PMDG 777-200ER Released

[Noel 4,494]

47 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

I am still a supporter so i might go with the 200ER later on (EFB, performance etc )but i read that the airport moving map is not present. This would be nice to have as an update like the 747-8.Michael Moe  

I disabled the EFB in the NGXu as it was eating up about 10% of the main thread, and for what seriously?

[jon b 2,047]

I’ve had the 777 tucked away but haven’t really used it . I bought it a year or so ago to have a look at when I though I might end up flying one, but that came to nothing so I’ve left the 777 alone since.

Personally I’ve no idea what a 200ER is and I had no desire to have own one but I thought the addition of a high quality  EFB with performance application might be useful as it would give greater commonality with the 787. I could then bring my PMDG out of the hanger and use it to supplement my QW 787 flying   , which I think is a fantastic add on but is at present lacking a couple of things the PMDG 777 has like non-normal section of the ECL, and advanced failures.

Having bought the upgrade I must admit to being a little disappointed to discover than the EFB performance application doesn’t support the send output function., which is kind of the whole point of having the performance application on the EFB rather than an iPad, it removes the chance of human error transferring figures to the FMC. The data transfer function is present but it only works one way, ie the EFB will copy FMC figures, so it’s a shame it’s not been implemented in full.

I’m not seeing the issues in pitch that people are speaking about, however I am flying with a fulcrum yoke , truly excellent by the way, which has a lot of pitch travel, plus I’ve tuned the null zone and sensitivity feel right for the PMDG 747 so maybe that’s helping. I do see quite a Jerkiness  in pitch if I try flying through the trim rather than the proper technique of using the yoke, but we all do it 😉. 
 

I’ve no time on 777s but the 787 is tuned to handle the same as the 777 as you know so I would expect it to feel familiar, and it does. Again I’m not seeing the pitch power coupling that people are mentioning, when I put in a hand full of thrust the nose stays put as it should with the FBW removing the coupling. The nose will then correctly rise as the aircraft accelerates away from its trim reference speed.

All in all from the little I’ve used it, a few hand flown circuits and raw data ILS approaches, I’m really quite enjoying the hand flying experience of this aircraft. Though I guess I could have got the update for free, as it was really just the increased functionality of the EFB I was after, so as I mentioned it would have been nice to have the send output function work. Still I can bring up my navigraph charts in VR now, which is a great feature on the QW 787 EFB.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by jon b

[Mroberts95 136]

1 hour ago, jon b said:

I’ve had the 777 tucked away but haven’t really used it . I bought it a year or so ago to have a look at when I though I might end up flying one, but that came to nothing so I’ve left the 777 alone since.

Personally I’ve no idea what a 200ER is and I had no desire to have own one but I thought the addition of a high quality  EFB with performance application might be useful as it would give greater commonality with the 787. I could then bring my PMDG out of the hanger and use it to supplement my QW 787 flying   , which I think is a fantastic add on but is at present lacking a couple of things the PMDG 777 has like non-normal section of the ECL, and advanced failures.

Having bought the upgrade I must admit to being a little disappointed to discover than the EFB performance application doesn’t support the send output function., which is kind of the whole point of having the performance application on the EFB rather than an iPad, it removes the chance of human error transferring figures to the FMC. The data transfer function is present but it only works one way, ie the EFB will copy FMC figures, so it’s a shame it’s not been implemented in full.

I’m not seeing the issues in pitch that people are speaking about, however I am flying with a fulcrum yoke , truly excellent by the way, which has a lot of pitch travel, plus I’ve tuned the null zone and sensitivity feel right for the PMDG 747 so maybe that’s helping. I do see quite a Jerkiness  in pitch if I try flying through the trim rather than the proper technique of using the yoke, but we all do it 😉. 
 

I’ve no time on 777s but the 787 is tuned to handle the same as the 777 as you know so I would expect it to feel familiar, and it does. Again I’m not seeing the pitch power coupling that people are mentioning, when I put in a hand full of thrust the nose stays put as it should with the FBW removing the coupling. The nose will then correctly rise as the aircraft accelerates away from its trim reference speed.

All in all from the little I’ve used it, a few hand flown circuits and raw data ILS approaches, I’m really quite enjoying the hand flying experience of this aircraft. Though I guess I could have got the update for free, as it was really just the increased functionality of the EFB I was after, so as I mentioned it would have been nice to have the send output function work. Still I can bring up my navigraph charts in VR now, which is a great feature on the QW 787 EFB.

 

It doesnt support that function of send output because the 777 does not do that in real life,

The 787 and 777 EFB/FMC are setup differently IRL.

They were not going to model something that doesnt exist in real life.

[jon b 2,047]

40 minutes ago, Mroberts95 said:

It doesnt support that function of send output because the 777 does not do that in real life,

The 787 and 777 EFB/FMC are setup differently IRL.

They were not going to model something that doesnt exist in real life.

Ahh, that would explain that then ,thanks for the info 👍 I just looked at the PMDG manual and it said "not implemented" so I took that to mean that THEY had not implemented it.

I did hear that Boeing were planning on withdrawing support for the integrated EFB in the future and instead setting up a flightdeck wifi for the FMC to talk directly with ipad based portable EFBs. That was relating to the 787 at least.

[threexgreen 3,139]

21 hours ago, killthespam said:

@threegreen, I'm afraid you sound like them.

But that's ok, we are entitled to our opinions.

 

I will say this, you can keep on defending them but they are their own enemy.

I'm not here to defend them. It's my own discontent I'm voicing. Valid criticism is not an excuse to throw unjustified flak around. There are plenty of threads going down because of this. I didn't want to go into this beyond my initial comment that I posted because the topic briefly came up so let's cut it here.

[deltaalpha 0]

I’m happy that PMDG decided to offer the upgrade for free as I think they make great products.  However, with the 777 I’ve always experienced the bug (or whatever you want to call it) where the plane can’t decide if it is on the ground during landing. The thrust reversers cycle on and off numerous times during touchdown. Had it in P3D v4 and it’s still there in v5, I was hoping it would be fixed.  I’ve tried turning off high idle flare as suggested in their forums and still does it.  Never had an issue with the 747 or 737.  Just kills the immersion for me when I can barely stop in enough time to make the last turn off of a long runway so I think I’m gonna keep this one parked in the hangar.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

I assume that is not a universal issue, as I have never had a problem with the 777 thrust reversers, and it stops a fair bit quicker than the 747.

[michaelth 76]

I am one hour from Lisbon, 38.000ft above LETL (Teruel) in the huge cockpit of the 777-200. It looks simply breathtaking in VR and I am thankful to have it back.

Yes, it sounds naive, but go flying!

Michael

[mpo910 2,112]

15 minutes ago, michaelth said:

I am one hour from Lisbon, 38.000ft above LETL (Teruel) in the huge cockpit of the 777-200. It looks simply breathtaking in VR and I am thankful to have it back.

Yes, it sounds naive, but go flying!

Michael

Yes Michael! I do agree on this! 

Is your last name "Th...." by the way? Are you from the Braunschweig area? (FERCHAU)

Marcus P.

Edited March 7, 2021 by mpo910

[OzWhitey 3,353]

23 hours ago, jon b said:

I’m not seeing the issues in pitch that people are speaking about, however I am flying with a fulcrum yoke , truly excellent by the way, which has a lot of pitch travel, plus I’ve tuned the null zone and sensitivity feel right for the PMDG 747 so maybe that’s helping. I do see quite a Jerkiness  in pitch if I try flying through the trim rather than the proper technique of using the yoke, but we all do it 😉

I also haven’t had any real problems with pitch stability, and I’m also using a decent yoke (Honeycomb Alpha). Might be more of a problem with those using joysticks and short-travel yokes.

I’m personally glad to be flying the 777 again after a hiatus, it’s a great aircraft for long-haul flight simming.

[SAS443 1,722]

5 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Might be more of a problem with those using joysticks and short-travel yokes.

I have serious issues with pitch. Using high end PFC yoke w.  hall effect sensor which performs flawlessly in any other sim/Aircraft. Something is def. weird in the FBW and the way elevators behave to compensate for thrust coupling and gust factors. 

I am using MA realturb, ezdok and Active Sky. These combined presents a much complex environment for any flight control augmented airliner. FSL A320 has similar issue for me, but way less pronounced.

[jon b 2,047]

53 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

I am using MA realturb, ezdok and Active Sky.

Perhaps this may be the cause then ?, I just have active sky running. 

I know when I was involved in the earlier 747 projects ,in the mid 2000's PMDG were putting a tremendous amount of programing into their flight dynamics and it sampled a huge range of  environmental variables, and that was just to make the old analog 747 fly right. I would imagine the FBW system modelled in the 777 would be even more in depth, and therefore also more sensitive.

Edited March 7, 2021 by jon b

[SAS443 1,722]

16 minutes ago, jon b said:

Perhaps this may be the cause then ?, I just have active sky running. 

I know when I was involved in the earlier 747 projects ,in the mid 2000's PMDG were putting a tremendous amount of programing into their flight dynamics and it sampled a huge range of  environmental variables, and that was just to make the old analog 747 fly right. I would imagine the FBW system modelled in the 777 would be even more in depth, and therefore also more sensitive.

Yes I believe you're correct, Jon. But the plane does have issues with the FBW as well.

tests on the pmdg 777 forum by users who flew the plane witn no wind/weather reported a much better experience. That, along with increasing the null zone in pitch from 1% to 10% seem to yield good results.

Edited March 7, 2021 by SAS443

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

I've watch a IRL 777 captain fly it on stream. It was clear in his mind that the issue was with the plane and not your joystic. I will side with his expertise on the matter. 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

10 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

I've watch a IRL 777 captain fly it on stream. It was clear in his mind that the issue was with the plane and not your joystic. I will side with his expertise on the matter. 

An “IRL 777 captain?”. Wow!  But before you completely disregard Jon’s comments, you probably should read his sig. 😉
 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by OzWhitey