Honest question, PMDG vs Aerowinx PSX 747 - key differences?

[paradoxbox 13]

I'm in the market for a 747. 

I have been using Aerowinx's PS1.3a simulator for something like 15 years now, maybe more. Until its successor PSX came out it was undoubtedly the highest fidelity 747 simulator available and PMDG was actually founded in order to create the manual for that sim.

Now with the new PMDG 747 and PSX on the market, I'm a bit stumped at which one is for me.

The biggest benefit of Aerowinx's sim was the extremely accurate FMC/CDU system with, as far as I know, every single page modeled even going as far as engineering / tech pages and lots of ACARS functionality.

The flight characteristics and things like fuel burn, AoA in cruise, etc. etc. are all excellent in PS1.3a as well and probably have gotten even better in PSX.
Unfortunately it's nearly $400.

How has the PMDG 747 come along since the last 747? Have the FMC pages been improved? Autopilot logic etc more reliable? How about failures and failure realism (I.e. are hot starts just a scripted event or are they simulated properly?)

I have the old 747 and it's nice for a jaunt but compared to the 777 and definitely PSX, I notice the lack of features and minor inaccuracies quickly. It also had a lot of autopilot quirks which drove me nuts - 737 and 777 were much better in this respect.

 

Don't mean this to start a flame war, I like PMDG's products! Just want to do some research before I plonk down cash, they both seem to be great products.

[Captain Kevin 586]

20 minutes ago, paradoxbox said:

How has the PMDG 747 come along since the last 747? Have the FMC pages been improved? Autopilot logic etc more reliable?

I personally haven't had any issues with the Boeing 747-400. I'm not sure what issues you had with the FMC pages or the autopilot, so I couldn't answer that.

21 minutes ago, paradoxbox said:

I have the old 747 and it's nice for a jaunt but compared to the 777 and definitely PSX, I notice the lack of features and minor inaccuracies quickly. It also had a lot of autopilot quirks which drove me nuts - 737 and 777 were much better in this respect.

I think some of the features that were introduced into the 747 might get rolled back into the 777 and 737 at some point if that says something. I could be wrong, but I thought I read it somewhere.

[paradoxbox 13]

Thanks for the reply

Just to be clear I meant I have the original version of the PMDG 747 made for FS9 then upgraded for FSX. It had some problems with porpoising autopilot while in vnav on long leg distances, among others. Not a huge problem but sometimes it did interfere with my flights.

As far as the FMC pages go, things I mean are stuff like the ACARS page. With Aerowinx's sim we can use the ACARS before starting up to send a request (to a separate application or a server wherever) to get takeoff performance data which then gets printed on the screen (Or printed to your printer if you want). Other stuff like fields that can't have any data input into them because the function is not modeled (Even if it's not modeled I would prefer to be able to input data just to keep the flow consistent). I think this mostly went away in the 777's but how is the 747 v3 in this regard?

And..very interested to know about what kinds of failures are simulated and the depth of the actual simulation behind each failure.

[PMDG777 231]

11 minutes ago, paradoxbox said:

Thanks for the reply

Just to be clear I meant I have the original version of the PMDG 747 made for FS9 then upgraded for FSX. It had some problems with porpoising autopilot while in vnav on long leg distances, among others. Not a huge problem but sometimes it did interfere with my flights.

As far as the FMC pages go, things I mean are stuff like the ACARS page. With Aerowinx's sim we can use the ACARS before starting up to send a request (to a separate application or a server wherever) to get takeoff performance data which then gets printed on the screen (Or printed to your printer if you want). Other stuff like fields that can't have any data input into them because the function is not modeled (Even if it's not modeled I would prefer to be able to input data just to keep the flow consistent). I think this mostly went away in the 777's but how is the 747 v3 in this regard?

And..very interested to know about what kinds of failures are simulated and the depth of the actual simulation behind each failure.

The 747 has at least the functionality of the 777 (obviously realistic to a 747 not a 777). It doesn't have acars but it has the same "route request" and wind requests etc, that the 777 has.

I'm not sure about what data inputs your talking about to confirm or deny, you'd have to give a specific example.

[evaamo 549]

I have both and enjoy both. I usually end up using PSX more often, however that is for my own particular reasons.

Aerowinx PSX is a masterpiece, make no mistake. It's worth every cent. But I think it's for different target audiences. Think of it as a:

- Stand alone flight simulator for professionals (and luckily for us hobbyist alike). This gets rid of some of FSX/P3D limitations. (More about this in a minute).

- A fully networked piece of software that is a dream for cockpit builders.

- Level of fidelity and complexity of the systems make it a sort of CBT (Computer-based training) package.

On the other hand, not everyone enjoys 2D panels, or the simplified external views or has the need for a networked simulator for cockpit building.

Now the question is, what do *I* like so much about it as to having made that expensive purchase?

Well, I was a PS1.3 user like yourself. And to me, PSX represents everything we loved about PS1.3 (and then so much more) but in the year 2017. I am not a cockpit builder nor a professional user, and while PSX can be a bit " lacking "  graphics wise, it can be " hooked " to P3D and X-Plane 11 and use these simulators as  " scenery generators " which for me brings together the best of both worlds. As a FSX user of the PMDG 777, for example, I was getting hit by OOMs. When I moved to P3Dv4, my long-hauls were no longer tied to the limitations of the 32bit FSX/P3D and that in itself was ...hmm... liberating!!!.

In addition to that, the PSX flight model feels much more fluid than FSX/P3D, not to mention that you don't need a quantum PC to run it properly. And for those of us who still love 2D panels, PSX offers something rarely found on today's flight sim add-ons.

On the other hand, if you like eye candy (who doesn't?!) and an amazing sound environment, you just can't go wrong with PMDGs QOTS II. I usually fly it when I want to have a different 747 experience. And on top of that, you get a very nice and realistic systems rendition in the PMDG version.

I know you don't have the P6 and the other circuit brakers to play with, but the argument that you seldom touch those on 99.99% of the real world 744 ops is true. The ACARS / CPDLC functionality of PSX (which I like a lot) is super nice to have, but I'm sure someone could develop something like that for the PMDG version.

One thing in which I think PSX excels is in its VNAV modeling. The crazy details to which Hardy Heinlin has taken his VNAV implementation is impressive. The counter-argument, though, is that most of us wouldn't even notice such details unless we were rated in the real thing or an engineer or an instructor working for a real world 744 operator. Some details were even unknown to the pro users of the Aerowinx forum until some of the implementation discussions began to take place (and I'm not talking just VNAV, of course).

All in all, most of us who are either hobbyist or GA pilots or even ATPs flying other aircraft than the 744 would probably never need the amount of technical detail built into Aerowinx PSX. The complexity and fidelity of PMDG's QOTS II is super and more than enough (from my non-professional point of view, that is). More so now that we have a 64bit simulator and can fly long-haul without the constant paranoia of the OOM.

Having said that, I'm 100% absolutely sure that you would fall in LOVE with PSX in a heartbeat!

Hope this helps.

cheers

-E

ps: if you'd like to see Aerowinx PSX in action together with XP11 as a scenery generator, I have uploaded a video to You Tube featuring the Canarsie Approach into Kennedy's 13L. Here's the link: 

 

 

[BlueStar 323]

Hardy does good work.  Both are excellent.  

blaustern