2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

It's funny, Marc is still going at it with him... But I'M the one who gets banned.  😁

WxR + RF legs = Into the abyss.

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

WxR + RF legs = Into the abyss.

You've cracked the equation 😁.  Except, maybe not.  I really do not mean to keep dredging up the drama, but since I'd reported myself here as banned, in fairness I now have to report I'm un-banned, or my timeout is over, or maybe it was just some sort of technical glitch earlier today... But whatever the case, my account seems restored.  So apologies if I incorrectly blamed PMDG.

52 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

You've cracked the equation 😁.  Except, maybe not.  I really do not mean to keep dredging up the drama, but since I'd reported myself here as banned, in fairness I now have to report I'm un-banned, or my timeout is over, or maybe it was just some sort of technical glitch earlier today... But whatever the case, my account seems restored.  So apologies if I incorrectly blamed PMDG.

You’re not really incorrect, they barred you and then decided they’d made a mistake or it looked bad and undid their mistake/decision.

Either way, now you know they don’t like experts and people that fly these aircraft for real, pointing out things that are broken or missing on their aircraft so you’re (or other experts) now less likely to join in or criticise anything they do. 
 

Now the PMDG forums are likely even more of an echo chamber and those that run it will become even more high on their own supply. 
 

 

Edited January 31, 20242 yr by g-liner

18 hours ago, g-liner said:

Working title? 

Their LNAV in the 78 is now more realistic than PMDGs 737. If PMDG  don’t improve it for the 777 (which is what started all the hoo ha on the PMDG forum) it will also be more realistic than that. WT have done what PMDG haven’t managed to do in 8 years. Produce a decent LNAV. 
 

I find operating the WT 78 a more realistic experience operationally on the line than any PMDG at the moment. Although the PMDGs do have more switches that work etc, if that’s what’s most important to you. 

It  all depends which aspects of the aircraft you want to be replicated in the most detail. Personally I’m not bothered about CBs and cabins or fire extinguishers or no smoking signs etc, I’m more into replicating approaches I do at work and in the work sim and that’s all about the LNAV and VNAV and how the AFDS works etc. 

That's a strange take to be honest. If you just want one or two features and they are better than elsewhere, sure, based on that it's better. But an aircraft addon isn't just a few features, and with regards to what's simulated overall there is no question that PMDG aircraft are way more in-depth than the WT 787. PMDG also have several different Boeing aircraft and variants simulated to that level while WT improved only one.

This isn't a dig at WT but there is no one who simulates Boeing aircraft like PMDG does. There is no competition there, and it's certainly not WT.

 

2 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

That's a strange take to be honest. If you just want one or two features and they are better than elsewhere, sure, based on that it's better. But an aircraft addon isn't just a few features, and with regards to what's simulated overall there is no question that PMDG aircraft are way more in-depth than the WT 787. PMDG also have several different Boeing aircraft and variants simulated to that level while WT improved only one.

This isn't a dig at WT but there is no one who simulates Boeing aircraft like PMDG does. There is no competition there, and it's certainly not WT.

 

Like I said

”It  all depends which aspects of the aircraft you want to be replicated in the most detail” 

Sure PMDG has far more working switches etc but the lack of fidelity in LNAV for me makes Working title aircraft a more realistic experience and more useful to use for practice in the IRL sim. 
 

For what you want the sim for, you obviously find the PMDG more realistic. 
 

Each to their own. 

This is about the 777 g-liner. Not sure what working title has to do with that considering they don’t make one 

18 hours ago, RobJC said:

I think that entire exchange with RSR and Marc went south when Marc called the lack of a feature "embarrassing." If you don't like the company or the products they make then move on. No need to be a troll. 

I really do have an issue with this view. Marc is a long-time PMDG supporter and a beta tester on PMDG's own invitation. He's always been helpful and positively engaged in testing. Calling him a troll is bizarre.

The issue here is that the new navdata was supposed to have been released several times over a span of 10 years and it appears the newest release statement isn't going to materialize either. You can't fault anyone for asking about it or losing patience, no matter who it is, and handling this by telling your own beta tester that you're happy to delete his account and that he should find a new hobby is very poor taste. I don't have a problem with PMDG myself and usually defend them against nonsensical criticism but that reply was inappropriate.

9 minutes ago, micstatic said:

This is about the 777 g-liner. Not sure what working title has to do with that considering they don’t make me. 

I was responding to the poster threexgreen, who wrote this statement.

 

”They're the kings of Boeings because there is no one else, no matter the quality.”

 

WT make the B787 which is a common type rating with the B777  for many of us for fly it, or them.  I think you might be busy if you quote every post that isn’t directly about the 777 though? 
 

I’m only answering his/her question really. 

Edited January 31, 20242 yr by g-liner

24 minutes ago, g-liner said:

Sure PMDG has far more working switches etc but the lack of fidelity in LNAV for me makes Working title aircraft a more realistic experience and more useful to use for practice in the IRL sim. 

I didn't deny this. I'm just saying there is no competition to the depth of Boeing aircraft simulation the way PMDG does it.

2 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

I didn't deny this. I'm just saying there is no competition to the depth of Boeing aircraft simulation the way PMDG does it.

OVERALL depth perhaps but not in replicating certain types of common approaches using GPS which might be what others like me want the sim for. 
 

Don't get me wrong I think the PMDG aircraft are great I love the DC6 but they’re no longer leading innovation and some of their systems replication like LNAV is now old and far behind what others like WT have achieved. 

 

This is what seems to upset PMDG and some on here perhaps, people like stearmandriver are asking genuine questions here and on their forum about if this (lack of fidelity in some important areas) is going to continue into the new 777 and the answer unfortunately appears to be yes. 
 

If you or anyone else find the PMDG aircraft realistic enough overall for what you want then that’s great. Others are looking for different things though and anyone commenting on this fidelity shouldn’t take away from your enjoyment one bit. 
 

It’s just different opinions on the fidelity of an aircraft in the sim and also it’s possibly based on differing wants or needs? 

16 minutes ago, g-liner said:

If you or anyone else find the PMDG aircraft realistic enough overall for what you want then that’s great. Others are looking for different things though and anyone commenting on this fidelity shouldn’t take away from your enjoyment one bit. 

I appreciate your perspective and again, I didn't deny that for you, some aspects are more important than others. But this isn't about my enjoyment of the products, and we are going in circles now.

My point is that, objectively, PMDG is a lone leader in Boeing products. The scope of what they simulate in each aircraft, even with some issues, is well beyond what the WT title 787 simulates, even if LNAV is better, and PMDG do this for several different aircraft including their variants. That isn't offered by anyone else on the market.

I'm very excited by the upcoming Bluebird 757 and 767 and that someone else is getting into high fidelity Boeings. iFly are probably among this too, even if it looks like it's only one aircraft. We can always use more options.

On 1/29/2024 at 10:33 AM, Jeeeno said:

Current B737 bugs and missing feature that will probably be ported over to the 777 and will very much likely be never corrected. Probably a few items are missing in the list below

1. EGT engine figures wrong. Too high in every phase of flight
2. Too aggressive VNAV behaviour resulting in overshooting the profile especially during descent
3. Questionable LOC intercept: sometimes it intercepts LOC too early and the aircraft is forced to turn in the other direction even if you keep airspeed constant during the intercept
4. Overshooting TGT speed with AP and A/T
5. Wonky LNAV behaviour: 25° bank turn at cruise level, RF completely missing
6. Inserting QNH in DES FORECAST page doesn't have any effect at all
7. Wrong FD pitch attitude in the initial climb after lift off
8. Regarding initial climb after takeoff sometimes the aircraft "runs out of trim available", especially noticeable in the BBJ at low weights
9. Absolutely abysmal ground physics behaviour
10. Horrible wingflex: there are a lot of FREEWARE aircrafts with a much better simulation
11. Useless windscreen wipers. When it rains a lot, you can't see anything outside

What's the source here? The localizer interception in a real 737 isn't smooth either. It will often make a slight initial turn, return to level, and then make a steeper turn to align with the centerline which is what I'm often seeing in the PMDG as well.

The F/D pitch on initial climb is correct AFAIK. The procedure specifically is to establish and maintain a pitch of 15 degrees after rotation and disregard the F/D for this period which is trying to make you lose speed in most cases to climb at exactly V2 plus 15 rather than the speed you're at which you want to maintain.

Edited January 31, 20242 yr by threexgreen

1 hour ago, threexgreen said:

What's the source here? The localizer interception in a real 737 isn't smooth either. It will often make a slight initial turn, return to level, and then make a steeper turn to align with the centerline which is what I'm often seeing in the PMDG as well.

This is indeed typical of most aircraft. I have never worked on any 737 avionics systems, but I have worked on r/w CRJ, MD-80 and EMB-145 avionics and autopilots. When the aircraft is in LNAV mode, if a course change is required, steering commands come from the flight director and FMS working together. The FMS does “look ahead” calculations based on where the aircraft is “now” (typically derived from GPS position), and where it is expected to be a few seconds in the future. Airspeed, ground speed, calculated wind and current aircraft configuration are all factored into the equations of motion which control turn rate and bank angle so that a new course can be intercepted smoothly.

In LOC mode by contrast, steering commands to the flight director/autopilot come directly from the NAV receiver, based only on the rate at which the localizer is moving toward “centered”. No “look ahead” calculations are done, and though airspeed and wind might be factored in, current GPS position is not.

Especially when there is a crosswind, there can definitely be either an initial undershoot or overshoot when acquiring the localizer.

It also depends on what mode the AP is in. If a localizer intercept is being done with the AP in HDG mode, no look-ahead calculations are done at all. If the intercept is done from LNAV mode with LOC armed but not yet captured, the “turn onto” the localizer can be somewhat smoother. 

Edited January 31, 20242 yr by JRBarrett

1 hour ago, threexgreen said:

The F/D pitch on initial climb is correct AFAIK. The procedure specifically is to establish and maintain a pitch of 15 degrees after rotation and disregard the F/D for this period which is trying to make you lose speed in most cases to climb at exactly V2 plus 15 rather than the speed you're at which you want to maintain.

I thought you’d flown a 737? 

1 hour ago, g-liner said:

I thought you’d flown a 737? 

Huh? I'm not a pilot.