PMDG B747-400 Discrepancies

[Captain_Al 66]

These have been submitted to PMDG for correction, but just putting them out here for any that are interested, the last 2 have been mentioned in a previous post.

1. On the ROUTE page, you can only enter a Route Offset by putting in the direction and then the mileage. So, if you want to offset 5 miles left of course, you have to put in L5 on the route offset line, 5L will give you an INVALID ENTRY message. in the PMDG simulation, you can and are allowed to put it in either way. The 400 is different than the 737, which will allow both entries either way. Also, in the 737 you can put in a decimal as well, like R10.5, in the 400 it has to be a whole number only, no decimal distance. This also applies to the -8, so this is the main reason I am submitting this to PMDG, so the error is not transferred.

2. When you put in a Place Bearing/Place Bearing, the waypoint it creates is a 5 character identifier based on the first PB. When you bring it back down to the Scratchpad, it should come back down as a PB/Distance in tenths of a degree and in tenths of a mile, not as a PB/PB like it does in the PMDG model. For example, the crossing of the ABC040 and the XYZ270 radials would be put in as ABC040/XYZ270 and create a waypoint called ABC01 if you are in RTE 1 or ABC51 if you are in RTE 2. When you bring it back down to the scratchpad, it should come down as PB/Distance such as ABC040.0/037.6 that exactly identifies the crossing of those 2 radials. In the PMDG model, it comes back down as a PB/PB, just as you put it in - ABC040/XYZ270, which is not correct.

3. When you put in the Route on the Route page, and then the runway by typing it in or selecting it on the Departure page which is preferred, there should be no connection from the runway to the first waypoint. Under VIA, should be ---, not DIRECT as in the PMDG model. If you put in the runway first and then the Route, you will have DIRECT from the runway to your first point. If you are not flying a SID and are expecting RH for radar vectors, it is cleaner to not have a magenta line going from the runway to the first waypoint, not wrong, just cleaner...

4. When you select an approach on the arrivals page and then select any transition, the INT CRS at R6 should show an intercept to the FAF, not to the transition as it does in the PMDG model. So, if you select for example the ILS 34R at KSEA with the CIDUG transition, the PMDG model shows a CIDUG intercept at R6, it should show a BUCKK intercept at R6.

These were recently submitted to PMDG for correction, and all apply to the 747-8 as well. I have more items on my list than this, but I am on the road and don't have my notes of stuff I have come across while enjoying this product. My intention is to help make the 400 and -8 as accurate as it can be since it is a wonderful product.

 

[downscc 1,327]

Best way to help is putting your observations in a trouble ticket.  Be sure to back it up with credentials and most helpful if FMC software version were included.  Nothing in the forum makes it into the PMDG bug tracking system unless one of the developers takes a personal interest, whereas they keep track of every ticket and items in the bug tracker stay there until resolved.

[Raven9000 272]

19 minutes ago, downscc said:

Best way to help is putting your observations in a trouble ticket.  Be sure to back it up with credentials and most helpful if FMC software version were included.  Nothing in the forum makes it into the PMDG bug tracking system unless one of the developers takes a personal interest, whereas they keep track of every ticket and items in the bug tracker stay there until resolved.

I guess you didn't read the several parts he said he's already submitted it to PMDG..?

 

Thanks for the info OP.

[Captain_Al 66]

55 minutes ago, downscc said:

Best way to help is putting your observations in a trouble ticket.  Be sure to back it up with credentials and most helpful if FMC software version were included.  Nothing in the forum makes it into the PMDG bug tracking system unless one of the developers takes a personal interest, whereas they keep track of every ticket and items in the bug tracker stay there until resolved.

That was done through the PMDG portal. This is all software versions. All of this is in the FCOM. I told PMDG if they want references from the FCOM, I will provide them the reference. Having taught all of this for 30 years in many different simulators worldwide, this is the way the jet operates. It is not a matter of optionable airline choice that is software dependent.

[downscc 1,327]

15 hours ago, Captain_Al said:

That was done through the PMDG portal. This is all software versions. All of this is in the FCOM. I told PMDG if they want references from the FCOM, I will provide them the reference. Having taught all of this for 30 years in many different simulators worldwide, this is the way the jet operates. It is not a matter of optionable airline choice that is software dependent.

Then I do not know what you want to accomplish by repeating your recommendations here because you already have provided direct to PMDG.  This is a user forum, nothing a user can do with this information. Just curious, why the post? 

[MauB 74]

 Why couldn't he? Just curious...

[Raven9000 272]

18 minutes ago, downscc said:

Then I do not know what you want to accomplish by repeating your recommendations here because you already have provided direct to PMDG.  This is a user forum, nothing a user can do with this information. Just curious, why the post? 

 

So others are aware?

Verify if it's just him or a general issue?

Not  having multiple people report the same thing?

Information sharing?

 

What's not clear is the intent of your posts, actually...

[nawarren 83]

16 minutes ago, downscc said:

Then I do not know what you want to accomplish by repeating your recommendations here because you already have provided direct to PMDG.  This is a user forum, nothing a user can do with this information. Just curious, why the post? 

I disagree, I think it is very informative and can help the community learn by pointing out such issues to the community, as i would never have known about them otherwise. Isn't that what a Forum is for? So a big thank you to Captain Al for taking the time and effort to post here. I for one appreciate it, and don't let any negative comments convince you otherwise. Thanks for trying to make an awesome simulation by PMDG even better Captain Al.

Cheers

Neil Warren

[craig_read 43]

I just don't get this and I see it all the time from many on this forum, what made it so hard to just say..

"oh.. I misread that.. sorry about that.. hopefully they'll resolve your issue and come back to you."

I mean a) it shows humility (a good quality in a person I believe) and b) doesn't put other peoples backs up...  and if you want a practical reason.. c) it's easier to type.

[Captain_Al 66]

10 hours ago, downscc said:

Then I do not know what you want to accomplish by repeating your recommendations here because you already have provided direct to PMDG.  This is a user forum, nothing a user can do with this information. Just curious, why the post? 

While I am relatively new to this forum Dan, unlike yourself who has obviously been here for a long period of time, I have found the members of this forum have a keen interest, high intellect, and natural curiosity of their chosen hobby and have a passion for it. In another post, I asked specifically how to report discrepancies, whether through this forum or directly to PMDG. 

Kyle kindly reported that I should submit a ticket and explained that this is the only way to ensure it gets seen, however he also encouraged that discussion and awareness was encouraged as long as I am not putting out false information. This is why I posted it, just for awareness. 

I am impressed at the level of knowledge and passion for learning these airline marvels of technology that forum users possess, many that are not pilots. I find that pretty amazing. So, I think some folks really want to know some of the details I have provided in the post, that they may otherwise not get. Again, mainly an awareness and keep informed issue. If however, the consensus is more what you stated, then I will just submit directly to PMDG and will not repeat what I have submitted. 

The PMDG product is not a perfect product, it is pretty darn good though and for less than $100 you have a very high fidelity simulation. I know they had a team develop this, but there is stuff they did not get right. Most all of the stuff I bring up, if not fixed, will not affect the enjoyment of the product, heck I love it. My intent is to help make it more accurate if they want that input. If they don't, they don't. They can tell me to bug off.

[Captain_Al 66]

10 hours ago, nawarren said:

I disagree, I think it is very informative and can help the community learn by pointing out such issues to the community, as i would never have known about them otherwise. Isn't that what a Forum is for? So a big thank you to Captain Al for taking the time and effort to post here. I for one appreciate it, and don't let any negative comments convince you otherwise. Thanks for trying to make an awesome simulation by PMDG even better Captain Al.

Cheers

Neil Warren

Thanks Neil, that is exactly why I wrote the post...

[Iceman2 110]

Thank you for posting Captain AI.

This is the information many of us come to the forums for.

 

cheers

Ice Man

[raflucgr 2]

Indeed, I concur with Neil and Iceman. It's  very informative, and that's exactly what contributes to making a great product even better.

[funkyhut1 7]

IMHO, Captain Al is spot on in sharing this. 

Last week my copy of Bill Bulfer's Big Boeing FMC User's Guide arrived. 

Alongside the PMDG 744 I vly another top end simulation of the same plane. It's interesting to go through both simulated FMCs and to then compare them to the book. 

All I'll say here is that the $60 spent on the book, for me at least,  has been well worth it in understanding the real thing and then the Sims.

With the arrival of the next gen cockpits, all this stuff will soon be consigned to history and Sims like these. So happy they will be preserved as the "steam" of modern aviation. A bit like a 172 with only a couple of VOR's and an ADF to get you from A to B in FSX. 

The book is highly recommended, the more so because it was last updated in 1999!

[berts 97]

On 4/11/2017 at 0:54 AM, Captain_Al said:

Capt Al said .....this is the way the jet operates. It is not a matter of optionable airline choice that is software dependent.

Al, you raised a very interesting point here about the aircraft's (FMC) operation being software dependent because, as you will no doubt know, there have been many major software changes and upgrades during the life of the B744 which have affected the way these navigation computers work.  In the mid 90's with the introduction of FANS the FMS received a major software upgrade (Version -984) which affected several pages; e.g. the POS REF page, the VIA and TO fields on the active RTE page 1, PROGRESS page 1 etc..Therefore, I wonder if all of the examples you have reported have been present in exactly the same format since the aircraft first flew? 

For example, in Item 4 you said "When you select an approach on the arrivals page and then select any transition, the INT CRS at R6 should show an intercept to the FAF",   I agree, but unfortunately it hasn't always been that simple, because after selecting the Approach all the other approaches and runways would no longer be displayed and only the transitions for the selected approach would be displayed.  After selecting the STAR, STAR transition, Approach and Approach transition the Approach Intercept Line associated with the LSK 6R key would also display a waypoint on the approach course for the selected approach, or an approach transition (the waypoint would sequence along the approach as the flight progressed).  Incidentally, if no transition was selected then the approach would be a straight-in starting at a waypoint 4-8 miles outside the final approach fix and would appear in the FMC as a chart fix or CFXXX where XXX is the runway's designated number. 

Like you, I think the PMDG product is pretty darn good!  It is a complex model working in an oudated 32Bit sim environment and even the likes of CAE and others who make full-sized simulators don't always get things exactly right first time.  When I think about all of the different airline models, equipment and software updates which PMDG have been trying to faithfully reproduce we shouldn't be surprised that a few fundamental items will have either slippped through the net or perhaps haven't been modelled as accurately as we think they should be. I am still blown away by what PMDG has achieved and I feel sure they still want to hear from professionals like yourself with any constructive feedback.

Berite Goddard