very sensitive to pressure changes and takes a considerable amount of time to equalize by itself, the rate the cabin pressurizes/depressurizes will make them uncomfortable proportionally.

 

This is why descending you deliberately block your nose and push air to make the inner ear equalize and accommodate the inner/outer pressure which otherwise will take longer and some pain kicking in.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

-Humans inner ear is very sensitive to pressure changes and takes a considerable amount of time to equalize by itself, the rate the cabin pressurizes/depressurizes will make them uncomfortable proportionally.

This is why descending you deliberately block your nose and push air to make the inner ear equalize and accommodate the inner/outer pressure which otherwise will take longer and some pain kicking in

 

I can positively attest to this -

 

Some years ago my wife and I took a trip down to San Francisco, on Westjet I believe (not important).  Well, the trip came, and of course I was getting over a wicked sinus cold. The descent was horrible for me; I basically held my head in my hands and wished it were over. None of the little tricks helped to equalize the pressure, it really hurt.

 

Once on the ground I found I was nearly deaf, it lasted most of the day.  In fact, we had a airport shuttle van to our hotel, and due to space, I sat up front with the driver. A nice guy, he was talking and pointing out sights the whole trip to the hotel. Not sure, he might of thought there was something wrong with me, because I couldn't hear a darn word he said.  Once in a while, if I noticed he was gesturing particularly wildly, I'd simply smile and nod...