I have mixed feelings about this add-on. On the one hand it has very in-depth systems and it looks great. On the other hand, I think the plane lacks soul? I don't know, but it does not speak to me like the Fenix or the A350. It just seems to be lacking something, but I lack the vocabulary to state what that might be.

Here's some pics (never mind, too hard to get them into AVSIM) into of my first flight from KDEN to KLAX. Nailed the landing on the first go. 

Edited February 25Feb 25 by RobJC

38 minutes ago, RobJC said:

some pics - never mind, too hard to get them into AVSIM

what?

https://imgbb.com/

I think the PMDG 777 is an absolutely stunning model.  I rate it higher than the 737 (and I love the 737).  I will say that the Boris Audio Works pack really adds a lot to this one, as the native sounds are a little lacking.   

I don't really get this 'soul' thing.  I mean, it's so subjective. 

The 777 is outstanding.

Only issue to me is the textures in the cockpit in 2024 compared to 2020 it lacks depth.

Mike

4 hours ago, RobJC said:

...On the other hand, I think the plane lacks soul? I don't know, but it does not speak to me like the Fenix or the A350. It just seems to be lacking something, but I lack the vocabulary to state what that might be...

First of all, congratulations on your first PMDG 777F flight in MSFS2024....🙂...!

Hmm...It lacks a soul...you think...

In my opinion, it has plenty of soul. I recall my RW 19-hour non-stop (KORD->VIDP) flight from years ago, the only one occasion when this intrepid long-hauler was actually frightened just a bit.

While stuck above Delhi airport, in the dead of the night, after the exhaustion of a 17-hour flight, we were told that a nasty thunderstorm active below us along with near-zero visibility on the ground, was preventing us from getting the clearance for a touchdown. As the rain was pelting my cabin window, I then (silently) spoke into the soul of the 777, and it did speak to me too...🙂...and then responded with remarkable determination...

Look into this thread here for details:

 

About this 777F, I fly it regularly (long-haul and short-haul), and the fluidity with which this one flies in my Xbox is nothing short of remarkable, from my perspective. PMDG has clearly done something right in that regard.

Here, below, is the world's shortest (RW) 777 flight, that I flew and replicated a short while ago, before the long-haul (ORD->HKG) flight that I also did around the same time. Ignore the introduction section of my post below, if you prefer, because in spite of some non-pilot activities that day, I really wished to fly the 777...🙂...

Anyway, enjoy your 777F...! It's a keeper...

 

Edited February 26Feb 26 by P_7878

3 hours ago, RobJC said:

Here's some pics (never mind, too hard to get them into AVSIM)...

Actually, @RobJC, it's rather easy to do so, especially after the (site) update to use only "direct" URLs...

Make sure, you've a proper image server, free or subscribed. Either use the one given above by @turbomax, or the one I provided to @AJZip2 in another thread here today.

Edited February 26Feb 26 by P_7878

3 hours ago, turbomax said:

what?

https://imgbb.com/

I was using imgur and it  was only posting links, not embedding. I will try this tool, thanks.

1 hour ago, JYW said:

I think the PMDG 777 is an absolutely stunning model.  I rate it higher than the 737 (and I love the 737).  I will say that the Boris Audio Works pack really adds a lot to this one, as the native sounds are a little lacking.   

I don't really get this 'soul' thing.  I mean, it's so subjective. 

I will check out Boris. Thanks. And yes it is subjective.

3 minutes ago, RobJC said:

I was using imgur and it  was only posting links, not embedding. I will try this tool, thanks.

@RobJC

Imgur blocks access to UK users…due to some regulatory requirements. So, use some other server.

Edited February 26Feb 26 by P_7878

Okay guys I will have another go with the 777F and get the Boris sound upgrade. I almost gave up on the A350 and that thing is brilliant. Maybe the 777F will end up similar? Maybe the 777F is suffering from tough comparisons with the last 4 planes being the TBM, Citation X, Fenix and A350. 

But…we’ll see. I will gladly admit if my initial impressions were wrong.

6 minutes ago, P_7878 said:

@RobJC

Imgur blocks access to UK users…due to some regulatory requirements. So, use some other server.

Ah okay. I will use the one mentioned above and see. Thanks man!

The 777 overall is a very nice addition.

 

Unfortunately, there are a few shortcomings that need to be addressed. 

I would like to emphasize that in real life, we don't stay in autopilot all the time; we actually hand-fly as much as we can. Also, during training sessions, we perform many maneuvers by hand-flying, and we are evaluated accordingly. 

From someone who flew the airplane, I noticed a few items that caught my attention, and I don't like how it flies when the autopilot is off. It is impossible here to explain every item, detail, system, and interaction. In real life, training is about 1 1/2 months at a pace of 8 hours of ground school per day, plus whatever is in between.

 

What is not working as it should in MSFS 2020/2024, which was ported from FSX and P3D.

 

Thrust Asymmetry Compensation (TAC) system.

 

During engine failure. TAC continually monitors engine data to determine the thrust level from each engine. If the thrust level on one engine differs by 10 percent or more from the other engine, TAC automatically adds rudder to minimize yaw. When TAC is operating, the pilot can still recognize the initial onset of an engine failure through airplane roll/yaw cues. These roll/yaw cues are greatly reduced when compared to an airplane operating without TAC. 

 

Secondary and Direct Mode Pitch Control

 

Airplane pitch control is somewhat different in the secondary and direct flight control modes. The control columns now command a proportional elevator deflection instead of a maneuver command. Secondary and direct modes do not provide automatic pitch compensation for:

• Thrust changes

• Flap and speedbrake

configuration changes

• Gear configuration changes

• Turns to 30° bank angle.

• Turbulence

In the secondary and direct modes, the elevator variable feel system provides two feel force levels rather than a continuous variation with airspeed. The force levels change with flap position. With the flaps up, the feel forces provide maneuvering forces that discourage overcontrol in the pitch axis at high speeds. With flaps extended (flaps 1 or greater), the feel forces decrease to provide force levels appropriate for approach and landing. In the secondary and direct modes, both the primary pitch trim switches and the alternate pitch trim levers move the stabilizer directly. There is no trim reference speed.

Secondary and Direct Mode Roll Control

 

Roll control in the secondary and direct modes is very similar to roll control in the normal mode. Bank angle protection is not available in either the secondary or direct mode. Spoilers 5 and 10 are always locked out. Speedbrakes

In the secondary and direct modes automatic speedbrakes are not available, and spoiler panels 4, 5, 10, and 11 are locked out as speedbrakes.

 

Secondary and Direct Mode Yaw Control

 

Secondary and direct mode yaw control is similar to normal mode yaw control. Pedal feel forces are unchanged from normal mode; however, rudder response is slightly different. In secondary and direct modes, the rudder ratio changer is degraded to two fixed ratios determined by flap position. With flaps up, the rudder response to pedal inputs is less than with the flaps down.

Normal Mode Pitch Control

 

In the normal mode, airplane pitch control characteristics are like conventional airplanes. Unlike conventional airplanes, the control column does not directly position the elevator in flight. The control column commands the PFCs to generate a pitch maneuver. The PFCs automatically position the elevator and the stabilizer to generate the commanded maneuver.

The PFCs constantly monitor airplane response to pilot commands and reposition the elevator and stabilizer to carry out these commands. Airplane pitch responses to thrust changes, gear configuration changes, and turbulence are automatically minimized by PFC control surface commands. 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 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. When the autopilot is not engaged, as airspeed changes, the pitch control system provides conventional pitch characteristics by requiring the pilot to make control column inputs or trim changes to maintain a constant flight path. Manual trim is necessary only when changing airspeed. Manual trim is not necessary when changing configuration.

 

Pitch Trim

 

Primary Pitch Trim

Primary pitch trim is controlled by the dual pitch trim switches on each control wheel. Both switches must be moved to command trim changes. primary pitch trim switches are inhibited when the autopilot is engaged. trim does not move the control column.

In the normal mode, primary pitch trim operates differently on the ground than it does in flight. On the ground, the stabilizer is directly positioned when the pilot uses the pitch trim switches. In flight, the pitch trim switches do not position the stabilizer directly; they provide inputs to change the trim reference speed. The trim reference speed is the speed at which the airplane would eventually stabilize if there were no control column inputs. Once the control column forces are trimmed to zero, the airplane maintains a constant speed with no column inputs. Thrust changes result in a relatively constant indicated airspeed climb or descent, with no trim inputs needed unless airspeed changes.

When pilot trim inputs are made, the PFCs analyze the command and generate signals to move the elevators to achieve the trim change, then moves the stabilizer to streamline the elevator. Stabilizer motion may also automatically occur to streamline the stabilizer and elevator for thrust and configuration changes.

 

Alternate Pitch Trim

 

Alternate pitch trim is controlled by the dual alternate pitch trim levers on theaisle stand. Both levers must be moved to command trim changes. Theselevers move the stabilizer directly (all modes) and also change the reference airspeed in flight (normal mode). The alternate pitch trim levers are directly linked to the stabilizer via control cables. Alternate pitch trim commands have priority over wheel pitch trim commands in all flight control modes. Moving the alternate pitch trim levers with the autopilot engaged does not disconnect the autopilot, but does move the stabilizer. Moving the alternate pitch trim levers during stall or overspeed protection does move the stabilizer, but does not remove column forces.

 

As I previously mentioned, if you choose to stay in autopilot and minimum hand fly you will not even know about all these issues.

Edited February 26Feb 26 by LRBS

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

As I previously mentioned, if you choose to stay in autopilot and minimum hand fly you will not even know about all these issues.

Those are not issues.

They are examples of unrealistic expectations for a $70 consumer desktop flight sim addon.

6 hours ago, RobJC said:

I don't know, but it does not speak to me like the Fenix or the A350. It just seems to be lacking something, but I lack the vocabulary to state what that might be.

Funny you say that because I feel the same way...somewhat. And to be honest, I feel the same way about the actual plane. I'm a 77F capt and even in real life the plane feels a bit...boring. Hand flying is actually really fun and responsive though. So much stuff happens in the background and the pilot is taken out of most of it. Overall, it's a far less involved aircraft, and honestly, I enjoy planes that are require a bit more attention and work. 

Ultimately to improve your experience with this plane is a shift in mindset. You're flying a 350T airplane into big airports over vast distances. The flying is, by design, boring...but it doesn't have to be (i feel this way about the iniA350 too). Paperwork, fuel planning, airspace procedures, systems monitoring, etc. are your main focus throughout 95% of the entire flight. The plane PMDG modeled is actually quite good at just being a B777...everything else is on how you want to conduct your operation. The feeling of flying a 'mission' requires planning, contingencies, and communication. ETOPS and oceanic stuff will keep you busy, especially if you do things to verify your position or have random failures requiring you to exit ETOPS.

Aside from mindset, things that could be added to improve immersion/life would be stuff that we actually use on a daily basis...the printer, a full fledged ACARS system with performance planning ingrained, reminders, GPS jamming, etc. I think ini and Fenix have simulated most of these 'nice to haves' but they ultimately serve a purpose in MSFS...and that's to keep you immersed. The little things add up.

I'd also say that the plane (along with the iniA350) feel...light. They seem to have a very dumbed down feeling of inertia. But that's hard to replicate without the proper hardware. In the real plane, everything feels stiff and heavy (except for the thrust levers, which drives me crazy...they're as smooth and light as a throttle used for MSFS), especially the tiller. It gives you a sense of weight. Honestly, I think a huge improvement would be a camera addon that simulates the sense of inertia to remind you that you're flying a large plane. 

fun fact: The average long haul pilot (at the place i work) only gets around 20 minutes of actual 'stick' time per year. The rest is spent on autopilot. 

 

 

Edited February 26Feb 26 by V1ROTA7E

50 minutes ago, JYW said:

Those are not issues.

They are examples of unrealistic expectations for a $70 consumer desktop flight sim addon.

As I mentioned, for some, not knowing how it works is fine.

And you are so wrong about the second statement: iFly737, Fenix, and even that A380 freeware emulate many of their systems very well, regardless of price. Also, those are similar software for the same simulator and consumer desktops.

This is so disappointing. When you refuse to acknowledge or don't understand those issues, you label them "examples of unrealistic expectations."