747V3 reverse thrust is wrong

[ArjenVdv 190]

Haha, I never intended to release a flame war. I just wanted to make an obvervation clear.

 

With every single flaming post, you are proving me more correct, because this shows you have no proper counter argument to show. 

 

There is nothing to prove about the real world videos, any idiot can read out a few numbers and notice it says "95.x". How is this not proof? If my obversations of the beta videos are wrong, then prove me wrong. People have time for flame wars on forums, but don't have time to jump into FSX, select the 747V3 (if you are a beta tester), hold F2, make a screenshot and post it here. Then it's done. People don't want to do that by the looks of it, that fine, but then you're proving me correct.

 

People keep saying "it's just a beta", but from experience I know that in a beta, the fundamental features do not change drastically anymore. I am actually confident enough to put my money on it that the reverse thrust will be way off.

 

I was only mentioning I thought the reverse thrust in the beta is wrong. Maybe that was a bit too much of an accusation from my side. If the beta is not wrong, I was wondering why it was modeled that way. That is all. It isn't even that much of a big deal to me, the bigger deal has now become how people on the forums are reacting to me and each other. I have been around here for quite a while (since 2010), and this community has become quite cancerous.

Comes from up top.... The arrogance of some of the devs on this forum is laughable. One tiny criticism turns into a flamewar.

 

Why can't Mr. Rogers simply try and lend a helping hand instead of always being on the defensive? Yes Mr. Rogers you know alot about planes and that is fine and dandy. It's unfortunate you use your presumed authority on an online forum to berate others. Foolish behaviour. And no, your products are not perfect like you all seem to think.

Watch out, before we get banned. 

[anubhavs 66]

No, it's not spot on.

Yes, those who believe PMDG could release a product of this complexity completely bug free are clearly mad, and I (we?) don't want them discouraging people from identifying genuine errors.

But you can agree with that statement, without having to automatically defend people who insist they've found a bug; especially when they've never even used the product themselves. It'll waste development time investigating something that might not even be an issue.

'whiners' and 'fan-boys' both prevent constructive debate. Disagreeing with one does not make you the other.

You missed the point. I said "Spot on" because the response "Thank you for your feedback and it has been noted internally' is all what was needed. I am not defending the OP just saying there was a more reasonable way to respond to him.

 

Sadly your response to my post agreeing with another poster is exactly the perfect example of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The conciliatory tone suggested as a response is all I am agreeing with.

[whoispankaj 51]

A simple "Thank you for your feedback, we appreciate it. It has been noted internally to be looked into." could have avoided all of this, IMHO.

 

Sometimes I really don't understand the hostile attitude from this community...

Except that they never asked for a feedback... They are just showing what it is now... That's all..

[ArjenVdv 190]

Except that they never asked for a feedback... They are just showing what it is now... That's all..

It is, at least from my experience, pretty uncommon for developers to ask for feedback in any stage of the development... This doesn't mean we should give it.

[KriVa 307]

Sometimes I wonder why I stopped posting on AVSIM... Then I see a topic like this come along, and the eternal flamewar that follows, and I immediately remember why.

This topic, and especially the answers held within, have made my decision as definitive as it ever was.

 

So long, AVSIM.

[anubhavs 66]

Except that they never asked for a feedback... They are just showing what it is now... That's all..

Any product preview posted on a public forum implies you will receive feedback. When people respond to the preview saying '"Looks great! Take my credit card!" that is a positive feedback and always accepted. In the same vein a response saying "Hang on, something looks off. Mind clarifying?" should be accepted as well. While I don't agree with the OP's original tone, his point was a good one

[DeCampos 40]

+1

[PLund 15]

I think the biggest challenge with forums is you can´t hear the tone a post is made in.

 

If you stand infront of a person you can hear on the voice if it´s curious, sarcastic ect. also you can´t see the body language.
You can´t in a forum for obvious reasons.

 

The OP might have asked in a curious way, but the way others have "heard" it have been in another way.

 

Best regards

 

Peter Lund

[ArjenVdv 190]

Now that people have mentioned the tone of my initial post, I re-read my initial post, and I must admit the tone might have been a little bit rude, arrogant, and accusatory. 

 

it is a bit of a bad habit of me, to go banging on the keyboard on the forums as soon as my autistic and geeky mind (just kidding) notices something out of the ordinary. Combine that with Dutch rudeness and assertiveness, and that is the post you get. I might have caused a flamewar myself right there, just because of the tone. I am sorry.

 

I just wanted to point out a difference I had noticed, and wanted to ask a question as to why the difference was there. 

[737freak 42]

I think that is a fair observation, Arjen. 

 

But I feel that the issue is not your post, but more the fact that the reply from PMDG only added fuel to the fire. No matter what kind of feedback, all feedback should at least be respected in a professional manner, IMHO. 

 

Name calling and putting up such a hardline defensive attitude is not the way to have a respectful conversation. You are free to disregard any feedback or remarks on a personal level or as PMDG, but at least show some respect to a fellow human being thoughts. 

 

Lastly, when such responses are the norm coming from the official channels, no wonder people start seeing that as endorsement or an example on how to communicate. You can't expect the 'general public' not to follow suit, especially when dealing with these kinds of 'echo chambers' where any kind of dissidence is often promptly dealt with (enforced by the number of upvotes on such posts).

[RaptyrOne 1,412]

I suppose PMDG's response helped fuel the slanging that followed but what is sad is how some people here forget what a forum is all about. So it is ok for people to make comments like " ooooh, cannot wait to give you my money" but it is not ok to make an observation or question something which has been voluntarily offered to the members of the forum. If you don't want comments Kyle and PMDG, why are you posting this stuff? Or lock your threads for goodness sake.

 

As I said, this is a discussion forum.....

 

And to those that make comments like "Monday morning quarterback" (whatever that might mean), what are your credentials? This comes across so condescending, so unbecoming, so unnecessary. I recon PMDG is quite capable of fighting their own battles.

 

I love PMDG's NGX, just about the only aircraft I fly. Huge respect for the company's products and all the people that work there. I also enjoy visiting AVSIM regularly too. But this just spoils the fun.

 

Personally I found the OP's question/observation very interesting. Thanks for sharing your observations. If anything, it has resulted in me taking time to consider how I apply reverse thrust in the future, not applying max on every landing by yanking on my "F2" controller axis.

 

Happy Christmas to all those that celebrate!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

A few things here:

 

We don't ban people for disagreeing. That accusation, however, says a lot about the level at which we're being engaged. The echo chamber comment does as well (upvotes "enforce" nothing - if life were based on upvotes, one would imagine that laws and recent political outcomes would be vastly different). Echo chambers do nothing but weaken the arguments of those who will do everything to remain in them. They're entirely counter productive.

 

Similarly, the idea that all comments deserve to be treated with velvety gloves is equally counter productive (the idea that "everyone's opinion is valid and deserves to be heard and respected" is to construct an echo chamber if you think about it). If you opt to offer up criticism, one should be prepared to have that criticism addressed in a manner equivalent to its offering. I challenge any of you to try this "well at least show some respect to a fellow human being's thoughts" in any other setting. Walk up to a chef and tell them they did some dish incorrectly, and you know because you watched the Tastemade channel on YouTube. Walk up to the photographer at an event and start telling them that their technique is wrong based on some YouTube videos you watched. Walk up to a cop directing traffic and explain to them how they're directing traffic wrong, based on the same. Walk up to a pilot after a flight and tell the pilot that some technique used during the flight was flatly wrong, based on some video you watched.

 

Criticism is fine, but the approach also matters. If you approach bluntly with a categorical statement, you will likely get a similar return.

 

 

 

Something you all may be missing, however, is the fact that I've already somewhat addressed this point in another thread. The same person who posted this thread had previously asked if we were going to model the short field package that KLM had (based on this exact video if I recall correctly). This doesn't exist. In that thread I noted that the EEC will determine the appropriate max for the situation at hand. As an example, warmer weather will drive the max up. You can see that the temp in the video of the real landing is around 30 degrees, and it seems that they've really pulled the levers up. Most of our testers have been using real world weather. Most of the areas in which they've flown have been in the northern hemisphere, where it is now winter. Colder temps mean lower max. Additionally, it isn't really necessary to hammer on the engines if you don't need to (and in my case, my hardware throttles will keep attempting to set throttle to zero while I'm holding the F2 key because I'm too lazy to set up my null zones), so most aren't using full reverse (which you can't see because none of us are showing camera views of the throttles while we're actively engaged in stopping tonnes of aircraft).

 

Here is an issue where someone saw one video, of one aircraft, doing one landing, at one field, in one weather condition, with one crew and assumed the entire fleet of 747s will always also do that. This is why operational experience vastly outweighs internet sleuthing, and why it's a little frustrating to see one person see a tiny aspect of a HUGE picture and have them tell you that it's categorically wrong. In a similar vein, if you look at only one pixel of an image on your monitor, it will look red, blue, or green. The whole picture, however...well, as you can see by reading this, it isn't red, blue, or green.

 

When I moved back from Phoenix, I managed to get 40 MPG between fueling up in Thoreau and getting to Albuquerque (where you descend about 2500' continually for about 90 miles). My specific car, doing one specific drive, in one area of the world, in those weather conditions, with me driving, accomplished that. That doesn't mean that it will behave that way everywhere (in fact, the car was geared to be 'peppy' on accel, so the highway mileage was pretty garbage). If some devs were going to be designing a game that included the car, I wouldn't have asserted my thought that they got fuel burn wrong because it didn't always behave like that one specific scenario. I had the operational experience in the car to know that the one specific scenario was just that.

 

 

 

By all means: share your thoughts. All the same, if your thought is "this is wrong because internet," be prepared for a relatively blunt response. Again, I'll go back to the earlier examples. Go tell some random pilot their landing was awful based on landing techniques you read online. Let me know if they took you seriously.

 

If you don't want comments Kyle and PMDG, why are you posting this stuff? Or lock your threads for goodness sake.

 

Because it's a forum meant for interaction. All the same, if you're going to bluntly walk up to anyone and say categorically "this is wrong" anywhere, you should be prepared with facts, evidence, and better yet, credentials. For anyone who is a pilot here, who has sat next to the newly minted PPL holder on a commercial flight telling someone else that the hard landing was garbage despite the gusty conditions, short runway, and recent rain that passed through? Said PPL holder is welcome to believe that. Everyone may have an opinion. That doesn't mean that the opinion is beyond reproach.

 

If someone doesn't rebuke the unfounded opinion of said PPL holder, that poor passenger now thinks that this pilot is bad, despite the pilot doing everything by the book for the situation. This is neither fair for the pilot, nor the passenger. And sure, it might seem a bit 'mean' to rebuke the new PPL holder here, but I'd bet you that said PPL holder won't be making that unfounded comment in the future, having learned something.

[whoispankaj 51]

Well said Kyle

[Tabs 2,790]

There's very likely an FSX limitation at play here - ever tried the reversers in the default aircraft? The FSX engine model (which all jet addons have to use at some base level, regardless of what's being shown on the cockpit displays) is crappy with this stuff. I know I've brought this up with our coders in previous development cycles and I'm basically positive we've done all we can with what FSX gives us. I will ask about the discrepancy vs. OP's video, but seriously guys - you're not buying a real plane here, it's not going to be 100% identical in every conceivable way. It's the best we can do operating on what's now a nearly 11 year old simulator.

I just checked btw and max reverse at that temp seems to be around 76% on our GE's at 25C in the current beta - 58 is definitely not our max reverse, wherever you saw that. Also - what really matters here is the aircraft's stopping distance and the wear placed on the brakes. Reversers simply save brake wear and life - they don't make the aircraft stop any faster. The combination of autobrake setting and reversers result in a preset deceleration rate, regardless of how much reverse is actually used. This means the airplane's going to stop in the same distance regardless of what combination of autobrake and reverser levels are actually used. If more reversers are used, less brakes are used to achieve the same stopping distance.

[anden145 2,285]

Very well said, Kyle!

Totally agree.