I have posted a message about it on the PMDG forum.

6 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The weather was calm for my first flight in the updated 777F, but if my landing is anything to go by, then it felt a bit smoother and more predictable during flare and touchdown. I made one of my best ever landings in the 777 this morning at ENGM Oslo Gardermoen.

On a slightly negative note, I did notice one or two examples of what I call "nose bounce". My cruise altitude in the circuit was 6000 feet, and at one point it slightly increased to 6100 feet. The aircraft then adjusted to come back down to 6000 feet, but it did so with a series of "pitch down nose bounces", rather than smoothly. I have seen this bouncing behaviour in various PMDG aircraft over the years, and it always upsets me. It does not look realistic, particularly for such a large and heavy aircraft. It may just have been a one off glitch, but I am curious to know if you have seen that at any point?

Hi Chris, yes, I have seen that issue.

 

As I mentioned, this is an improvement over the previous version, but the symptoms you described are still occurring, though not as severely as before. Still needs refinement. 

 

This airplane, even smaller than a 747, it is more stable by at least 15% in many aspects.

 

They improved stability to some extent; however, there is still a misunderstanding of the FBW system as a whole. Some of them are exaggerated up/down compensation for level flight, turns, and reactions to up/down air/wind changes, the whole pitch trim control characteristics. 

 

The airplane's pitch control characteristics are like those of conventional airplanes. The PMDG 777 airplanes have a tendency to fight you when using manual trim, or not even work at all.  ABSOLUTELY NOT IN THE REAL AIRPLANE. 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 the airplane's 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 or trim as necessary.

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 the configuration.

 

 

It's still frustrating to see what they did differently from the real thing. Regarding the speed trim, there's been an improvement (but it's still not perfect). Previously, you couldn't use the elevator trim during the initial climb until you passed 500 ft. They've now adjusted it to be available above 300 ft. Ideally, it should be accessible regardless of altitude. Yes, there are two modes, ground and in the air, but functionality should not be as they did it. 

 

Using trim, it should work without locking up to 300ft as is now. All of these issues are incorrect in the internal code, and it looks like they either don't know how to read/interpret the manuals or don't want to spend the time. 

 

You are 100%. PMDG airplanes exhibit this unrealistic, "unstable" behavior during regime changes or during wx conditions. It can be fixed. In the AERODYNAMICS section, properly adjusted CFD entries will resolve all these issues. 

Edited April 3Apr 3 by LRBS

43 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Hi Chris, yes, I have seen that issue.

 

As I mentioned, this is an improvement over the previous version, but the symptoms you described are still occurring, though not as severely as before. Still needs refinement. 

 

This airplane, even smaller than a 747, it is more stable by at least 15% in many aspects.

 

They improved stability to some extent; however, there is still a misunderstanding of the FBW system as a whole. Some of them are exaggerated up/down compensation for level flight, turns, and reactions to up/down air/wind changes, the whole pitch trim control characteristics. 

 

The airplane's pitch control characteristics are like those of conventional airplanes. The PMDG 777 airplanes have a tendency to fight you when using manual trim, or not even work at all.  ABSOLUTELY NOT IN THE REAL AIRPLANE. 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 the airplane's 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 or trim as necessary.

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 the configuration.

 

 

It's still frustrating to see what they did differently from the real thing. Regarding the speed trim, there's been an improvement (but it's still not perfect). Previously, you couldn't use the elevator trim during the initial climb until you passed 500 ft. They've now adjusted it to be available above 300 ft. Ideally, it should be accessible regardless of altitude. Yes, there are two modes, ground and in the air, but functionality should not be as they did it. 

 

Using trim, it should work without locking up to 300ft as is now. All of these issues are incorrect in the internal code, and it looks like they either don't know how to read/interpret the manuals or don't want to spend the time. 

 

You are 100%. PMDG airplanes exhibit this unrealistic, "unstable" behavior during regime changes or during wx conditions. It can be fixed. In the AERODYNAMICS section, properly adjusted CFD entries will resolve all these issues. 

I could have not said it any more correctly myself. I dived in quite deep in the FCOM and FCTM on many occasion when I felt like I could not stabilise the aircraft in pitch and felt confident that I knew how the trim was different compared to the conventional aircraft and how one should trim it out. However, I have to say that I had issues with PMDG 777’s rendition for years now, going back all the way to the P3D version. This plane has been quite unstable in pitch and I would really love them to finally at least take onboard the feedback people have been voicing. Failing to do so for years, I would really like a revamp in how they develop their aircraft and listen to the community finally. 

2 hours ago, Balint Szarka said:

I could have not said it any more correctly myself. I dived in quite deep in the FCOM and FCTM on many occasion when I felt like I could not stabilise the aircraft in pitch and felt confident that I knew how the trim was different compared to the conventional aircraft and how one should trim it out. However, I have to say that I had issues with PMDG 777’s rendition for years now, going back all the way to the P3D version. This plane has been quite unstable in pitch and I would really love them to finally at least take onboard the feedback people have been voicing. Failing to do so for years, I would really like a revamp in how they develop their aircraft and listen to the community finally. 

Many of us, whether past or current on the 777, shared our experiences or knowledge with them. I assume they have access to the FCOMs or BFCTM, but the issues still remain unresolved. They know better than anyone else. Why would they listen? They are descending from a higher status, possibly the first, to the bottom of the developers' list. Unfortunately, their lack of awareness or the bubble they live in will ultimately harm them. 

12 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Many of us, whether past or current on the 777, shared our experiences or knowledge with them. I assume they have access to the FCOMs or BFCTM, but the issues still remain unresolved. They know better than anyone else. Why would they listen? They are descending from a higher status, possibly the first, to the bottom of the developers' list. Unfortunately, their lack of awareness or the bubble they live in will ultimately harm them. 

It's like you are reading my mind.

On 4/1/2026 at 6:52 AM, LRBS said:

Just a few comments on that. If they vector you to intercept 2 or 3 NM before the FAF and at a speed of 180 KTS or higher, it will overshoot and correct for it. The intercept angle is at 30 degrees, no less than 8 NM to the FAF, and between 170 - 180 KTS. That will do an excellent job without any "hunting". Regarding the LNAV, the statement is correct, except that you should not engage APP mode once you've rolled out. The issue is that it may parallel the localizer due to a few-degree difference between the LNAV track and the actual LOC. Some will let the LNAV initiate the turn for a smooth intercept and switch to APP mode when the LOC starts moving. Keep in mind that at that stage, we're in vectors unless we do a full STAR with a transition. It depends on the occasion. Personally, I don't see while on vectors for ILS/LOC  to do first an LNAV intercept course and then to switch to APP mode. Counterproductive and unnecessary overload. But again, there are countless SOPs out there; the sky's the limit.  

The reason to use LNAV to join would be if you're given a steeper than 30 degree intercept, or if (in real life) you're far enough out and low enough to be receiving a shaky localizer.  In these scenarios LNAV will do a smoother intercept with no overshoot.  As long as you're in approach mode by the FAF, it's a perfectly acceptable technique.  I doubt anyone uses it as an actual SOP, but it is a valid technique that has benefits in certain situations.