3 minutes ago, qqwertz said:

I just cannot warm up to this plane, not after all what happened. Not even in real life, sorry.

Peter

No need to apologize just don't purchase it.  Simple solution 🙂 

5 minutes ago, Jeeeno said:

I'm just fed up of this pax cabin obsession which is affecting many devs atm ... 

I mean there's a room for everyone's likings in this simulator tbh. To me, completing the modeling of the entire plane (or airport interiors for that matter) indicates a completeness of the product. Granted, what I like versus what you like (or expect from the product) may vary, we can't all like the same things in life. 😉

12 minutes ago, qqwertz said:

I just cannot warm up to this plane, not after all what happened. Not even in real life, sorry.

Peter

Me neither, so I wouldn't board a MAX airplane in RL. However, this is just a simulator and things get interessting here, since it's safe and you kind of can try to understand the systems and whats good and bad about the airplane (even thought much of the weird stuff won't be simulated, I guess, but who knows what the developer made out of the MCAS discrepancy).

I am interessted in the MAX, since I like flying real world operations and the MAX - despite all what happend - is still in operation for a lot of airliners and it probably will for the coming century.

What I am curious about is, if it will be the ifly, PMDG or the default version for me. Default is most likely not that high fidelity, but for now I am wondering when PMDG will show off some of the pictures of the MAX, haven't heard anything by now and ifly already delivered very promising screenshots.

Edited August 15, 20241 yr by 737_800

15 minutes ago, 737_800 said:

Me neither, so I wouldn't board a MAX airplane in RL. However, this is just a simulator and things get interessting here, since it's safe and you kind of can try to understand the systems and whats good and bad about the airplane (even thought much of the weird stuff won't be simulated, I guess, but who knows what the developer made out of the MCAS discrepancy).

The thing to understand is that the MAXs flying today aren't the same airplane that was involved in the crashes.  One can only assume the current airplane is what's being simulated; that being the case, all the goofballs who are waiting to "re-create" the accidents are going to just have to manually crash their games so they can say "look, it was just like that" 😁.  It's simply impossible for the present MCAS system to do those things.  

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

The thing to understand is that the MAXs flying today aren't the same airplane that was involved in the crashes.  One can only assume the current airplane is what's being simulated; that being the case, all the goofballs who are waiting to "re-create" the accidents are going to just have to manually crash their games so they can say "look, it was just like that" 😁.  It's simply impossible for the present MCAS system to do those things.  

That's great but i think one of the things that i would like to know is how far are they allowed to model the MCAS (Even if it is now a completely trouble free module in the real aircraft) Has Boeing allowed the two developers in question to completely simulate the real (corrected) MCAS system or has Boeing been so averse to controversy they said you can model and simulate every system but MCAS is a no go.

For me i'm looking for as much completeness in the simulation as possible so that may affect whether its worth getting or not.

On 8/2/2024 at 5:37 PM, UrgentSiesta said:

His level of hysteria is entirely overblown.

for e.g., doesn't the simple existence of MSFS and Study Level airliners make it more likely that some terrorist is going to be ABLE to steal an airliner and crash it into a building? Again?

 

Exactly right. In fact the very existence and development of the FSX paradigm and more particularly the development of 'study level' models for our favorite simulator made possible the realistic practice flights of the 911 terrorists. Let's just shut the whole thing down and play fantasy RPGs  or live in paranoia and fear. Sorry this is not how life operates.

20 hours ago, Keirtt said:

Some of the comparisons folks are trying to make between PMDG and iFly are a bit premature considering we haven't seen anything about the PMDG MAX and all we've seen in regards to iFly are static images and a brief video that toured the cabin. Makes a lot more sense to wait until we can see some actual evidence of each product in a complete and ready state. Until then, this is pure speculation one way or the other which will come out on top.

What not simply compare the general fidelity of the two devs with their well established 737s in Prepar3D?

The fact that one's a Max and one's an NG wouldn't affect it at all.

Edited August 15, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta
Weird auto correct

4 hours ago, qqwertz said:

I just cannot warm up to this plane, not after all what happened. Not even in real life, sorry.

Peter

That's a weird take. Maybe you're young because almost every airliner has had high profile and/or frequent crashes with high fatality counts.

4 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

The thing to understand is that the MAXs flying today aren't the same airplane that was involved in the crashes.  One can only assume the current airplane is what's being simulated; that being the case, all the goofballs who are waiting to "re-create" the accidents are going to just have to manually crash their games so they can say "look, it was just like that" 😁.  It's simply impossible for the present MCAS system to do those things.  

Yep. The other thing to keep in mind is that the malfunction occurred in quite a few other aircraft. Those were saved by the  well trained pilots.

4 hours ago, 737_800 said:

Me neither, so I wouldn't board a MAX airplane in RL.

And yet you likely get in a car (or train or bus) nearly every day and don't give it a second thought...smh

4 hours ago, Maxis said:

That's great but i think one of the things that i would like to know is how far are they allowed to model the MCAS (Even if it is now a completely trouble free module in the real aircraft) Has Boeing allowed the two developers in question to completely simulate the real (corrected) MCAS system or has Boeing been so averse to controversy they said you can model and simulate every system but MCAS is a no go.

For me i'm looking for as much completeness in the simulation as possible so that may affect whether its worth getting or not.

The MCAS is simply another channel of the speed trim system that has been modeled on the PMDG NG simulations for years.  The speed trim has always run in some nose down trim in the high alpha regime, and the current PMDG does that.  MCAS is simply a different version of this.  In a desktop sim it would be relatively impossible to tell which channel of the speed trim system was trimming at that point; it can even be hard to tell the difference in a level D sim, and of course you don't care as a pilot anyway since the same thing is happening - a limited input of nose down trim. 

The problem with the original MCAS was its lack of limitations - it could continue to activate over and over in an intermittent and insidiously difficult to recognize (especially in an erroneous activation with both clacker and shaker activations making a huge racket, as in the accidents) trim runaway.  But this can't happen anymore; it's simply one modest burst of a few wheels of nose down trim, that cannot repeat.  The whole system has turned out to be unnecessary - it was originally put in place to guarantee the FAA would not deny common-type certification with earlier 737s because of control feel during stall recovery.  The FAA has since said they've found feel to be similar enough that they wouldn't have denied common-type anyway. 

TL;DR - at this point, it's just one minor extra input of the already existing (and long-simulated) speed trim system.

11 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

That's a weird take. Maybe you're young because almost every airliner has had high profile and/or frequent crashes with high fatality counts.

Accidents are unavoidable in any kind of transportation. What sets the Max apart is that it is badly designed from the start for the sole reason of saving money. I don't think the 737 max is an unsafe plane anymore, but anytime I see one, I am reminded of Boeing's reckless attempt to squeeze 2010s engines under a 1960s fuselage.

12 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And yet you likely get in a car (or train or bus) nearly every day and don't give it a second thought...smh

Your comparsion would work if I had said I don't board airplanes in general because of safetey concerns. I just prefer to not board an airplane that has been known for malproduction and people who tried to reveal drawbacks ''vanished''. If that would be the case with a type of bus model or train model, I would certainly do the same 😉 

1 hour ago, qqwertz said:

I don't think the 737 max is an unsafe plane anymore, but anytime I see one, I am reminded of Boeing's reckless attempt to squeeze 2010s engines under a 1960s fuselage.

Without excusing Boeing for their missteps in the initial design and certification of the Max, I'll say that too much has been made of the idea that the aircraft has some sort of inherent flaw.  

This comment for example makes it sound like Boeing did something wrong in hanging a modern engine on an older airframe to create a newer model.  That's actually pretty common.  

I've read that there are people who believe this new engine somehow made the Max inherently unstable or unsafe, and required MCAS to correct for that.  This is not even close to true.  MCAS exists solely to make the Max feel a little bit more like an NG during stall recovery, and that's all.  It does nothing else.  The Max easily passed stall certification during flight test without issues, it just feels a little different than the NG, but not much.  The FAA has since said they'd likely have allowed the family to retain common type certification without MCAS.

TL;DR - basically, there's nothing wrong with the Max engine on the 73 fuselage.  It's a good engine, and crazy efficient.  I've done full stalls in a Max (level D sim obviously) with MCAS active and deactivated, and it's perfectly controllable in both cases.

There was nothing "reckless" about hanging a LEAP on a 737.

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I've read that there are people who believe this new engine somehow made the Max inherently unstable or unsafe, and required MCAS to correct for that.  This is not even close to true.  MCAS exists solely to make the Max feel a little bit more like an NG during stall recovery, and that's all.  It does nothing else.  The Max easily passed stall certification during flight test without issues, it just feels a little different than the NG, but not much.  The FAA has since said they'd likely have allowed the family to retain common type certification without MCAS.

TL;DR - basically, there's nothing wrong with the Max engine on the 73 fuselage.  It's a good engine, and crazy efficient.  I've done full stalls in a Max (level D sim obviously) with MCAS active and deactivated, and it's perfectly controllable in both cases.

There was nothing "reckless" about hanging a LEAP on a 737.

Sounds like you fly the plane in RL. Well, you are then the first pilot I met whom I do not envy for their job 😉

I still differ in my opinion with yours. For instance, the fact that the Max easily passed initial stall certification is certainly darkened by the fact that the FAA was getting way too cosy with Boeing back then. Regarding the design, I am quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System

"Because the CFM International LEAP engine used on the 737 MAX was larger and mounted further forward from the wing and higher off the ground than on previous generations of the 737, Boeing discovered that the aircraft had a tendency to push the nose up when operating in a specific portion of the flight envelope. MCAS was intended to mimic the flight behavior of the previous Boeing 737 Next Generation. The company indicated that this change eliminated the need for pilots to have simulator training on the new aircraft."

To me, that is in line with what I read about the design before and indicates that Boeing made a poor design choice to safe money. Both for itself for certifying a new type, and for its customers to avoid retraining costs for 737NG-certified pilots.

I didn't want to start a war of opinion, I am just surprised about how much approval for this plane there is. I pledge to keep silent from now on 🙂