2 hours ago, Hoang said:

I tested the 300ER one not 200ER, manual flying is rather difficult as it is too sensitive and the FBW clearly something not right, if PMDG upgraded the logic between engine thrust <--> pitch then they did it too much, whenever there is a change in thrust the pitch behavior is enormous

I had a very similar observation with the -300ER and found that hand flying the approach was very difficult. I was flying “on the numbers” i.e. I was flying the correct approach speed as calculated by the FMC, yet I had to apply constant pitch up elevator input. I have the FBW indicator selected to display on the PFF speed tape, so I’m sure the trim was set correctly. 
 

I have flown the 777 since the original release for FSX and always found it a joy to fly, but something is definitely off about the pitch command logic of the FBW or the elevator sensitivity with this release. 

Edited March 1, 20215 yr by alepro21

I know it's weird to say but I think I'm gonna uninstall the 777 and the 200ER expansion. Will reinstall later this year when the VC update is released.

I'm now too used to the HD VC of the NGXU. Additionally, I can achieve a better setting to reproduce what a real pilot sees in the cockpit without the PFD and ND being too small to read.

Anybody in a similar case or thinking?

Edited March 1, 20215 yr by Simicro

I probably just will fly it less than others but not actually uninstall it. 

2 hours ago, alepro21 said:

I had a very similar observation with...

I find myself in the same camp as you. Flew some patterns in the 777F. Plane was very nervous around the pitch axis. Also the ground effect seemed to be very discrete during landing. I required roughly 2 degrees ANU more than the training manual suggests.

It feels unpolished, if that is a good word to describe it

9 hours ago, kingm56 said:

I do not accept I was incorrect

Lol, I noticed.

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

I find myself in the same camp as you. Flew some patterns in the 777F. Plane was very nervous around the pitch axis. Also the ground effect seemed to be very discrete during landing. I required roughly 2 degrees ANU more than the training manual suggests.

It feels unpolished, if that is a good word to describe it

I've only been flying the updated 200-LR, so I don't know if the new 200-ER is worse than this in terms of flight model.

There's been a fair bit of talk about the pitch axis being squirelly over on the PMDG boards. So I think you're right.

Very much flyable, but the point of a PMDG addon is to properly replicate the real aircraft, and it seems the T7 still needs a bit of flight model tweaking.

 

1 hour ago, micstatic said:

I probably just will fly it less than others but not actually uninstall it. 

I was back to the 747-400 and 747-8 today. Currently, I think they're more satisfying to fly. Good to have the T7 back for a bit of long-haul variety though.

7 hours ago, SKEWR said:

"I also had a situation on one landing as the nosewheel stayed off the ground for a very long time after main gear touchdown (front gear touchdown was around 75 knots when it dropped with no elevator input, AP disconnected)."

I noticed this issue with the nosewheel on all of my landings so far. It seems to just want to stay in the air. For the most part besides this issue, everything seems to work okay, but it can definitely use a bit more massaging.

Cheers, Pete

I'm having the issue of the nose wanting to stay in the air during landings, as well. Hope they get a fix out for it soon.

Regards,

Scott

Is this all true about the pitch and brake being sensitive?

I have watched a few YouTube videos and some have stated this.

I’ll probably wait before making the leap.

cheers 

mike 

Unfortunately, after so many years of development and statements of fixing still, there are big issues with their products.

Problems that they acknowledge related to the LNAV/VNAV, autopilot across all of their products using an FMC (737, 747, and 777).

Despite their acknowledgment, they keep on developing or "upgrading" different versions with the same broken functionalities carried over to the "new" stuff.

I understand the money issue but why would someone create or "upgrade" a product and not fixing first what is broken across the whole product line?

I understand that many people have no knowledge of how LNAV/VNAV and autopilots should work, I also understand that some will fly the airplane out of the cockpit with disregard for everything, but I don't understand how a developer who claims to care so much for the product and "fidelity of the systems" to carry over and over for so many years with the same issues.

This 777 has issues with LNAV/VNAV, autopilot, the same issues as the 747 has on landing regarding nosewheel, speed trend vector problems during deceleration after landing, the airplane is oversensitive (squirrelly) mostly in pitch. Some issues with ground effects in the landing phase, etc.

I don't understand how the competition within the same platform of P3D doesn't have these issues (with equal or better aircraft quality) and they don't complain or point fingers at anybody.

From my perspective, when PMDG acknowledges that they have problems with their product line for so many years and can't find time to fix or accomplish the work brings me to the conclusion that they are on a slippery road.

Maybe is time for a change in the business strategy?

 

Edited March 1, 20215 yr by killthespam

47 minutes ago, killthespam said:

I don't understand how the competition within the same platform of P3D doesn't have these issues

Guess you have never used CS757 Vnav? 🙂

 

47 minutes ago, killthespam said:

Unfortunately, after so many years of development and statements of fixing still, there are big issues with their products.

Problems that they acknowledge related to the LNAV/VNAV, autopilot across all of their products using an FMC (737, 747, and 777).

Despite their acknowledgment, they keep on developing or "upgrading" different versions with the same broken functionalities carried over to the "new" stuff.

I understand the money issue but why would someone create or "upgrade" a product and not fixing first what is broken across the whole product line?

I understand that many people have no knowledge of how LNAV/VNAV and autopilots should work, I also understand that some will fly the airplane out of the cockpit with disregard for everything, but I don't understand how a developer who claims to care so much for the product and "fidelity of the systems" to carry over and over for so many years with the same issues.

This 777 has issues with LNAV/VNAV, autopilot, the same issues as the 747 has on landing regarding nosewheel, speed trend vector problems during deceleration after landing, the airplane is oversensitive (squirrelly) mostly in pitch. Some issues with ground effects in the landing phase, etc.

I don't understand how the competition within the same platform of P3D doesn't have these issues (with equal or better aircraft quality) and they don't complain or point fingers at anybody.

From my perspective, when PMDG acknowledges that they have problems with their product line for so many years and can't find time to fix or accomplish the work brings me to the conclusion that they are on a slippery road.

Maybe is time for a change in the business strategy?

 

1. PMDG just gave us a T7 for P3D v5. A T7 with pretty good - but imperfect - LNAV is better than no T7.

2. They've said that a rewrite of the (very old) LNAV logic is in progress and is one of the next things on the release schedule.

PMDG is slow, but they're methodical in their approach and they build better Boeings than anyone else out there. I'm pretty happy with the NGXu/747/T7, but I also like the fact that these aircraft are steadily improved over time, rather than being completely abandoned for the next project.

8 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

Guess you have never used CS757 Vnav? 🙂

 

Very true. I have literally just spent the evening flying the CS757 around Ireland/UK. Only installed that plane earlier today for the first time in v5. It's quite good fun, but the VNAV and general system functionality left me missing the PMDG planes, which is what I use for 98% of my Boeing flying.

Edited March 1, 20215 yr by OzWhitey

1 hour ago, killthespam said:

Unfortunately, after so many years of development and statements of fixing still, there are big issues with their products.

The LNAV and F/D system is the same in all of their products. An overhaul is in the works and as per statements it's close to go into beta testing for all aircraft. That's why the same inaccuracies are in the newer products as well.

Other than that, we've been over this in another thread some time back. The competition isn't bug free either and has other problems that in turn PMDG doesn't have and in general, there are only very few aircraft developers that even offer the kind of quality that we are talking about here while most aircraft from other developers, without wanting to be harsh on them, are a long ways off from offering the same level of complexity and realism and many truly are full of bugs, in fact.

I know you like to say I'm a pilot, I see things that are off that you will never see (not being harsh), but I'd argue that is excellent evidence of the level of quality we are experiencing. Though, in all fairness, there are also plenty of testimonies from people in the industry who are highlighting the many aspects in which these sort of aircraft addons are working like the real thing and even beat the multi-million-dollar sims in the simulation of some systems.

Evidently, the 777 is suffering from post-release-itis, but there is no doubt this won't get ironed out in the next days. We're complaining at a very high level here.

Edited March 1, 20215 yr by threegreen