PMDG 777 tied to SU15?

[Nikitos2024 0]

I know PMDG stated that that it’s not but I seem to not trust their response anymore. Every time SU15 gets pushback so does 777 even though Robert was super confident on his Q&A about 2 weeks to 2 months release date. PMDG seems to be going downhill with their hypes. 

[Andrew2448 255]

It's very clear and they have stated this today that what's holding the release up is the new navdata and datalink capabilities. The new navdata format has taken them something like 7+ years and is a gigantic coding change in the background, affects practically everything in the FMC. I'm not surprised that testing is dragging out on that particular portion. They should have known better to not give the 2 week-2 month statement knowing that that huge piece was not done yet.

Edited May 7 by Andrew2448

[carlanthony24 583]

"Many many developers beat us to using Navigraphs new format, but part of the time lag for us was the implementation of the entire ARINC 424/PANS-OPS with full compliance for all leg types. This is a pretty significant change, and while many developers have been reading the ARINC 424 for some time, they aren't actually doing the full suite of path computations with associated control logic to ensure the airplane complies with the defined path for specific procedural legs." 

Apparently they will be the first to do the full suite of path computations with associated control logic. 

[rick celik 1,252]

2 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

"Many many developers beat us to using Navigraphs new format, but part of the time lag for us was the implementation of the entire ARINC 424/PANS-OPS with full compliance for all leg types. This is a pretty significant change, and while many developers have been reading the ARINC 424 for some time, they aren't actually doing the full suite of path computations with associated control logic to ensure the airplane complies with the defined path for specific procedural legs." 

Apparently they will be the first to do the full suite of path computations with associated control logic. 

This is interesting, I think this will be adding a whole differnent level to IFR flights.

Edited May 8 by rick celik

[carlanthony24 583]

1 minute ago, rick celik said:

This is interesting, I think this will be adding a whole differnent level to IFR flights.

It has already been done in flight sim. A guy uses this sheet its outdated but apparently the CL650 passed on the tests the person did. 

[Andrew2448 255]

22 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

"Many many developers beat us to using Navigraphs new format, but part of the time lag for us was the implementation of the entire ARINC 424/PANS-OPS with full compliance for all leg types. This is a pretty significant change, and while many developers have been reading the ARINC 424 for some time, they aren't actually doing the full suite of path computations with associated control logic to ensure the airplane complies with the defined path for specific procedural legs." 

Apparently they will be the first to do the full suite of path computations with associated control logic. 

That's a pretty rich statement to be making given that he doesn't have access to other dev's internal code. I would take this with a grain of salt, at least the point referring to other aircraft not under his control.

[YukonPete 602]

As long as it's not related to the Tablet? That was almost ready for 2 years.

 

[Gazzareth 842]

4 hours ago, Nikitos2024 said:

I know PMDG stated that that it’s not but I seem to not trust their response anymore. Every time SU15 gets pushback so does 777 even though Robert was super confident on his Q&A about 2 weeks to 2 months release date. PMDG seems to be going downhill with their hypes. 

Exactly the sort of post that makes devs not want to give out timescales.

If it was waiting for SU15 then it would be a lot easier just to say that, then people would shut up moaning about a release date until after the SU.

 

G

[rick celik 1,252]

5 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

It has already been done in flight sim. A guy uses this sheet its outdated but apparently the CL650 passed on the tests the person did. 

In MSFS*

[carlanthony24 583]

6 hours ago, rick celik said:

In MSFS*

In fairness he did not mention the sim 

[MattNischan 3,900]

12 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

Apparently they will be the first to do the full suite of path computations with associated control logic. 

I don't believe so, we've been doing the full suite of 424 legs with all the various transition cases in all our avionics for several years now (starting with the NXi).

Last I looked we're roughly as compliant as the CL650, which is to say we're about as good as a real FMC. So, I'm not totally sure where their comparison is coming from. I believe the Fenix does quite well in the test suite also (and the FBW A32NX is starting to close the gap as well).

[RNAVV19R 5]

24 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I don't believe so, we've been doing the full suite of 424 legs with all the various transition cases in all our avionics for several years now (starting with the NXi).

Last I looked we're roughly as compliant as the CL650, which is to say we're about as good as a real FMC. So, I'm not totally sure where their comparison is coming from. I believe the Fenix does quite well in the test suite also (and the FBW A32NX is starting to close the gap as well).

The Fenix A320 fails on quite a few of the departures tested.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MubloGDNCNSqmfNcQe5PmnvsAUF_FK8zYhmuSHa-UUw/edit#gid=0

[F737MAX 5,777]

1 hour ago, RNAVV19R said:

The Fenix A320 fails on quite a few of the departures tested.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MubloGDNCNSqmfNcQe5PmnvsAUF_FK8zYhmuSHa-UUw/edit#gid=0

Fenix is on v2.0.0.407, no longer the v1.0.6.146 listed in the spreadsheet. Does that alter the results?

Would be interesting to see FBW A32N and other capable aircraft tested in MSFS.

Edited May 8 by F737MAX

[MattNischan 3,900]

1 hour ago, RNAVV19R said:

The Fenix A320 fails on quite a few of the departures tested.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MubloGDNCNSqmfNcQe5PmnvsAUF_FK8zYhmuSHa-UUw/edit#gid=0

I suppose at that point it really depends on your personal definition of "quite well". There are definitely real world boxes that get flown commercially daily that don't necessarily perfectly hit every case either, although like sim avionics, they get updated over time. That's a list of some of the least intuitive (and sometimes borderline/non-compliant on the spec in design) procedures. From a more global standpoint those particular cases are in the vast minority and their construction isn't necessarily well covered (or in some case at all covered) by spec. So, you have to compare the chart to the computations and continue to add more and more design specific edge cases.

It isn't really just a matter of loading up the latest PANS-OPS volume and coding to that (and especially not 424, which covers nearly zero of these types of pathological cases). In other words, saying one is coding to 424 and PANS-OPS doesn't indicate case completeness (it's what we're all doing already), as the cases that break and their resultant solutions aren't enumerated in those documents outright anyway.

Edited May 8 by MattNischan

[rick celik 1,252]

8 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

In fairness he did not mention the sim 

Doesn’t need to.