2 hours ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

Question... is the Pushback though FMC grayed out cause it's not implemented (the way it is on PMDG 737?) Or am I doing something wrong?

Not implemented currently, but they have stated they do plan on bring it back at some point.

9 hours ago, Mo45 said:

Yes, PMDG has made a fantastic product but when you pay for the product you expect it to be right and realistic. 

Sorry, but as has been proven several times in this thread it is realistic. Some real airframes have gaps here and there, others are perfectly aligned.

This has been a funny read. 

It's totally normal to see different spacing like this between different panels.  This is a common enough thing to see on brand new 737s... You should have seen the old -400 cockpits when I first got on the fleet lol. 

There's nothing wrong with PMDG's modeling here.

To summarize - Bob was right!

Two completely opposite viewpoints from two commercial airline pilots. A classic example of just how difficult it must be for developers at times

Maybe this video you can see better.🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_1WpNorKyQ

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

This has been a funny read. 

It's totally normal to see different spacing like this between different panels.  This is a common enough thing to see on brand new 737s... You should have seen the old -400 cockpits when I first got on the fleet lol. 

There's nothing wrong with PMDG's modeling here.

I agree that you might find some small variations between the panels. Even looking at the ones on Airliners.net, I can't see panels rubbing against each other like this 777. Again, it's not a show-stopper; it just doesn't look right. Also, as I mentioned, below the MCP panel, the placeholder is not to scale, not a show-stopper either. It's just something that I don't see on these airplanes.

As I mentioned, I'm not current on 737 or 777 anymore, but I jump seating a few times a month on these airplanes and I don't see that, even in the "brand new 737s." I'm not dismissing your statement, but is quite difficult to understand. On our fleet, the old (clunkers) like 747 or 380 don't find these big variations like this. So please allow me to be skeptical.

As I mentioned, this is nothing compared to other issues lingering on these products. 

I appreciate that we may not always see eye to eye, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Such is life. 

Meanwhile I'm getting a tremendous joy with the manual flying of this 777... and it's C*u implementation 🙂

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

As I mentioned, this is nothing compared to other issues lingering on these products. 

So what are the other issues lingering with the PMDG 777 as it currently stands? You make it sound serious so I'm interested in this list.

45 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Meanwhile I'm getting a tremendous joy with the manual flying of this 777... and it's C*u implementation 🙂

Since I got the T7, it's all I fly.

39 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

So what are the other issues lingering with the PMDG 777 as it currently stands? You make it sound serious so I'm interested in this list.

If interested, I can send you a private email. I'm on the road flying the line, and it's quite difficult to connect while at hotels. Also, sending a private email will help avoid any misunderstandings. Feel free to reach out to me via private email if you'd like. Additionally, you can find some related discussions on their forum.

 

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

So what are the other issues lingering with the PMDG 777 as it currently stands? You make it sound serious so I'm interested in this list.

I just got delayed, and here is my assessment.

It will be very difficult to find common ground if you are not a real pilot (there is nothing wrong with that, by any means). I'll do my best to explain just a few issues that are real problems for someone who was previously qualified in these airplanes.

First, they introduced these RF legs, but they are still not entirely correct. In normal wx conditions, the airplanes are rock solid and have constant bank angles during turns. Not in PMDG, where there is a constant back and force left/right banking.  Before or after wpt the airplane will turn momentarily L/R of course (as a pilot, if I notice this kind of behavior, I will instantly disconnect the A/P, we cannot allow the airplane to wonder in turns like that), turns should be precise and smooth not for the pilot to wonder what is she gonna do next. It's always predictable and precise. The airplanes are smooth and steady as silk and don't wander off the magenta line. Even if not being a pilot and having Fenix or the Maddog, you will observe how these two fly so smoothly and steadily and play nicely with the magenta line.

The above issues were previously reported in regards to the 737, never attended and brought to the new 777. 

Now, on the 777, we have that trim speed future, quite a different idea compared to other airplanes, and a slightly different flight characteristic; there is a lot of information on the net about it that you can research. Now, their emulation of the system needs more tuning. Hand-flying the airplane is smooth and stable. Not quite realistic in the PMDG 777. For some reason, when you disconnect the A/P, a pitch-up-down tendency and lack of pitch stability can be observed. In the real airplane, after the A/P  disconnect, the airplane will fly like an arrow, completely trimmed for that attitude or mode; PFCs are commanding control surface movement to maintain your trim, pitch, and bank and suppress gusts. During the approach, the small corrections that you would normally apply in a directly controlled airplane, like the 744 or 737, are corrections that the ACEs are already applying automatically. We only correct for the larger deviations, and even then the corrections are very small. 

 

So, in my opinion, they need to fix the interface between the A/P and FD during LNAV operation and brush up on this FBW situation.  

 

Again, for someone not familiar with the real airplane would not know (no disrespect intended).

 

The bottom line is that these 2 products are very nice, and lots of effort was put into their development. So, if they would spend more time and be willing to fix those issues, they would be at a higher standard and in line with what is available on the market. 

 

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

I agree that you might find some small variations between the panels. Even looking at the ones on Airliners.net, I can't see panels rubbing against each other like this 777. Again, it's not a show-stopper; it just doesn't look right. Also, as I mentioned, below the MCP panel, the placeholder is not to scale, not a show-stopper either. It's just something that I don't see on these airplanes.

As I mentioned, I'm not current on 737 or 777 anymore, but I jump seating a few times a month on these airplanes and I don't see that, even in the "brand new 737s." I'm not dismissing your statement, but is quite difficult to understand. On our fleet, the old (clunkers) like 747 or 380 don't find these big variations like this. So please allow me to be skeptical.

As I mentioned, this is nothing compared to other issues lingering on these products. 

I appreciate that we may not always see eye to eye, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Such is life. 

I'm not typed on the 777 yet...but will be (unfortunately) soon enough, so I can't speak to the depth of systems yet. However, the 73 is great....there are a few issues in terms of systems depth, and stearmandriver has much more nuanced experience with the need for updated nav tracking due to the nature of the flying he does. The flying I do on the 73 IRL is pretty vanilla, tbh. That said, when I saw small details like the LE devices going to Full Extend when at flaps 1/2/5 during a stall, the landing gear not retracting with a A system HYD failure, Both FD switches lighting up MA when TOGA is pressed, etc...I've got no doubt that these small details are incorporated into the 777. Yeah, there are some things that are missing/inaccurate, but overall, for products that are less than $100 for home use, with free updates...can't really complain. I mean, it really begs the question 'what do you want then?' Honestly, I'd love to have better triggers for system malfunctions such as speeds/altitudes/distances as triggers. But at the end of the day.......this is what people are complaining about? By all means, complain....just understand how it sounds.

3 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Now, on the 777, we have that trim speed future, quite a different idea compared to other airplanes, and a slightly different flight characteristic; there is a lot of information on the net about it that you can research. Now, their emulation of the system needs more tuning. Hand-flying the airplane is smooth and stable. Not quite realistic in the PMDG 777. For some reason, when you disconnect the A/P, a pitch-up-down tendency and lack of pitch stability can be observed. In the real airplane, after the A/P  disconnect, the airplane will fly like an arrow, completely trimmed for that attitude or mode; PFCs are commanding control surface movement to maintain your trim, pitch, and bank and suppress gusts. During the approach, the small corrections that you would normally apply in a directly controlled airplane, like the 744 or 737, are corrections that the ACEs are already applying automatically. We only correct for the larger deviations, and even then the corrections are very small. 

This I can get behind.

36 minutes ago, LRBS said:

The above issues were previously reported in regards to the 737, never attended and brought to the new 777. 

That's not true though. The 777 has RF legs and even if it's not 100 % accurate at all times, following the magenta line and FD are miles better than in the 737.