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 December 19, 20232 yr by UAL4life

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 December 19, 20232 yr by threegreen

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!) 🙂

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 December 19, 20232 yr by rmeier

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.

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!

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. 😄

 

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. The 777 feels like a cozy seventies-household living room in warm brown tones mixed with hyper-looking neon-green overhead panel illumination.

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

 

Edited December 20, 20232 yr by JetCat

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 December 20, 20232 yr by Christopher Low

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 December 20, 20232 yr by Cognita

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.