2 hours ago, markk70 said:

Does MSFS even model pitch changes due to varying engine thrust?

FSX an P3D did not afaik.

Yes. It has a flying lesson about that indeed.

5 hours ago, mrueedi said:

With the fixed or the flawed MCAS?

I mean I don't work for PMDG, but my assumption would be neither.  Why would you bother modeling a system whose only job is to make the plane fly the same as the NGs (in one specific alpha regime)?  Wouldn't you just use the NG flight model lol? 

That said, earlier versions of the PMDG NG did model the STS, and MCAS is just an extra activation at high alpha, so maybe that'll be included?  Kind of pointless either way in a desktop sim, let's face it. 

15 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Why would you bother modeling a system whose only job is to make the plane fly the same as the NGs (in one specific alpha regime)?

That was the intention and was told to the regulators. But, as we know, they missed somehow that mark. 

At least a simple sensor outage in the NG did not cause the trim wheel to become unuseable.

Therefore I thought that simulating the violent nose down inputs of MCAS every 5 seconds could be interesting for sim pilots. US Pilots recreating the ET flight in simulator, had to apply the not taught and "undocumeneted since 737-200" roller coaster procedure, to regain control. Maybe PMDG could make two versions of the MAX (pre and post grounding).

First, there's exactly zero chance - it would be negative if that were possible - that Boeing would license a simulated version of the original MCAS.  So that's not even really worth wondering about ;).  I think the fact that the Max hasn't been licensed yet in any sim is also a result of that - Boeing doesn't want to see Youtube videos of armchair test pilots pretending they can conduct accident investigation for public consumption.  They will license it eventually - PMDG's statement makes that clear - but I see why they want a rebuilt safety record on the airframe first. 

Secondly, you're dramatically simplifying the accident scenarios by saying that a sensor failure made the trim wheel unusable, and that erroneous MCAS activation automatically required the "roller coaster" procedure; neither thing is true. 

Even in the original design of the MCAS, every accident crew initially and correctly halted MCAS activation by trimming against it.  At least two crews that we know of then went on to correctly apply the trim runaway memory items and subsequent QRH, and land normally - with full (manual) control of stab trim, and without ever needing the "roller coaster" procedure. 

The chain of events leading to these accidents is significantly more complicated than "MCAS bad."  In the end, it was a systemic human-factors failure, from initial engineering, through tech pilot testing, through actual test flight, through training analysis/development, through certification.  Seen charitably, the people in each stage of this process simply failed to appreciate the threats associated with the right combination of system design and human error.  You can make a "less charitable" argument for certain stages, as well. 

But here's the thing (as I said earlier in the now-deleted portion of this thread): neither any desktop software, nor the people using it (to include me) are remotely qualified to conduct any sort of accident analysis. I really, really dislike the folks who make the "accident re-creation" videos using desktop sims... they're using real deaths for some sort of personal validation (look at the clicks I got!) and/or advertising revenue generation.  It's not only distasteful, but a waste of everyone's time; there is simply no way to meaningfully re-create these types of modern accidents that aren't caused by a simple mechanical failure or human error, but rather by a complex chain of events that the people using the desktop software don't understand and couldn't replicate in a video game even if they did. 

So basically, MCAS - whether modeled or not - is the least interesting part of a Max sim.  If it does its job, you'll never know it's there, and if you wanted to pretend it did its job badly, I think you can already model a trim runaway. 

 

22 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

First, there's exactly zero chance - it would be negative if that were possible - that Boeing would license a simulated version of the original MCAS.

If Boeing has to license it, then I agree. But do they have to? Are all the addons we have licensed from the real aircraft manufacturers?

How if I programmed a simconnect utility and published it as freeware, that simulates the MCAS input into any given MSFS model? That would be easily doable.

 

25 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Secondly, you're dramatically simplifying the accident scenarios by saying that a sensor failure made the trim wheel unusable, and that erroneous MCAS activation automatically required the "roller coaster" procedure; neither thing is true. 

I studied the MAX crashes a lot at the time, so I know that summarizing them in two lines only provides insights from a very high level and a lot more can be said. But, the statements are still true.

 

29 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

neither any desktop software, nor the people using it (to include me) are remotely qualified to conduct any sort of accident analysis.

Also not AOPA's Air Safety Institute, who made multiple learning videos using MSFS?

which law requires a "license" to simulate a faulty piece of equipment? do car racing games need a "license" to simulate faulty brakes, malfunctioning engines? do western movie makers need a "license" to reenact a wagon that collapses, a gun that doesn't fire. do commercial level-D flight simulators need a license to simulate loss of engine, hydraulic pressure, stuck landing gear?

20 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

If Boeing has to license it, then I agree. But do they have to? Are all the addons we have licensed from the real aircraft manufacturers?

How if I programmed a simconnect utility and published it as freeware, that simulates the MCAS input into any given MSFS model? That would be easily doable.

PMDG works with Boeing licenses for it’s projects so certainly they would not produce a max without a license.  Someone else probably could (in fact one already has).

29 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Also not AOPA's Air Safety Institute, who made multiple learning videos using MSFS?

That's interesting that AOPA is using MSFS for its videos. I surmise that it's probably because MSFS has satellite & photogrammetry for the entire world, so that when they use MSFS, the geography in the MSFS video best matches what that area looks like in real life.

10 hours ago, mrueedi said:

With the fixed or the flawed MCAS?

Why would they model an issue that has since been fixed?

3 hours ago, mrueedi said:

I studied the MAX crashes a lot at the time, so I know that summarizing them in two lines only provides insights from a very high level and a lot more can be said. But, the statements are still true.

The statement isn't true. The trim wheel couldn't be moved due to the excessive aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer which solely resulted from the crew entirely forgetting about speed and letting it go way past V_mo. The sensor didn't cause a blockage of the trim wheel at all. For example, the Lion Air crew flying the accident aircraft before the fatal flight trimmed for the entire remainder of the flight manually via the trim wheel, even with the AoA sensor going nuts.

3 hours ago, turbomax said:

which law requires a "license" to simulate a faulty piece of equipment? do car racing games need a "license" to simulate faulty brakes, malfunctioning engines? do western movie makers need a "license" to reenact a wagon that collapses, a gun that doesn't fire. do commercial level-D flight simulators need a license to simulate loss of engine, hydraulic pressure, stuck landing gear?

It's not about the law, it's about what Boeing permits PMDG to do.

2 hours ago, mrueedi said:

I studied the MAX crashes a lot at the time, so I know that summarizing them in two lines only provides insights from a very high level and a lot more can be said. But, the statements are still true.

 

But... they're demonstrably not.  At least two crews experienced sensor-failure-induced faulty MCAS activation, and successfully landed with full manual use of the pitch trim, without ever requiring the roller coaster maneuver.  We've all done the same thing in level D sims.  MCAS activation did NOT make the pitch trim unusable, and the "roller coaster" was only required if a crew allowed so many activations of the MCAS before recognizing it as a trim runaway that they were placed in a grossly, uncontrollably out of trim state.  

So you can see my point.  Even someone like yourself who has studied these accidents much more extensively than the general public doesn't have a complete understanding of the situation.  That's to be expected.  But it renders the use of desktop software to try and realistically re-create these events pretty moot.  You would never be able to remotely approximate the startle factor and confusion in those flight decks, of multiple conflicting warnings combined with subtle, intermittent trim actuations, combined with the crews' unawareness of the system's operation. 

2 hours ago, mrueedi said:

Also not AOPA's Air Safety Institute, who made multiple learning videos using MSFS?

Yes, also not them.  I agree you can use a desktop sim for some training and demonstration purposes, and often GA accidents are a bit more definitive and single-factor than a modern airline accident.  But even then, that's not a real accident analysis.... there are simply too many things missing.  It may be the best they have available to them, though. 

A freeware mod adding the original MCAS functionality could be done I'm sure and would be an interesting project from an academic sense, to see if you could accurately replicate system functionality. It still wouldn't do much in the way of trying to re-create the failure the way the accident crews experienced it though. 

Regarding licensing... I'm surprised anyone is surprised that that's a thing.  You have PMDG, a commercial entity, selling a representation of a Boeing product, using its trademarked real name, for profit.  How could that NOT require a license?  Freeware, probably different story although I imagine if they cared, a manufacturer could still pursue a cease-and-desist, from using their name at least.  Just a guess though.  But commercial use of a trademarked brand name...

3 hours ago, flyboy0425 said:

Why would they model an issue that has since been fixed?

why would they model the Fokker FVII when that model has since been replaced?

6 hours ago, mrueedi said:

I studied the MAX crashes a lot at the time

Doesn't sound like you were reading the correct material, then. 

I have two friends who flew 737MAX prior infamous crashes. My understanding the problem was not in design problem but rather in inadequate training/understanding new technology implemented in MAX due engine mount. So previously 737NG type rated pilots were found themself in shady area no understanding proper procedures.