13 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

I have no idea how much detail will be provided in the upcoming API. Whether it will only indicate where clouds exist, or can differentiate between simple clouds and those that contain precipitation.

Thanks for the info

About the weather radar on MSFS, I think they changed it in SU5 or 6, to stop showing all the clouds, but only area of precipitation

I believe the API will expose probably something like a pointer on a bitmap or on an array of precip density cells.

2 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

What are the specific long-standing problems with LNAV/VNAV/A/P?

 

Jim,

 

I was not talking specifically about RNP/AR function/certification. One of the issues regarding LNAV is how it draws the magenta line, especially during turns plus turn anticipation and intercepts with the A/P.

With respect to VNAV sometimes will ignore or bust altitude restrictions during certain constraints. 

Another issue related to the logic of the VNAV and A/P before acquiring and anticipation on an altitude restriction or even leveling off it will hunt up/down for that altitude instead of a smooth transition.

Those are some of the issues that need attention.

Talking about the RW, all the above will qualify for entries in the MX log to be fixed or under MEL or DDG, you know that very well as an avionics guy.

21 minutes ago, LRBS said:

1)  One of the issues regarding LNAV is how it draws the magenta line, especially during turns plus turn anticipation and intercepts with the A/P.

 

2)  With respect to VNAV sometimes will ignore or bust altitude restrictions during certain constraints. 

3)  Another issue related to the logic of the VNAV and A/P before acquiring and anticipation on an altitude restriction or even leveling off it will hunt up/down for that altitude instead of a smooth transition.

 

1) Yes that's correct, and something that needs to be improved. It's not "critical" though.
2) I have never ever seen that in all those years that I've been flying the 737/747/777 in P3D. I assume it was a user error (no offense, that does happen especially on the 737 because it's much less automated).
3) I think I know what you mean but I think this is also the case in the real aircraft, at least partly. I know pilots who dislike VNAV or specific AP behaviour for exactly this very reason. It's not life threatening but it's annoying for the passengers.

Anyway let's agree that there is certainly enough room for improvement.

26 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Anyway let's agree that there is certainly enough room for improvement.

Exactly that's my point.

 

Having in view that PMDG puts out an excellent product there is still space for improving some coding problems, issues that for some people are not noticeable but for another group (like a large number of RW pilots that we fly for a living and enjoy and value this product) we are quite in for a big unpleasant surprise.

Also, I agree with the notion of user error (garbage in, garbage out) but what I was mentioning is just the systems logic fine-tuning and systems behavior.

Even if the initial release of the PMDG 737 brings along with it whatever pre-existing (and apparently non-critical) bugs from previous sim versions, it is still a landmark moment IMO to have an aircraft of that quality and depth in an environment/platform as rich as MSFS.. where it certainly looks like at least the visual fidelity will exceed previous levels (I think when Rob says "in many areas it is even more detailed because the MSFS platform allows us to do more than we could with Prepar3D" I take it to mean at least that). And it can only get better in future revisions, and especially their upcoming 777 and 747 which I'm most looking forward to.

Edited March 16, 20224 yr by lwt1971

12 hours ago, anden145 said:

I'm confused. What are these massive issues with A/P, VNAV and LNAV that you keep mentioning??? I've never noticed anything with their planes... but then again, I'm not such a vivid flyer.

There are no massive issues with the auto flight system. As explained already, LNAV isn't as accurate in tracking the magenta line and occasionally veers off a bit before realigning. The real aircraft never deviates from the magenta line. This is a code issue that is being overhauled and is close to beta testing on the 747. This has admittedly been a long wait since the code used currently is about 12 years old, according to PMDG. The airplane also won't properly fly radius-to-fix legs but instead uses pseudo waypoints along the arc. This is just a feature that so far hasn't been implemented though; it's not a bug.

With regards to VNAV, I've seen it mentioned occasionally with the 747. I don't have that one so I can't comment on it, but what I can say is that I've never seen VNAV bust a restriction, even on complex procedures, just as I have never seen it hunt for a level off altitude. It flies very smoothly. This is in the 737 and 777. For the record, I'm not saying it doesn't exist as my experience logically isn't definitive, but since I've flown these two for years and never seen it I will say this seems far from being an issue, if at all.

The only issues I've ever had with PMDG 737's is getting them slowed down to not bust speed constraints... 🤫

Always hot bombing down from the flight levels but that's just how I fly.

Very slick aircraft.

22 hours ago, BIGSKY said:

It makes the airplane un-airworthy,because you cannot dispatch Part 121,into known or forecast thunderstorms with inop radar. I had that argument with real-world dispatch/maintenance control a few times...

I'm fairly positive many elements even in the most advanced computer simulations would make an aircraft "unairworthy," including being piloted by one person without a commercial pilot license.

The temporary lack of weather radar does not in any shape or form block this product from possibly being one of the best aircraft add-ons available (if not the best) in any simulator.

Even simply the fact that it runs on an engine that isn't limited by performance that wasn't acceptable in 2012 means that there is a lot more overhead for advanced simulation in terms of pure calculations.

Developers have been fighting against P3D's abysmal performance and utter lack of optimization for years in order to try and squeeze advanced systems in it without tanking the framerate even more than it already is.

It's fairly funny to see the pre-emptive negativity from some.

Edited March 16, 20224 yr by Abriael

I see no reason to say the PMDG 73 can't do RNP AR procedures; the only ability it lacks (on older sims, we'll see what we get here) is the ability to do RF legs.  RNP AR procedures don't necessarily include RF legs, and even when they do, the PMDG box can still fly them, they just have to be approximated by a series of waypoints.

Back in FSX, I created the whole series of proprietary RNP procedures that my company uses in Alaska, and the sim actually flew them just fine.  Now, because of the need to use pseudo waypoints to create the RF segments, my in-sim procedures weren't a 1-1 match with the approach chart, but I was certainly able to create procedures in a way that caused the PMDG sim to track the real-world lateral and vertical paths of these procedures.  Descending, twisting approaches through the Wrangell Narrows into Petersburg, or up the channel into Juneau, or curving through the Sitka harbor bowl, rolling wings level on final at 200ft...   sure looked the same out the windshield anyway.

I am also looking forward to RF capability, and we know it's coming.  Not too important to me that it exists on launch day though... there's plenty of other flying to do, and in the end, the box can still fly these procedures from a functional standpoint.

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Back in FSX, I created the whole series of proprietary RNP procedures

Yesterday I flew the Tincontin Rwy 02 RNP AR approach in the FBWA320 and it worked flawlessly. I had do a little manual editing, but for the most part, the box already had the right altitudes for the published waypoints. As you probably know, I had do a little math to figure out where my TOD was, but when I was close enough to the first waypoint that had a constraint, I put the altitude to manage mode. The plane hit all the all of the next constraints, altitude and lateral. I know its not a true RNP AR approach and that the FBWA320's VNAV is still a work in progress, but it still will hit constraints on target and fly the approach as published. S

So, yeah -- I think the PMDG 737 should have a working RNP AR ability. At least, I'm hoping so! 

1 hour ago, Bdub22 said:

So, yeah -- I think the PMDG 737 should have a working RNP AR ability. At least, I'm hoping so! 

Well that's what I mean... it will (I assume, since it did even in FSX.)  The only time any workaround or modification is needed is if the procedure contains an RF leg.  I don't speak Airbus, but I'm not sure why you'd need to figure your own TOD?  Even in FSX, once you had the procedure activated, LNAV/VNAV/dial the dirt, and click off the autopilot when you want to fly, or at least for the flare, and done.  

Even the freeware G1000 NXi has had fully working VNAV for a while now; as far as I know it's not something that should be a challenge.  

Development is coming along quite nicely!😉

Edited March 17, 20224 yr by blueshark747

Is the freighter variant a -700 or -800?  I can't remember what exists in the real world, both, or BCF or PF or -F or...

Anyway, I'm curious if both PMDG's -700 and -800 will have a freighter variant?

Yawn.