FF 777 v2 Available again to Purchase

[Jude Bradley]

On 9/9/2024 at 11:33 AM, jcomm said:

Thx for the feedback Jude.

Although I accept comparisons between sims result many times in derrailed threads, I do hope this is not the case since we're all grownup 🙂

Can you list some of the reasons why you're preferring the FF 777 v2 ? 

.) Feel of flight ?

.) Systems implementation ?

.) Failures implementation ?

.) Overall functionality, including ground services, walk around, FO, etc... ?

The above, from the videos I've been watching, are the ones that could make take a decision.

Definitely the feel of flight and ground handling. Systems are not quite there yet, VNAV is still being optimized,but you will get from A to B without too much fuss. There is now Hoppie and Navigraph charts implemented so it is improving.

[Epikk]

Same for me. The PMDG feels and flies very nice...

And systems-wise (yes I'm a systems Geek) too many details that aren't right in the FF 777v2 at the moment : GE90s startup behavior isn't good at all (crazy EGT rise, Oil Levels stuck), engine parameters showing exactly the same parameters ALL the time (still seeing this in 2024?! come on this isn't a default freeware... ), ailerons and elevators drooping like Airbuses, Cabin Pressurisation ain't right too (CAB ALT is always too high in cruise), fuel temperature model isn't realistic (temp drops wayyyy too fast), etc etc... 

Many reasons to see me cringe when I read it's being compared to the HS CL650. They're not in the same League and will never be. Toto's level of attention and detail is much much higher than FF, period. Still, I like what they're trying to accomplish and I really like what they've done with the overall ambiance, interactions, sounds and feel so far. I wish them good luck. We'll be the ones enjoying this if they continue their work on this one. 

Cheers. 

[Guido1996]

42 minutes ago, Epikk said:

Same for me. The PMDG feels and flies very nice...

And systems-wise (yes I'm a systems Geek) too many details that aren't right in the FF 777v2 at the moment : GE90s startup behavior isn't good at all (crazy EGT rise, Oil Levels stuck), engine parameters showing exactly the same parameters ALL the time (still seeing this in 2024?! come on this isn't a default freeware... ), ailerons and elevators drooping like Airbuses, Cabin Pressurisation ain't right too (CAB ALT is always too high in cruise), fuel temperature model isn't realistic (temp drops wayyyy too fast), etc etc... 

Many reasons to see me cringe when I read it's being compared to the HS CL650. They're not in the same League and will never be. Toto's level of attention and detail is much much higher than FF, period. Still, I like what they're trying to accomplish and I really like what they've done with the overall ambiance, interactions, sounds and feel so far. I wish them good luck. We'll be the ones enjoying this if they continue their work on this one. 

Cheers. 

You said it. And I totally agree when you say that the HS CL650 are not in the same league and never will be. Toto's level of attention and detail is far greater than FF's, period.

Flight Factor reminds me of Carenado in some ways.

And several users have told me the opposite but I see the same thing as you when you say that we will be the ones who enjoy this if they continue working on it. But let me doubt until it is proven that they will continue doing so.

[Franz007]

On 9/10/2024 at 1:28 AM, Guido1996 said:

The cockpit looks bad and very blurry and in the Toliss one that doesn't happen to me. The A350 has a high FPS consumption and if I compare it with the Toliss A346 it doesn't. After the last update of the A320 nothing has been fixed and everything remains the same

For me the cockpit of the FF320 always looked better than Toliss’ one. Blurry textures may be related to your graphic card having not enough VRAM; i never had blurry textures. And quite a lot of people complain about the textures of the Toliss as having low-res textures in general. But ok, that’s your opinion. When you say « after the last update nothing has been fixed » you mean only the textures? For the A350 I haven’t noticed any high fps-consumptions but I agree that Toliss has good fps. This could exactly be related to its rather low textures. The A346 cockpit doesn’t look that good in my opinion.

I perfectly get your point why you would chose Toliss over FF but I just think that these are very small details that may affect only a small part of users and rare are the devs who can please everyone. Based on all other addons around I find your mentionned points not really justifying that they « never finished their products ».

On 9/10/2024 at 1:28 AM, Guido1996 said:

I like Airbus more than Boeing. But in reality I like business aviation more than airliners. My favorite plane is the Lear Jet 45 and the Dash Q400 but unfortunately there is no Lear in X-Plane 😞

I used to be an Airbus-guy but I am switching back and forth. Now being completely fascinated by the B777 😊

The Q400 is really good, but lacks a weather-radar. And the fps are one of the worst in some situations. So at the end, again, I don’t find it fair to critisize FF for not finishing their aircrafts when such « smaller » issues happens with most of the addons. I understand your choice and preferences but that is very individual in my opinion.

[Aglos77]

11 hours ago, Epikk said:

Same for me. The PMDG feels and flies very nice...

And systems-wise (yes I'm a systems Geek) too many details that aren't right in the FF 777v2 at the moment : GE90s startup behavior isn't good at all (crazy EGT rise, Oil Levels stuck), engine parameters showing exactly the same parameters ALL the time (still seeing this in 2024?! come on this isn't a default freeware... ), ailerons and elevators drooping like Airbuses, Cabin Pressurisation ain't right too (CAB ALT is always too high in cruise), fuel temperature model isn't realistic (temp drops wayyyy too fast), etc etc... 

Many reasons to see me cringe when I read it's being compared to the HS CL650. They're not in the same League and will never be. Toto's level of attention and detail is much much higher than FF, period. Still, I like what they're trying to accomplish and I really like what they've done with the overall ambiance, interactions, sounds and feel so far. I wish them good luck. We'll be the ones enjoying this if they continue their work on this one. 

Cheers. 

I am the first to ask for caution in this thread but I am sorry I do not share your opinion. I don't have the 777 from PMDG but I do have the DC6 and the 737 and I'm sorry but they just don't feel right. 

 

PMDG has a ridiculous after sales sertde there already have to be a good noise for a problem for them to take you seriously lets not talk about the nonsense in their forums and the arrogance of their CEO and some of their developers.

 

The DC6 has taken years to fix important bugs,the 737 on the ground feels very bad as well as when landing (mostly MFS problems but others like Fenix are trying to fix). The 737 still has problems in Lnav and other bugs after being on the market for quite some time, so I imagine that the 777 although it seems that they have solved LNAV problems still has problems on the ground and MFS physics for sure apart from textures, sounds and other reported problems.

 

The 777v2 just came out of Alpha and is in Beta phase, it has a lot of Bugs but it is normal in its current state and they are releasing a lot of weekly fixes. I insist we must be very cautious but we must let FF work and compare when we have a final version, it is not fair to compare now in the current state, FF is much more complex and complete than PMDG. FF is a work from 0 and not a simple port as PMDG needs more time to mature.

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by Aglos77

[Franz007]

11 hours ago, Epikk said:

Many reasons to see me cringe when I read it's being compared to the HS CL650. They're not in the same League and will never be.

Those remaining « details » apart, yes I still do think that it is in its base the most advanced airliner-addon and plays in the same category. I agree that the attention to details in the CL650 is awesome. But there are many things in the FF777 like the simulated walk-around being really very advanced, the crazy details of the simulated maintenance that even shows the vehicles and tires being replaced, engine-doors being opened etc. Then the crazy amount of failures simulating even a bird-strike, all the data in the background that can be observed in the maintenance-page, the very in depth simulated EFB, the pushback-truck that is an own simulation within the addon. And then the whole crew-interactions and the level of depth of the electronic checklists. And you can select/deselect all of these options. Never seen in any other airliner-addon so far. You can argue that you aren’t interested in such things, exactly as not everyone wants to simulate the refueling of the CL650, but you cannot deny that it’s the only addon of a complex aircraft that reaches that level, together with the CL650. Again, apart the fact that it is a beta and some of the navigation features not being finished yet. It would be weird that those don’t get added when they already showed what kind of depth they are trying to realize (and already did by 95%).

Edited September 11, 2024 by Franz007

[jcomm]

How are the engines modelled ? Do they use a custom model / code or does it rely on the default XP12 turbine model ?

How is the C*u law modeled ? (for those interested in a simplified resume of C* and C*u see : C* - An unknown star (engineeringpilot.com) ). If the FF 777 v2 models C*u the virtual pilot, particularly when hand-flying should notice the need for trimming when there are speed changes away from trimmed reference speed, but also the way the aircraft stabilizes the flightpath when configuration changes suchs as those caused by gear up / down or change of flap settings take place, as well as how the trimmable stabilizer and the elevators work in the 777. I wonder how realistically this is being modelled in the FF 777 v2 ?

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by jcomm

[Franz007]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

How is the C*u law modeled ?

I don’t know that law good enough to judge but if you give me an example on how I can test it, I can try and report it 😊 As Ramzzess responded to you on the org back in dec 2023: „we have obviously programmed it and what I tried to do personally is get to to "feel" as the FFS I trained on“.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Franz007

[jcomm]

3 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I don’t know that law good enough to judge but if you give me an example on how I can test it, I can try and report it 😊 As Ramzzess responded to you on the org back in dec 2023: „we have obviously programmed it and what I tried to do personally is get to to "feel" as the FFS I trained on“.

Thank you @Franz007, I have complemented the post above with additional details.

Yes, I'm aware of Ramzzess answer, but I wanted to get feedback from a user 🙂

 

[Franz007]

3 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Thank you @Franz007, I have complemented the post above with additional details.

Yes, I'm aware of Ramzzess answer, but I wanted to get feedback from a user 🙂

 

All right, thanks for the explanations. I will check that and let you know. I just noticed so far that it is not the same as on an Airbus where the plane maintains its trajectory when not giving any stick-inputs. For example I had to compensate with the yoke during the approach. But I will try to go deeper into that 😊

[jcomm]

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

All right, thanks for the explanations. I will check that and let you know. I just noticed so far that it is not the same as on an Airbus where the plane maintains its trajectory when not giving any stick-inputs. For example I had to compensate with the yoke during the approach. But I will try to go deeper into that 😊

Basically you could try to match:

.) Protections and augmentations are: bank angle protection, turn compensation, stall protection, over-speed protection, pitch control, stability augmentation and thrust asymmetry compensation [from (1)];

.) The in manual flight the deviation from the trimmed speed should induce pitch up or pitch down as a consequence of speed increase / speed decrease. trying to mimmic the typical behaviour of a conventional aircraft and requiring pitch trim input from the pilot to adjust for the new speed.

[from (2), specially under §11.8.1 ] The unique 777 implementation of maneuver demand and speed stability in the pitch control laws
means that:
• An established flight path remains unchanged unless the pilot changes it through a control column
input, or if the airspeed changes and the speed stability function takes effect.
• Trimming is required only for airspeed changes and not for airplane configuration changes. 

Turn compensation enables the pilot to maintain the altitude when peforming a turn in manual flight with minimal column input [from (2), specially under §11.8.1 ]

.) There's automatic turn coordination and thrust asymmetry compensation for instance in case of engine failure, the rudder being displaced to compensate. [from(2)]

 

 

(1) : Flight Control Laws | SKYbrary Aviation Safety

(2) TheAvionicsHandbook-FAA-Cap11

Edited September 11, 2024 by jcomm

[Franz007]

@jcomm

Thanks. I do also think that for exampla BB711 would be the best person to test and report that as an ex-777 pilot and now on the B787. I am not sure If he said something during his first tests because I haven‘t watched everything.

[Epikk]

8 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Those remaining « details » apart, yes I still do think that it is in its base the most advanced airliner-addon and plays in the same category. I agree that the attention to details in the CL650 is awesome. But there are many things in the FF777 like the simulated walk-around being really very advanced, the crazy details of the simulated maintenance that even shows the vehicles and tires being replaced, engine-doors being opened etc. Then the crazy amount of failures simulating even a bird-strike, all the data in the background that can be observed in the maintenance-page, the very in depth simulated EFB, the pushback-truck that is an own simulation within the addon. And then the whole crew-interactions and the level of depth of the electronic checklists. And you can select/deselect all of these options. Never seen in any other airliner-addon so far. You can argue that you aren’t interested in such things, exactly as not everyone wants to simulate the refueling of the CL650, but you cannot deny that it’s the only addon of a complex aircraft that reaches that level, together with the CL650. Again, apart the fact that it is a beta and some of the navigation features not being finished yet. It would be weird that those don’t get added when they already showed what kind of depth they are trying to realize (and already did by 95%).

TSorry, we're probably not talking about same things... I'm talking about system fidelity. Things like maintenance pages, push back truck, and EFB do not mean your systems behaves properly. You can have lots of new pages or features with the wrong numbers or system behaviors. And obviously, many systems do not behave properly in the FF777v2... I can understand that many cannot see it or don't even care, yes. But honestly, system fidelity-wise it's just not there with the CL650 and will never be. Fact. 

[jcomm]

18 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

@jcomm

Thanks. I do also think that for exampla BB711 would be the best person to test and report that as an ex-777 pilot and now on the B787. I am not sure If he said something during his first tests because I haven‘t watched everything.

Ah!!!!! So threre's already a stream by BB711 ? I had searched ofr it a few days ago but there was nothing in his channel. I'll check it again.

I searched but I couldn't find any BB711 tests for the FF 777 v2 ?

Meanwhile I do like what I see in the following vid. The "pilot" takes a few wrong actions (on purpose) and the outcome looks pretty much realistic to me, not to mntion the way the 777, before the final stages of the flight, behaves in such adverse weather conditions:

X-PLANE 12 B777 A GO AROUND STALL IN MELBOURNE (youtube.com)

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by jcomm

[Franz007]

1 hour ago, Epikk said:

TSorry, we're probably not talking about same things... I'm talking about system fidelity. Things like maintenance pages, push back truck, and EFB do not mean your systems behaves properly. You can have lots of new pages or features with the wrong numbers or system behaviors. And obviously, many systems do not behave properly in the FF777v2... I can understand that many cannot see it or don't even care, yes. But honestly, system fidelity-wise it's just not there with the CL650 and will never be. Fact. 

Let me ask you the following questions:

- which systems exactly are you refering to? Which have wrong numbers and what is your reference for that?
- have you checked all numbers of the CL650 if those were exactly as in the real plane? If yes, what is your source for that?
- you do understand what a beta-version is and that there may be some bugs and sytems having to be tuned?
- based on what source exactly are you coming to the conclusion that „it will never have a system-fidelity“ like the CL650 knowing that the devs want it to be very high-fidelity and as close as possible as the level-D-sim?

It looks to me that you are a just someine projecting its own negativity on a product, without really having a clue about.