Can just talk for MSFS24 and the 300ER plus apologies if already mentioned since seemingly from Jul 23 but could not find anything and am happy myself of being reminded of updates. Update available through OC3

15587: [Systems - Wheels & Brakes] Brake accumulator precharge should be 1000psi, not 750psi (rsrandazzo)
15632: [Systems - Fire Protection] 77F Main Deck Fire Detector Light INOP when tested (vscimone)
15800: [Cabin - Geometry/Textures] Window frame flickering on porthole type windows. (jbrown)
15801: [External Model - Geometry] Forward cargo hold door frame wall shows a missing polygon. (jbrown)
15691: [External Model - Geometry] Ground Power plugs not connected to GPU/Jetway Plug (jbrown)
15044: [External Model - Geometry] ADF antennas on model are not removed with ADF is set to none on FMC (jbrown)
15036: [External Model - Geometry] LAV hose connects to fuselage and not on an access panel (jbrown)
15809: [External Model - Geometry] Contrail effect issues - right missing, left mis-aligned. (jbrown)
15748: [Cabin - Geometry/Textures] Economy seat headrests UV is reversed on seat rows HJK (jbrown)
15815: [Cabin - Geometry/Textures] Window plugs misaligned on 2ER and 2LR (jbrown)
15817: [Systems - Lighting - Exterior] Tail Strobe light timing issue on 200LR (jbrown)
15807: [External Model - Geometry] MLG wheel hub 00009 wear texture misaligned. (jbrown)
15795: [Virtual Cockpit - Geometry/Textures] 777-200 LR Cabin Missing seats --> Only IFE there (jbrown)
15697: [Virtual Cockpit - Geometry/Textures] Artifacts on bulkhead behind captain (vscimone)
15808: [Virtual Cockpit - Geometry/Textures] Camera button on 200LR panel (vscimone)
15802: [External Model - Geometry] Cargo doors actuators clipping (jbrown)
15798: [External Model - Geometry] R3 Door not animating correctly (jbrown)
15738: [Virtual Cockpit - Geometry/Textures] Various cockpit texture issues (vscimone)
15740: [Virtual Cockpit - Geometry/Textures] Cockpit window sealing missing (vscimone)
15757: [Virtual Cockpit - Functionality/Click-Spots] 777 window shade alignment (vscimone)
15776: [Virtual Cockpit - Geometry/Textures] Mousepad Display Select light inop Capt Side (vscimone)
15781: [External Model - Geometry] Belly UV texture wrapping distorted (jbrown)
15782: [External Model - Geometry] Antenna shadow present on bottom of fuselage in wrong location (jbrown)
15780: [External Model - Geometry] Artifact on the side of the fuselage (jbrown)

We all appreciate and welcome cosmetic fixies. 

 

I wonder when they will address the real problems with flight characteristics associated with FBW and speed trim systems. 

 

I'm quite puzzled by people like "silentsage" in their forum with wrong statements as to that "in the real airplane you need a small amount of back pressore on the yoke during the turns", and backed up right away by one of their people (DDowns) involved with PMDG as a "flight test" who's not qualified or has any experience in the airplane and cover PMDGs bugs with statements like "Excellent information, specifically the light back pressure in turns. Using trim in turns is not recommended in the FCTM, and I was taught very early to not do that. I incorrectly believe C*U would remove the need for any back pressure, and here I have learned something. Big thanks.  "  

 

FCOM, quote:

The PFCs also provide compensation for flap and speedbrake configuration

changes, and turns up to 30° of bank. The PFCs automatically control pitch to

maintain a constant flight path. This eliminates the need for the

pilot to make control column inputs to compensate for these factors. For turns

up to 30° of bank, the pilot does not need to add additional column back

pressure to maintain altitude. For turns of more than 30° of bank, the pilot

does need to add column back pressure.

Unfortunately, besides this issue, there are others, but with this mentality, we will never have a properly finished product. 

 

I hope other developers with a real systems understanding, good beta testers, and a desire to fix and improve the product will resurface (like IFly with their 737) and provide us with a real quality aircraft. 

I've been using it.

Feels ok, still some quirks with LNAV, and the FBW logic / C*u law implementation, but it's a nice product...

But I agree with @LRBS !

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by jcomm

48 minutes ago, LRBS said:

We all appreciate and welcome cosmetic fixies. 

 

I wonder when they will address the real problems with flight characteristics associated with FBW and speed trim systems. 

 

<trimmed for space>

Hi LRBS! I've seen you comment quite a bit on the FM, so I assume you have RW flight hours in the type. Are you not able to post your results on the forum?

3 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

Hi LRBS! I've seen you comment quite a bit on the FM, so I assume you have RW flight hours in the type. Are you not able to post your results on the forum?

Well there's no point in posting to the PMDG forum because the usual suspects dogpile on anyone who has the slightest bit of feedback. Instead, reports should be submitted via ticket. 

1 minute ago, chapstick said:

Well there's no point in posting to the PMDG forum because the usual suspects dogpile on anyone who has the slightest bit of feedback. Instead, reports should be submitted via ticket. 

So my question then is what should we do to help keep the dogpiling to a minimum. For example with LRBS bringing up the idea that you do not need back pressure on the yoke to turn up to 30 deg, can he film that in the flight deck so we can show that in the forum?

56 minutes ago, LRBS said:

We all appreciate and welcome cosmetic fixies. 

 

I wonder when they will address the real problems with flight characteristics associated with FBW and speed trim systems. 

 

Never. PMDG and their beta testers deny that there are any issues with the FBW or the flight model.

iFly, or maybe someone like Bluebird, needs to release a 777. That is the only hope.

2 minutes ago, RNAVV19R said:

iFly, or maybe someone like Bluebird, needs to release a 777. That is the only hope.

iFly doesn't even simulate the speed trim system in the 737, I doubt they'd get FBW right in a 777. 

3 minutes ago, chapstick said:

iFly doesn't even simulate the speed trim system in the 737, I doubt they'd get FBW right in a 777. 

The two are completely unrelated. There is a very good reason why they chose not to simulate it on the 737 MAX.

 

46 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I've been using it.

Feels ok, still some quirks with LNAV, and the FBW logic / C*u law implementation, but it's a nice product...

But I agree with @LRBS !

 

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

We all appreciate and welcome cosmetic fixies. 

 

I wonder when they will address the real problems with flight characteristics associated with FBW and speed trim systems. 

 

I'm quite puzzled by people like "silentsage" in their forum with wrong statements as to that "in the real airplane you need a small amount of back pressore on the yoke during the turns", and backed up right away by one of their people (DDowns) involved with PMDG as a "flight test" who's not qualified or has any experience in the airplane and cover PMDGs bugs with statements like "Excellent information, specifically the light back pressure in turns. Using trim in turns is not recommended in the FCTM, and I was taught very early to not do that. I incorrectly believe C*U would remove the need for any back pressure, and here I have learned something. Big thanks.  "  

 

FCOM, quote:

The PFCs also provide compensation for flap and speedbrake configuration

changes, and turns up to 30° of bank. The PFCs automatically control pitch to

maintain a constant flight path. This eliminates the need for the

pilot to make control column inputs to compensate for these factors. For turns

up to 30° of bank, the pilot does not need to add additional column back

pressure to maintain altitude. For turns of more than 30° of bank, the pilot

does need to add column back pressure.

Unfortunately, besides this issue, there are others, but with this mentality, we will never have a properly finished product. 

 

I hope other developers with a real systems understanding, good beta testers, and a desire to fix and improve the product will resurface (like IFly with their 737) and provide us with a real quality aircraft. 

Does anyone know if this is also an issue in the Flight Factor 777?

14 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

 

Does anyone know if this is also an issue in the Flight Factor 777?

Good question, and one I've been looking for an answer too 😕 but unfortunately none of my closest simmer friends owns the FF, and I am not willing to invest that much in Xp12 right now that I am so satisfied with FS 2024 and it pretty much fulfils my wants regarding desktop flight simulation and playing being a captain 🙂

57 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

Hi LRBS! I've seen you comment quite a bit on the FM, so I assume you have RW flight hours in the type. Are you not able to post your results on the forum?

Yes, I flew and gave training in a real airplane and a Level D simulator. Since their first release on FSX and P3D, we have provided significant information from the BFCTM, shared real-life flight experiences, and collaborated with other qualified pilots. However, I encountered resistance from many of their beta testers, which ultimately led to our ban due to disagreements. 

Regarding small video clips, at my company, we even tape all our simulator sessions, but it is against company policy to release or take pictures. Regardless of that, in BFCTM or FCOM, this information is clearly stated and available. 

Despite all the information someone provides, they have a very interesting response: "We have our information." I still don't understand this resistance and unwillingness to fix small items like this and improve the product. It's not that they can't fix it; some other systems are modeled very well. Beyond my understanding. 

55 minutes ago, chapstick said:

 Instead, reports should be submitted via ticket. 

Rightfully so, what I sought, but it returned silence. 

I am no expert to 777 but have it from P3D up to MSFS and if its supposed to be a little simular to the Airbusses in roll mode as i did expect i actually find the P3D version a better version.

Michael Moe 

I'm not sure if this has been done already, but I have found it better to go directly to the devs in email or support to present your concern. This has worked very well for me. I present the data, how/what I'm testing and the results. Based on the results, I also give a recommendation. For example, way back, I felt that the PMDG 737s had too much lift and it was apparent by the floating and approach deck angle. I contacted them directly and gave the text book approach and flare procure along with the data. They responded with the data they had used and it happened to be the unreliable airspeed charts. I explained that chart, pointed out a note in the chart and showed them the chart was 10 knots hot. I went on to inform that pitch will basically change 1 degree per 5 kts. After that, they had a release and things changed to where it should be. 

I recommend that approach because some devs may feel challenged when you address them in a public setting. I myself wouldn't do that. I did it once when addressing a DC10 flight model and the person said I was flat out wrong even though I provided data, details and was current and qualified in the DC1030. I then posted everything in their forum and their flight dynamics guy reached out to me and we resolved the issue. To post in the forum, I would have to have a very, very good reason. Feeling off or slighted by a response isn't a good one honestly😅.

I had one dev tell me that he never intended to simulate to that level. At the end of the day, I guess it's their product, so I didn't feel slighted. Two have told me that before, but all the others I have contacted in the past have made changes. I try to assist the devs in making things as realistic as possible for the masses. But, if a dev tells me to pound sand with my recommendations, it is what it is. It's their product, so I move on.