Rumors about NGX V3

[KTFO 16]

Please fix the cockpit geometry. Windows are way too big. 737 flightdeck is cramped.

[Airline2Sim 489]

Very interesting that PMDG staff would love to do a Boeing 727 or a Boeing 707... Unfortunately, they think it wouldn't sell... I'd buy a well made 727 instantly, not just because it is an aircraft that reminds my childhood, but because it's an "analogical Boeing" that teaches a lot about radio navigation, performance calculations and system workings of a Boeing jet prior to computers to control them. Much more interesting and chalenging to fly an analogical Boeing than to fly a "digital Boeing" that makes all work for you...

 

I would LOVE a PMDG level 707 but in all honesty single pilot operation of a heavy jet with a crude autopilot that demands raw data navigation is quite simply beyond the skill level of most simmers. Heck, most line pilots would struggle to nicely fly a raw data SID with no flight director and that's with someone else twiddling all the knobs and tuning all the radios. It's just about doable in the glass jets because a lot of the workload is taken off you. The amount of preparation that would be needed in terms of getting hold of charts, setting outbound courses, working out DME fixes and intersections would make any instrument flying incredibly hard. It's all doable of course, but I just don't think it would stack up. Most of us would buy it, look at it, fly it around for a bit and realise how hard it is, and go back to the 73/7/47.....

[garrett_frank 150]

Please fix the cockpit geometry. Windows are way too big. 737 flightdeck is cramped.

 

So this point has been bandied about pretty well here and elsewhere. And IIRC, RR has stated why it's, er, largely the case but I would need to verify that. But...

 

I think the, er, point (sorry, I'm punny tonight) is that a lot of this sentiment comes from the fact that the default eyepoint is set waaaay away from where it should be, to accommodate the HGS. I do this in all sim aircraft: turn around 180* and then move the eyepoint so that it's only slightly ahead of the headrest. Or slightly above or below, wherever you think your eyeballs actually are in the cockpit of the aircraft. You know, the eyepoint. You will lose good HGS positioning but again, I think PMDG did that on purpose in order to deal with the sim-imposed constraints. But I feel like this point hasn't been made either at all, or enough.

 

That said, the windows and cockpit geometry will look far better. In fact, my brother has a position that will go unnamed but rides jumpseat every now and then. He rode along in a 739 recently and sent me a shot. I, nerdily I might add, attempted to recreate the shot and was pretty close. Given the eyepoint, especially from the jumpseat, PMDG's cockpit geometry is pretty close.

 

Edit: in fact, it just so happens I have the screenshots:

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by garrett_frank

[pete_auau 1,159]

 

 

Please fix the cockpit geometry. Windows are way too big. 737 flightdeck is cramped.

 

 

Unless they can figure out   a way  to  fit  the  hud in correctly  you will find   this  wont happen

[scandinavian13 5,192]

will this be a separate product? or is it for colleges, flights schools, etc.

 

please define what you mean by " full flight deck sim"

http://www.flightdecksolutions.com/news/pmdg-to-use-fds-hardware

[kevinh 409]

Many aviation companies don't expect pilot candidates to master the 737 NG or the A320, but they expect them to have a solid understanding of navigation, chart reading, performance calculations etc... So, the 727 would be like a ground school to aviation and jet systems. On the other hand, the MD-11 was a very complex aircraft that required a lot of study, but all this effort would be useful only for the MD-11, not for a general understanding of aviation... That's the difference between making a 727 and a MD-11... Nevertheless, the MD-11 was a great aircraft to model, unfortunately wasn't very adopted because it is made for a small public of affectionate enthusiast...

That's why you see ground schools using 727 or 707 simulators to prepare pilots for airline employment. Except they don't. You can learn about raw data aviation in a modern simulator with modern systems. Ideally the type you are going to do your flight training in.

 

 

That said, the windows and cockpit geometry will look far better. In fact, my brother has a position that will go unnamed but rides jumpseat every now and then. He rode along in a 739 recently and sent me a shot. I, nerdily I might add, attempted to recreate the shot and was pretty close. Given the eyepoint, especially from the jumpseat, PMDG's cockpit geometry is pretty close.

Your pictures show the oversized window problem rather well and it isn't improved by positioning the eyepoint further back. Your view of the panels is, especially the overhead, but that's another matter.

 

Personally I don't mind about the large windows, but I would prefer it if the HGS was collimated for the correct eyepoint. I assume that wasn't possible for some reason.

[garrett_frank 150]

Your pictures show the oversized window problem rather well and it isn't improved by positioning the eyepoint further back. Your view of the panels is, especially the overhead, but that's another matter.

 

That may be but the pictures serve to provide some, ugh (again, the puns), perspective. The running issue is, oh man--the puns again--exaggerated, IMO. The sentiment I generally hear is "they're portholes that look like bay windows!" Simply not the case. I could be straw-manning the issue here but who knows. It's 4:30am here so I could have worse problems.

 

And by the way, give credit where credit is due: how many folks complain about an issue--or defend against one--and actually show some relevant screenshots? I may be spouting off but at least there's more than the "I think..." or "it seems like it should look like..." So, to the extent this helps or hurts, so be it...

 

Lastly: clearly my brother took the actual photo in portrait whereas any screenshot coming out of any FS will be in some derivative of landscape, solely based on prevailing monitor resolutions. And then there's accounting for zoom, that eyepoint could still be off, and numerous fs camera settings, etc. etc.

[Farlis 2,287]

Loved the PMDG MD11 but it's common knowledge it didn't sell well...Damned if I know, still fly it to this day. Magnificent jet.

 

So even the real world selling situation was simulated in that package. 

That's what I call attention to detail. 

[Slayer 190]

Slightly off topic but I looked at that link Kyle provided to FDS. They are kind of implying that the new 747 will work with their hardware? Is the release version going to have built in support for their hardware?

[CaptainLychock 19]

Would be really cool if the MAX was an addition to the package and also a scimitar winglet option for the current NG,, Even better if they picked up a 4th party program for shared cockpit like the Majestic Q400. One can only wish

[Patco Lch 1,465]

All this sounds very exciting. At 64 I hope the good Lord lets me be here to see it.

[teopereira 25]

I would LOVE a PMDG level 707 but in all honesty single pilot operation of a heavy jet with a crude autopilot that demands raw data navigation is quite simply beyond the skill level of most simmers. Heck, most line pilots would struggle to nicely fly a raw data SID with no flight director and that's with someone else twiddling all the knobs and tuning all the radios. It's just about doable in the glass jets because a lot of the workload is taken off you. The amount of preparation that would be needed in terms of getting hold of charts, setting outbound courses, working out DME fixes and intersections would make any instrument flying incredibly hard. It's all doable of course, but I just don't think it would stack up. Most of us would buy it, look at it, fly it around for a bit and realise how hard it is, and go back to the 73/7/47.....

Maybe a 737-200 would be better than... it's a ground school for all the other 737s... We know 2 other developers that made the 737-200 for P3D, but one of them has an ugly cockpit, the other has very limited system simulation and none of them simulates failures... I'm not satified with any of them... We need a 737-200 for P3D that really simulates the whole thing, including failures and which has a nice looking virtual cockpit.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Slightly off topic but I looked at that link Kyle provided to FDS. They are kind of implying that the new 747 will work with their hardware? Is the release version going to have built in support for their hardware?

 

If you listen to the interview going on in the video that prompted this thread, RSR actually talks about this in decent detail. We have the 748 sim assembled (the hardware) and are using it with the alpha builds of the 744 (at least until we transition into working more on the 748).

 

This is something that was discussed as far back as the FlightSimCon of 2015. It's not necessarily new news, but we haven't really discussed it at length anywhere yet. I imagine you'll get more discussion on this as the 748 comes back into focus. These simulators (the 748, with the NGX and 777 anticipated...thus why the NGX came back up into the discussion, as it will require an update to be capable of what the 744/748 are capable of) will be put into the Sim Center we're putting together.

 

You will probably find this presentation at FSC 2015 to be interesting and answer a lot of your questions.

[Airline2Sim 489]

Maybe a 737-200 would be better than... it's a ground school for all the other 737s... We know 2 other developers that made the 737-200 for P3D, but one of them has an ugly cockpit, the other has very limited system simulation and none of them simulates failures... I'm not satified with any of them... We need a 737-200 for P3D that really simulates the whole thing, including failures and which has a nice looking virtual cockpit.

The later 737-200 with LNAV and (I believe) autothrottle capability would be good. That would not too far off the way you fly the Q400 where you have the aircraft looking after the lateral path - which to be honest is the complicated part - while you retain control of the vertical path with various pitch modes.  You still get a good mix of steam gauges and hands on stuff but without the need for having to fly completely raw data. I'm in!

[teopereira 25]

The later 737-200 with LNAV and (I believe) autothrottle capability would be good. You still get a good mix of steam gauges and hands on stuff but without the need for having to fly completely raw data. I'm in!

The DC-6 will be very nice to train radio navigation and study early aircraft systems... will be very interesting... But a vintage jet would also be very interesting...