Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jrw4

PMDG 777 goes into beta and flight testing

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Reread his post. It‘s Boeing who dictates what failures can be included. And Boeing couldn‘t care less (sic!) about whether someone uses PMDG as a training tool. But they sure as hell don‘t want 200 youtubers recreating the crashes, even if the actual failure on the MCAS was of a different nature. The less people talk about MCAS the better for Boeing.

Then they shouldn’t even license the aircraft out like Gulfstream. (Because that’s exactly what’s gonna happen whether or not they include the MCAS failure simulation)

Edited by UAL4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, UAL4life said:

Then they shouldn’t even license the aircraft out like Gulfstream. (Because that’s exactly what’s gonna happen whether or not they include the MCAS failure simulation)

People can do with the plane whatever they want, so you can't tell them not to trim all the way down and crash. But it's a whole different matter if there's a an actual failure option named MCAS included simulating the accidents.

Edited by threegreen
  • Like 1

JetPhotos | Airliners.net
Microsoft Flight Simulator | PMDG 737 for MSFS | Fenix A320 | www.united-virtual.com | www.virtual-aal.com | Ryzen 9 7950X3D | Kingston Fury Renegade 32 GB | RTX 3090 MSI Suprim X | Windows 11 Pro | HP Reverb G2 VR HMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul K said:

So the thing I hate most is people starting a sentence with a conjunction.

Conjunction Junction, what's your function? (One of us old geezers had to say it!) 🙂

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 1

Regards,
Steve Dra
Get my paints for MSFS planes at flightsim.to here, and iFly 737s here
Download my FSX, P3D paints at Avsim by clicking here

9Slp0L.jpg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Dra said:

Conjunction Junction, what's your function? (One of us old geezers had to say it!) 🙂

Sorry Steve...I couldn't resist sharing this vid clip...I was thinking the same thing!

Boy...has this thread ever gone off the rails from the PMDG 777!!! (Sorry for my near delinquent contribution to this thread...) 

I would love to see the T7 LR (and especially the F!) coming SOON to MSFS!

 

Edited by rmeier
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Dra said:

Conjunction Junction, what's your function? (One of us old geezers had to say it!) 🙂

I'm not old and I remember that!   Seems like it was a commercial with the Saturday morning cartoons.


Rhett

7800X3D ♣ 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ  Gigabyte 4090  Crucial P5 Plus 2TB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mace said:

I'm not old and I remember that!   Seems like it was a commercial with the Saturday morning cartoons.

It was. I grew up in the 70's and it was on every Saturday morning...School House Rock!


AMD Ryzen 7800X3D & Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master MB, w/32 Gb GSkill DDR5 RAM, MSI 4090 GPU, lots of SSD's and M.2 drives, Fractal Torrent Case, Virpil VPC MongoosT-50CM3 Throttle, Virpil Constellation Alpha Stick, Thrustmaster TCA Yoke Boeing Edition and MFG Rudder pedals. Currently on Win11

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2023 at 5:14 PM, micstatic said:

But can't wait for the 744.

That was the first high-quality payware I ever bought for any sim, back in the FSX days. I remember being absolutely blown away at the curved CRT monitors on the flight deck. Such great attention to detail.

In hindsight, I almost wish it had sucked... That discovery has cost me a lot of money in payware over the subsequent years. 😄

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2023 at 9:58 PM, Konterhalbe said:

This will get the "impatient" buyers to buy the less popular version first (ie. 737-700), and some of these "impatient" buyers will then buy the more popular version after (ie. 737-800). You can be guaranteed that Randazzo will repeat the same formula for the 777, to increase the revenue that PMDG can earn.

Why is there a more and a less popular version of the 777? Three rows of seats more or less or what other absolute minimal cabin differences there are between the versions don´t make a plane better or lesser.... 😉

The 737-700 looks even better than the 737-800. The -800 looks too elongated, that´s why flying the -700 is the more sleek and beautiful choice.

 

  

On 12/18/2023 at 11:55 AM, Farlis said:
On 12/18/2023 at 11:54 AM, Fiorentoni said:

Yes, most -400s are freighters by now, but what's the problem?

The night flying.

But the night flying is the best part. :wub:The 777 feels like a cozy seventies-household living room in warm brown tones mixed with hyper-looking neon-green overhead panel illumination.

spacer.png

spacer.png

The old A300, A310, A320 and Boeing 777 have the most cozy and nice-looking night illuminations.

 

Edited by JetCat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 777 was the most consistent and stable aircraft of the three PMDG airliners that I used in P3D. I used a slightly older version, which means that it had the original ground handling physics. I personally felt that the movement of this plane on the ground felt more (let's say believable) than the 747-400 (which had the "upgraded" ground handling that felt too light for my taste, and it also couldn't handle default pushback properly). In addition, the 777 reacted much better than the 747 when the thrust was reduced (the latter "bounced" quite alarmingly at times during procedures of this kind), but the 777 was much smoother.

As for comparisons with the 737, the much maligned "quirky LNAV turns" in the 737 was something that did not affect the 777 to anywhere near the same extent.

The only aspect of the 777 that felt a bit strange to me was the reluctance to flare properly, although I got used to that over time.

Edited by Christopher Low

Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope they model the circuit breakers and that they are properly connected to simulate the electrical system. When I flew this in P3D I would enter the cockpit and work through the pre-flight, one of the first steps of which was the check those nicely laid out rows of breakers on the rear overhead, but it was always a letdown knowing that this was just for show as they of course did not work. We are moving to MSFS2024, so I hope PMDG takes notice of what other developers are doing and brings their products more in line with what I can get on other complex aircraft now. The old reasons for not doing this -- limitations on the number of animations FSX and P3D could achieve -- are no longer really relevant. If they don't, I will likely still purchase it at some point, but without excitement.

Really, I hope they go well beyond what they did with the 737 and bring the 777 up to modern MSFS standards, now that they are more familiar with the platform and what can be done. Beyond the electrical system, the LNAV does need to be updated; things like windows that actually open, and actual consequences for mis-using the aircraft just seem to be essential to me now on what is portrayed as a high-fidelity aircraft. I should not be able to put my engines at full power for hours with no effect on their operation.

Edited by Cognita
  • Like 1

Dan Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2023 at 9:27 AM, Farlis said:

Why is that obvious? I would say for a study level simulation that pilots can also use to train their QRH procedures at home it would be of vital importance that such a failure is simulated. 

What you don't train for you won't be able to react to accordingly when it really happens.

To me the issue with that is that it’s not study level so pilots wouldn’t be advised to use it for practicing something like  MCAS failures. 
 

Obviously you can practice some procedures but not many pilots would actually be using a PMDG aircraft for handling practice more for flows and getting the sequence etc correct. 
 

I use flightsims for general flows and sequences etc or checking out an approach where it’s more about the order of events. I wouldn’t use it for practicing something like MCAS personally as they’re never really accurate enough and it’s often negative learning. 
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...