13 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

I recommend that approach because some devs may feel challenged when you address them in a public setting.

If a developer isn't comfortable with critique in a public setting then don't release products for the public to use. No developer in this community makes a perfect product and assuming comprehensive criticism, should be acknowledged with open arms. There is always room for improvement.

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by Lucky38i

30 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

I recommend that approach because some devs may feel challenged when you address them in a public setting.

Rick,

I agree with you 100%. The first approach was via a ticket, and we got no answer. Then one of us made a brief statement on their forum. He was immediately attacked by a few beta testers and others on the forum. Typical behaviour, unprofessional attacks. He was better qualified than I was (about 6 or 7 years in type) and identified as such. The attacks against him continued, and I couldn't take it, so I started quoting the BFCTM and FCOM. That materialized in an answer to our ticket(s) that they have their qualified people, and that was the end. So yes, we followed that protocol, thinking like you, to avoid the "challenge" feeling. But guess what, you would expect the same treatment from them. Wrong, not that they didn't do the same courtesy; they allowed beta testers to engage in unproductive comments against us for trying to improve their product. At least for me, it's beyond understanding why someone would have a way to squawk about items or a forum when they are so intolerant to any criticism. Very strange people.

 

It may well be that their core logic is old and the people who worked on it are not there anymore, and they simply don’t have the expertise to rework stuff. Their quality has definitely dropped and they seem unable to keep up with modern dev. Remember their EFB? Was supposed to be the best thing ever … then it released. 
 

the planes are still decent especially for simmers like me (non real world pilots) but they still seem to think they are the best devs ever, when that crown has long passed 

36 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

If a developer isn't comfortable with critique in a public setting then don't release products for the public to use. No developer in this community makes a perfect product and assuming comprehensive criticism, should be acknowledged with open arms. There is always room for improvement.

I think the point I was making is that, for "some" devs, there is still a human on the other side of the equation. We always say accept "critique" or "feedback", but some folk just don't. Back in my military days and in my line of business, we used "professional courtesy". I treat everyone that way. In some settings, people want to blast peeps in public and emails, putting everyone and their mother in the email. I prefer to pull you aside and have that the discussion. If I need to discuss someone's "flying", I will pull them aside privately and do it. In the USAF, I kept a bottle in my drawer. If I had to lay it out with you, I take you in privately, pour us a drink and proceed. I've seen some quality developers walk away on criticism alone. Keep in mind that I'm old school and that's the perspective that has worked for me. 

30 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Rick,

I agree with you 100%. The first approach was via a ticket, and we got no answer. Then one of us made a brief statement on their forum. He was immediately attacked by a few beta testers and others on the forum. Typical behaviour, unprofessional attacks. He was better qualified than I was (about 6 or 7 years in type) and identified as such. The attacks against him continued, and I couldn't take it, so I started quoting the BFCTM and FCOM. That materialized in an answer to our ticket(s) that they have their qualified people, and that was the end. So yes, we followed that protocol, thinking like you, to avoid the "challenge" feeling. But guess what, you would expect the same treatment from them. Wrong, not that they didn't do the same courtesy; they allowed beta testers to engage in unproductive comments against us for trying to improve their product. At least for me, it's beyond understanding why someone would have a way to squawk about items or a forum when they are so intolerant to any criticism. Very strange people.

 

I hear ya and understand exactly where you are coming from. So I found this dev who was releasing a G550 in xplane. I was ecstatic!  I bought it and joined their discord. Well, being a G550 guy, I messaged and pointed out some things that needed to be corrected and submitted info from my AFM and avionics manual. I contacted them directly. They borderline ignored me. I was like wow. I stopped flying it and left their discord. One of the guys reached out and asked why I left. I explained, he understood and I never heard from them again. I remember seeing an email about updates to it not to long ago, but I've moved on and cut my loses. In my mind, you have access to a current and qualified guy for free and you ignore him, your loss. I didn't bash them or talk bad about their product, I just left it alone. Sometimes for your own sanity, you have to leave it alone. It definitely makes it difficult when not enough competition exist to make devs fight for ways to improve their products. 

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

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 🙂

Yeah, I'm kinda in the same boat. Satisfied with what I have already (which is "too many great addons in too many simulators with not enough free time" 😁).

And TBH, I prefer the single-aisle airliners myself as small airports are generally more fun/challenging. Sooo...I'll probably end up waiting to see what PMDG & iFly will end up doing for the 737 in v2024 before I make any further purchases (except the Fenix's BFU has piqued my interest now with all that great feedback...).

2 hours ago, G550flyer said:

I hear ya and understand exactly where you are coming from. So I found this dev who was releasing a G550 in xplane. I was ecstatic!  I bought it and joined their discord. Well, being a G550 guy, I messaged and pointed out some things that needed to be corrected and submitted info from my AFM and avionics manual. I contacted them directly. They borderline ignored me. I was like wow. I stopped flying it and left their discord. One of the guys reached out and asked why I left. I explained, he understood and I never heard from them again. I remember seeing an email about updates to it not to long ago, but I've moved on and cut my loses. In my mind, you have access to a current and qualified guy for free and you ignore him, your loss. I didn't bash them or talk bad about their product, I just left it alone. Sometimes for your own sanity, you have to leave it alone. It definitely makes it difficult when not enough competition exist to make devs fight for ways to improve their products. 

Always shocking to me when I hear stories like this (hardly, and sadly, not the first/only). 

My dad was a G IV/V IP and so I fell in love with the Gulfstream's many moons ago, and always hoped for a PMDG/FSL/Fenix/et al quality-level addon (in any sim).

The addon you mentioned just never generated much praise beyond being a Gulfstream, and I couldn't bring myself to jump in based on what I was able to see.

 

6 hours ago, LRBS said:

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. 

You are quite correct. One of the first demonstrations of FBW, during initial type training in the simulator, is the lack of any back pressure required in turns of up to 30 degrees AOB. It should not even be up for any debate.

4 hours ago, G550flyer said:

I think the point I was making is that, for "some" devs, there is still a human on the other side of the equation. We always say accept "critique" or "feedback", but some folk just don't. Back in my military days and in my line of business, we used "professional courtesy". I treat everyone that way. In some settings, people want to blast peeps in public and emails, putting everyone and their mother in the email.

I feel there is an important of distinction between constructive criticism and downright berating. I totally agree there’s a human on the other side and we should always communicate in that regard, hence the term constructive criticism. Of course you have some individuals who consider developers like their personal punching bug and by all means those people don’t deserve any service and possibly an outright ban if possible. 
 

My point is if someone like @LRBS can respectfully provide evidence based criticisms to a developer and their first response is ignorance and lack of acknowledgment, then they have no business producing products that are customer facing.

It’s worse so when our fellow community members come to the job of white-knighting on the behalf of a developer for what is valid criticisms. It removes any avenue for people to objectively speak on a product because they get attacked to oblivion for not adhering to the status quo. Mind you this isn’t specific to any one developer. We as a community should be able to objectively criticise developers without being attacked by our fellow simmers for it, we all want the same thing, to have a good time.

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by Lucky38i

I thought @LRBS would get a good laugh out of this. One of the PMDG beta testers literally claimed that "the 777s fly about as well as any aircraft simulation." 😂

With beta testers like that, it's no wonder that their products rarely/never improve.

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by RNAVV19R

11 hours ago, LRBS said:

Rick,

I agree with you 100%. The first approach was via a ticket, and we got no answer. Then one of us made a brief statement on their forum. He was immediately attacked by a few beta testers and others on the forum. Typical behaviour, unprofessional attacks. He was better qualified than I was (about 6 or 7 years in type) and identified as such. The attacks against him continued, and I couldn't take it, so I started quoting the BFCTM and FCOM. That materialized in an answer to our ticket(s) that they have their qualified people, and that was the end. So yes, we followed that protocol, thinking like you, to avoid the "challenge" feeling. But guess what, you would expect the same treatment from them. Wrong, not that they didn't do the same courtesy; they allowed beta testers to engage in unproductive comments against us for trying to improve their product. At least for me, it's beyond understanding why someone would have a way to squawk about items or a forum when they are so intolerant to any criticism. Very strange people.

 

I think you're missing PMDG's point: porting their P3D fleet without adding anything new regarding the flight model (FM) or other modern technologies. That's what we saw with their DC-6, and now they're repeating it with the rest of their fleet: maximizing profit with minimal effort, because from their point of view their simulated airplanes are "perfect". This is basically just abandoned, rehashed software, in my opinion.

An additional feature incorporated into the pitch control law is turn compensation, which enables the pilot to maintain a constant altitude with minimal column input during a banked turn. 

https://helitavia.com/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_11.pdf

Boeing B-777: Fly-By-Wire Flight Controls

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 relatively constant flight path. This eliminates the need for the pilot to make control column inputs to compensate for these factor. 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.

 

(Boeing 777 FCOMv2 9.20.10 - Flight Controls - System Description)

 

 

Edited July 30, 2025Jul 30 by sloppysmusic
Added clip from brilliant 777 playlist.

6 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

 

(Boeing 777 FCOMv2 9.20.10 - Flight Controls - System Description)

 

 

Exactly, you wonder if they actually read the manuals. It can be noticed that with PMDG 777 in any turn, the airplane becomes pitch unstable and does not follow what the systems description in BFCTM (Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual) outlines very clearly. 

It's impossible for the real pilots (if they have any) in the beta team to miss that one.

Actually, for anyone involved in their software development (programmers), not noticing or reading how it should operate should prompt a reevaluation of how PMDG conducts their development. VERY SLOPPY AND UNREALISTIC. 

7 hours ago, LRBS said:

Exactly, you wonder if they actually read the manuals. It can be noticed that with PMDG 777 in any turn, the airplane becomes pitch unstable and does not follow what the systems description in BFCTM (Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual) outlines very clearly. 

It's impossible for the real pilots (if they have any) in the beta team to miss that one.

Actually, for anyone involved in their software development (programmers), not noticing or reading how it should operate should prompt a reevaluation of how PMDG conducts their development. VERY SLOPPY AND UNREALISTIC. 

I could write a essay here, being a long term pmdg user thru 3 sims, fsx, p3d and msfs. I won't though but some notes... 

They started off MAKING manuals. It was their early business plan(it's in the name). 

In earlier sims they used to deliver with your purchase a full manual suite (edited for sim of course with Boeings permission) . 

Now there are no manuals at all, except a interactive Web tutorial /guide. Which is great if you don't care about the details.... There's no other way of saying it but their adopted future business model is catering for people who don't care about the details. They want ease of use, accurate surface detail and integration with sim products such as Simbrief and GSX (nothing wrong with that if bolted on top of a systems accurate model) . It's not though. 

Reading forums you often see their past coder 'giants' struggling to defend (if at all) the current situation. To be fair if you're polite there you can criticise constructively, no firewall of censorship like another dev I could but won't mention. They just don't care though. 

They're making money, support issues are now easy. Polish some rivets and add a missing door handle. Easy! Not like that pesky LNAV logic, alpha floor nonsense and accurate mass /inertia modeling. Who wants THAT? Only a few of us apparently, but we STILL buy the planes... 

Do you own the 777 in p3d /fsx? I'll have to load it up one day to see if it behaves the same. Not that it would make a difference except to prove they DID used to read the manuals. 

Edited July 30, 2025Jul 30 by sloppysmusic
I DID write an essay..

2 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

I could write a essay here, being a long term pmdg user thru 3 sims, fsx, p3d and msfs. I won't though but some notes... 

They started off MAKING manuals. It was their early business plan(it's in the name). 

In earlier sims they used to deliver with your purchase a full manual suite (edited for sim of course with Boeings permission) . 

Now there are no manuals at all, except a interactive Web tutorial /guide. Which is great if you don't care about the details.... There's no other way of saying it but their adopted future business model is catering for people who don't care about the details. They want ease of use, accurate surface detail and integration with sim products such as Simbrief and GSX (nothing wrong with that if bolted on top of a systems accurate model) . It's not though. 

Reading forums you often see their past coder 'giants' struggling to defend (if at all) the current situation. To be fair if you're polite there you can criticise constructively, no firewall of censorship like another dev I could but won't mention. They just don't care though. 

They're making money, support issues are now easy. Polish some rivets and add a missing door handle. Easy! Not like that pesky LNAV logic, alpha floor nonsense and accurate mass /inertia modeling. Who wants THAT? Only a few of us apparently, but we STILL buy the planes... 

Do you own the 777 in p3d /fsx? I'll have to load it up one day to see if it behaves the same. Not that it would make a difference except to prove they DID used to read the manuals. 

I absolutely agree.

Our problems (actually three pilots, qualified in the 777 and 747) with them started by submitting tickets, and initially received no replies. 

One of us, when they transitioned from FSX to P3D, asked legitimate questions about why they brought the same bugs to the new platform, despite the fact that they were acknowledged and promised to be fixed before the release of P3D. 

That's quite a pattern they showed through their existence, as they failed to fulfill their promises to fix bugs and rushed to make money on new projects. 

It didn't sit well; a few beta testers and overzealous people started attacking us, leading to what they know best: blocking people.

The same problems in FSX, P3D are carried over to MSFS2020 and now to MSFS2024. 

We all know that no software is perfect, but ignoring known issues (and broken promises) or denying clear bugs that are easy to find in the manuals, and spreading incorrect information, doesn't sit well with many people. Don't pretend that the product was tested by real pilots or that it performs like the real deal.