JaneRachel

Paperflyer,I am sorry that you had support problems. We do take support very seriously. I can assure that in no way would your mail be intentionally ignored. If you would like to send me a PM I will gladly arrange for the matter to be rectified.all the bestJane

Firstly, thank you for Alan for taking the time to review and to comment here.Nigel, thank you for your comments. This is not a support forum, so I will limit my replies to the context of the review and your comments to Alan.To take your points individually:-1) Scenery and route: A huge amount of work has gone into showcasing the best scenery areas in FSX and FS2004. There were a multitude of criteria used in creating the route and Alan touched upon some of those in the review, from graduation of difficulty, to length of leg, to the interest and scenery of the route. It took months to work out. Inevitably, there are some areas where the landscape under your wings may seem flat and featureless. Outside of the USA and a few other select areas the quality of the FS scenery and mesh resolution is much reduced in the product. The Microsoft team simply did not provide an equal level of detail to the landscape around the world. That being said, I worked diligently to take the aircraft to what I consider is the best of the scenery that MS provided for us by default. As such, rather than fly over featureless landscape the route visits islands such as the Seychelles, Madagascar etc etc. There was a conscious design design to limit the default scenery effect for instance, by choosing a Pacific crossing rather than the other option of a crossing over Russia and the Bering Strait. The more northerly route would have entailed hours of flat landscape with nothing to see. The Pacific crossing is a challenge itself, and also broken up by visiting a range of islands and atolls which I hope many will find of interest, from Papua New Guinea to Midway Island etc. With the exception of the Pacific, for the reasons given, there was a conscious effort on my part to avoid as much ocean crossing as possible, or to limit the duration where it was unavoidable during my design of the product. The vast majority of the route is overland. Again, I emphasise a huge effort was made to make the best of the default scenery. I believe that has been achieved. There is much to be seen from the caribbean, to the fjords of Greenland to San Francisco and Lake Tahoe, to a sunset over Singapore! (Incidentally you shouldn't be seeing the pyramids from 18000ft, the aircraft lands close by in Cairo :) )2) documentation: My aim was to give a flavour of each leg of the journey that sparks the imagination without dousing the spirit of adventure and discovery that I had hoped to set as a tone for the product. I encourage people to research the flights if they so choose and to go deeper than what was in the documentation. As Alan points out in his review comments, I did not want to spoon feed the user and thereby limit the adventure. I hope that I found the right balance in the documentation. A good example of this is that I have gratified to see many users are really enjoying the flights and have even started a blog researching the adventure as they go. This is exactly what I had hoped for. I provide the tools and means, you provide the adventure. A good example is "Bertie's blog" which I find most interesting. http://bertiebassett.blogspot.com/2008/10/...80-flights.htmlFrom feedback received, many many people are enjoying the whole adventure and spirit of the journey.3) Flightplans. I never believed there would be an issue with them. They were created in FSX and FS2004 and modified as needed using FSBuild. They are ready to fly in the product which was the whole idea, as again Alan mentions in his comments. I am genuinely sorry if you have had problems tweaking them. I had presumed that if anyone wanted to tweak them they would be more advanced users who would simply rewrite them with SIDS and STARs etc from scratch if they wished. The aim was to cater for all level of FS user from the beginner upwards with ready made, ready to fly flight plans that load with the situation in FS.I am not sure what you have heard in terms of support from First Class Simulations, but I personally believe the quality of user support is excellent and the entire team approachable.I really do hope that you will stick with the flights and share the enjoyment that many others are experiencing with the package. I also appreciate your comments.all the very bestJane

heyaRTA isnt currently modelled (and that may, or may not change in future updates - thats for Vangelis to comment on)The good news however is that RTA is hardly ever used and most operators never use it at all. I will however, make sure it gets added to Vangelis' wish-list for you :)Jane-Rachel

unfortunately this one is out of the hands of PMDG and is in the domain of the ASV developers.The symptoms you discuss occur across a range of aircraft (many more than PMDG models) with ASV running. On my machine I have given up using ASV completely to avoid the issue..take careJane-Rachel

Hey gang,I would be very wary talking of simplifications in terms of the 744, especially with the message above that mentions the lift and drag mathematics. Vangelis (a professional aerodynamicist) spent a huge amount of time on creating a performance model for the aircraft. I have seen the equations, they would make Stephen Hawking dizzy ;)All of the other aircraft systems have been modelled to the same fidelity. If you see any simplification in any part of the aircraft simulation you can rest assured that it is as a result of an FS2004 limitation that cannot be circumvented.The whole ethos of the design process was to make this aircraft as realistic as humanly possible within the confines of a desktop simulation, and FS2004 in particular. At this time, as Rob and Lefteris have pointed out on many occasions a weather radar would require a level of compromise that they feel would impact on the realism of the aircraft. They are simply not happy with the constraints that would be imposed. When you see a weather radar in a PMDG product as FS matures further, the radar will match, point for point, the features of the real aircraft implementation and will not be a compromise or eye candy. You will not see one implemented until the team are sure it can be done accurately.For the 744, the team made the decision, quite rightly, that they had built a high fidelity representation of the aircraft and that it should not be spoiled with a bolt-on compromise that whilst eye candy would detract from the overall aircraft representation quality.Other developers have other priorities, differing values and differing target audiences. It is always pointless to compare developer X to developer Y and who did what and when. I am sure the vast majority of PMDG owners support the "we will not do it until we can get it perfect approach" adopted by PMDG.take careJane-Rachel

Randy has asked me to post these on his behalf, so you have him to thank for these great pics :)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/120068.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/120069.jpg

Hello Ben,I agree with you on flight dynamics being important. Its my pet thing too in FS2004 :)I am really pleased with the 744 flight dynamics at all ranges of aircraft weight and aircraft configuration. This pleasure is echoed by all the 744 pilots in the group.As you and I share the same priority, I dont think you will be disappointed as Im really pleased :)Jane-Rachel

just remember though, that even on a real 744, you will see a lot of engine symmetry, but yes I take your point :) The EEC's have a role in life to try and keep all 4 in balance. If one engine significantly steps away from another, signficant being only slight in terms of digits, then its time to put down that cheese sandwich and start going through failure checklists :) The Electronic Engine Control equipment on the real 744 is both a work of art and fascinating and to describe it to do justice I would be writing a novel here ;)The EEC not to be confused with the European Union, that EEC has no symmetry at all ;)JR

Gerry, again a "go live date" is not for me to discuss. I think it has been said though, from many sources that everyone wants to get things absolutely right. All those sort of questions really fall at the domain of the PMDG team, and they will tell you the same thing, once everything has been checked, double checked, checked again. Testers and advisors are not privvy to release dates or all the commercial aspects, thats down to PMDG.Awais, showing my ignorance, I have no idea how to embed screenshots into messages, but I will ask in the group for someone to answer your request :)Jane-Rachel

I am not really the person to answer this question. Thats really down to Robert R to discuss with you. However, I will comment that the testing process is carefully thought out and highly professional, making use of the realworld pilots, simmers, and everyones strengths and weaknesses. Be sure that its a structured regime, that is being handled methodically and properly.As to the specifics of that, thats not really something thats my place to comment on, the mechanics of all these things is something for Robert to discuss and of course he has commercial considerations with respect to techniques too. So sorry its not really anything Im in a position to discuss, but please set your mind at rest everything is being done to a precise plan.Jane-Rachel

bear in mind gang, there is an awful lot we all want to tell you about that excites us just as much as Im sure it will excite you all.For obvious reasons, in deference to PMDG, we are very careful in forum in what we discuss. In deference to yourselves, I for one, want you all to have the surprises and big smiles that we all did when we first got this bird on the tarmac.None of us want to spoil the fun you will all have exploring this remarkable aircraft. We dont want to unwrap the gift before we give it to you ;)Rob Randazzo to his credit, throughout development, has encouraged us to be honest and forthright. Those of you who know Rob, will recognise he is a straight talker! So Ryan and I are not talking as some "cynical marketing hype" we are all talking from a deeply help personal conviction and passion in this aircraft.Jane-Rachel

now onto 744 workload.There is still significant workload involved with flying a 744 properly over a steamship. On the ground that is simplified to an extent by the automation, but dont forget we have an FMC to program and worry over in the glass birds (and Im sure many of you will put your hand up and say that is non trivial). You gain in some areas, you lose in others, preflight.Of course, we still have things like IRS alignment. Now on the 744 do we enter positional coordinates by hand or do we trust what the GPS is telling us and prime the IRS from the GPS position, or maybe do we enter an airport ID etc. Lets make sure that the FMC radio autotuning is in sync with the IRS and GPS and that we are getting sensible navigational data. Lets press that POS button on the glareshield. Is the country we are departing from not certifying GPS navigational updates over their territory. Do we need to inhibit the GPS from the appropriate page in the FMC. decisions decisions ;) And dont forget all the paperwork pre-flight, fuel and weights etc etc..Once airborne, if your flying properly there is still work to be done too. Dont forget to plot your alternate airports on the FIX page, and maybe range rings on the navigational display for equal time points. Maybe keep updating RTE2 with a route from where we are to our alternate, in case we need to divert rapidly best to have a route in hand. Keep checking the EICAS and synoptics to make sure that all the aircraft systems are still cute and cuddly and not about to bite you :)The bottom line is that if you sit in LNAV and VNAV watching a video and combing the dog your missing out on a lot of the inflight procedures that are followed in realworld ops. As a simmer the workload is as real as you want to make it. This applies to any aircraft that you chose to fly in FS2004. If you want to know whereabouts on the dogs back has not yet been combed, or exactly how far you are from that alternate at Keflavik, the choice is yours.

Hey Teeloo, gangOK, actually from a software point of view its way way harder to model a 744 than a 742, if you model to PMDG standards that is :). This is not intended to decry a superlative product such as the RFP, its simply great, Im sure we all agree. An awful lot of work went into that product.This thread has two main themes as far as I can see, procedural modelling and workload, let me address both and bore you all to tears for a couple of minutes reading if I may. I will mention some realworld things and then to the PMDG specifics in each post. I will probably do it in two separate posts, for those bored with the first, please feel free to skip the second ;)1) The 744 still has all the primary ingredients of the 742 (and Im talking real aircraft here ). It has hydraulics, electrics, pneumatics and all those gubbins that you see in a 742. However, the difference lies in presentation. One of the first things you are taught on migration from a steam 742 to a classyglassy shiny 744 is not to underestimate what you see. You still have all those items that you see on the steamships but rather than round dials stuck here there and everywhere, the information is transposed to the EICAS, upper and lower displays. Flicking between the lower synoptic pages effectively gives us all the same information, and we have to be aware of it and monitor it, we just monitor on a screen not on a dial.Now, in terms of systems in the 744, there are indeed a chunk of automated things that happen. Again though dont take these things for granted. There are many thousands of combinations of aircraft state (ignoring the complexities of say the FMC system). Its a case of if this switch is here, then this this and this happens, but not if this happens first. The logic tree of the 744 systems is frightening. Lots of configurations with lots of permutations, that the pilot can intervene with creating more permutations. Its horribly complex to model, more so than "steam gauges" which in many ways (yes I know the exceptions) are on or off, or at position x, y or z. In the 744 we have "this happens only when this happens, and only if the attendants served a cheese roll before offering the chicken and beef scenarios"Examples? what do you think happens to the pneumatic systems if you chose an APU-PACK departure, with the APU driving air conditioning. Or did you know that the 744 changes fuel valves around automatically when flaps 10 or 20 is in position for takeoff, to always ensure a tank to engine initial climbout? Or what if we start messing with electrical bus switches, or maybe the odd hydraulic switch?your starting to get the idea Im sure, the 744 is as complex as any other airplane. Now, superimposing this onto the PMDG744. Has PMDG modelled a complex logic tree of aircraft systems. Answer oh yes! enough to keep procedural fans feasting on what is offered for a very long time. Do the synoptic displays on the lower EICAS, and upper EICAS messages accurately reflect aircraft state. Oh yes, they are not just pretty pictures on all those graphical pages. Your going to have to monitor them and respond to what you see. Thats "real" data your seeing there, not pretty pictures, but a representation of the aircraft systems. There has been opportunity to double check all this information with real 744s during dev.And if you dont want to autostart (various reasons why), you could always kill the EECS and start manually. Make sure to monitor all your N1, N2, EGT values, vibration, oil pressure etc. Did I mention these numbers are what we see on the real aircraft and that Vangelis spent a long (read real long) time modelling engines and performance. Im sure I did :)Jane-Rachel

Gang,To quickly address questions posted in many threads.Its worth pointing out that in addition to the PMDG development team, the beta team has a very large component of airline pilots (yep 744) and Boeing engineers, in addition to seasoned simmers who beta tested the NG and learnt a lot during that process.So, to answer the questions on system accuracy from many of you, there has been an extremely intricate modelling of aircraft systems, the more you look, the more you find in the modelling. Lots of little nuances of systems that bring a big grin to the face and "oh wow, that works properly, great to see them putting that in" I dont want to spoil PMDG's thunder so I wont mention those things in detail, but suffice to say there is an awful lot of custom code to get around FS limitations that adds a whole new dimension of realism.I have been overwhelmed by the realism. Those of us who have had the great pleasure to fly the real 747 feel right at home in this cockpit, be it 2D pilots, first officer seat, a superlative VC or reaching up to the overhead :)Everyone in the development process, be it developer, advisor or beta tester have put their heart and soul into making an airplane that is very very special. There is a huge personal passion from everyone. That has shown through in everything from 3D modelling, to systems, to panel design etc.Despite all this, frame rates in all views have exceeded that of the NG, in my personal experience.The bottom line is that everyone involved has done everything in their power to bring you the best 744 they could make.take careJane-Rachel

Although never having ridden in one I have seen them land at LHR so I know EXACTLY the appropriate pitch attitude for each phase of flaps courtesy of my binoculars. I will of course share this with Vangelis and the flight dynamicists ;-)I can also advise on the winds for each approach and how that affected landing, courtesy of poking a wet finger in the air as a precision instrument for gauging wind strength, direction and ambient temperature.I do apologise to the PMDG team however, as without an MD-11 DVD I am afraid I have no status as a systems expert ;-)Jane-Rachel

Although we do actually run all the figures first from performance data before going out to the aircraft :) The FMC figures are used as a crosscheck.The only problem is, of course, the practicality of making performance data sheets for every runway of every appropriate airfield available.. So simmers pretty much have to use the FMC..Jane-Rachel

Thanks Mark,Being PEGASUS kit, is the user manual out of sync with the current FMC build that is going through beta?I noticed in the IRS alignment section of the manual, referring to POS INIT pages there was no GPS reference (GPS is inherent to PEGASUS installations) that can be simply scratchpadded over to the SET IRS POS field? No obvious mention of GPS positions on POS REF page3? Is the aircraft not GPS equipped? (although GPS is integral to PEGASUS of course)There are other little things too such as not noticing an E/O SID mentioned on departure pages etc etc, Thanks in advance for any clarificationJane-Rachel

Hi Jonathan,Out of interest, could you please enlighten me as to what specific areas of the PMDG 737NG you consider "overrated", or is it the aircraft as a whole? Is that comment based upon your personal expertise with the real NG or simply a simmers view?I am not being critical of you, but genuinely quite curious to find out why you have that view of the aircraft.all the bestJane-Rachel