Adam106

All right, fair enough :blush: .. but my other comments still stand. Adam

I'd already given some examples - Failure modelling, service based failures, HUGS, the little unseen details (anyone read the NGX intro document and tested it out?), LNAV/VNAV simulation, custom autopilot that doesn't rely on default FSX autopilot and all it's limitations. True, I haven't delved in to the simulation of the Q400's electric and hydraulic systems yet, but remember the NGX models details such as fluid quantity fluctuating with control surface movement and temperature variations etc. The electric system accounts for every amp of current in the system and correctly models load shedding and numerous failures. The air conditioning and pressurization system models duct pressure being dependent on engine rpm and outside temperature. The cabin temp will drop with an open L1 door etc - lots of little things like this. True failures might be coming in the PRO version, but that could be months away. We'll have to wait and see. The external FDE is interesting but it's too early to judge it's real benefit. Apart from ground friction and stalling the NGX flight model is really good - it feels pretty similar to the full motion 737 sims I've flown... Adam

I think a lot of the comments on here hailing the Q400 as better than the NGX is down to pure excitement and novelty of a a new release. The simulation complexity of the NGX is way and above anything I've seen so far in the dash. It's not because the NGX has had a couple of service packs either. The NGX was a far more polished and complete product on day one. Failure modelling, service based failures, HUGS, the little unseen details (anyone read the NGX intro document and tested it out?), LNAV/VNAV simulation, custom autopilot that doesn't rely on default FSX autopilot and all it's limitations. The overall feel of a 'complete' product.... The only area where the Q400 is on top at the moment is FPS. There is nothing particularly innovative here that PMDG didn't do with the Jetstream 41 3 years ago. Adam.

I've now spent the best part of 9 hours testing out the Q400 and I'd like to give my opinions. Frankly I was surprised but hopeful when I first heard people gushing about the quality. Lots of guys have compared it to the NGX and many have said it surpasses the PMDG aircraft - at the moment I'm afraid they're wrong, the NGX still can rest easy, the Q400 has some way to go. Don't get me wrong, the VC and external visuals are very good indeed. Crisp and sharp with lots of detail. Engine sounds are deep and impressive - from the cockpit, although from spot view they're disappointingly muted. Lots have commented on the detail sounds in the flight deck - well yes, some are good and there is a good variety of click and lever sounds. However there is something about the sound mix that is wrong - too many click sounds sound wrongly placed - small switches make big unnatural clunking sounds when moved, a few don't have any sound at all. The NGX sound set is extremely well blended and natural. The FMS modelling is already frustrating. SIDs that don't draw correctly are unacceptable. It's clear that the Nav data isn't being read and interpreted properly. Direct To's don't work 50 % of the time. The track line disappears when selecting a Direct To and LNAV goes wildly off track. Go-around procedures are not depicted properly either - it's a shame. On the topic of go-arounds - it might be me, but there doesn't seem to be anyway of binding a key to the GO-AROUND button on the power lever. The default FSX command doesn't work with it. Majestic's control panel doesn't allow any special key bindings - this is a glaring omission in a product of this type. Performing a GA by panning your view to click a power lever click spot is a nightmare and not realistic. The same goes for the Autopilot disconnect function - there is no yoke disconnect key, pressing z gives you the wrong indications and visual warnings. There's a couple of other small bugs - it seems the attitude indicator is 2-3 degrees nose down on the ground - it should read 0 degrees. When tuned to an ILS the DME value jitters to and fro about 0.8 nm as well. Unfortunately there seems to be a major issue with the elevator / trim / autopilot interaction. I've just finished a flight with a nose dive into the ground. The autopilot doesn't seem to trim out the elevator to a neutral position in any stage of flight (you can see this on the PFCS indicator) - meaning that when you disconnect the A/P the aircraft you get is badly out of trim - very frustrating results if you're at 200'. Is it using the default FSX autopilot by any chance? It must be said that documentation is poor. The tutorial is a not very helpful and the systems manual is rather short. The 'checklist' is a weird combination of normal procedure flow and checklists, which is hard to follow. Importantly there are no profiles or flight patterns that explain actions and sequence of take off climb and approach. I'm sorry for the negative post, but with high expectations and a £40 outlay I feel the comments are valid. I really want to support dedicated devs like Majestic but at the moment the Q400 falls some way short of NGX standards. I hope that service packs and the PRO version can go some way to iron out the niggles. Adam

I've been practicing Engine failures during takeoff with the wonderful 'Emergency NGX' from FS2Crew. Can anyone confirm whether or not VNAV is working correctly during a engine fail situation? If VNAV is armed prior to take off it engages at 400'. At this point it should command the FD for a climb at V2 to V2 + 20, until reaching engine out acceleration altitude. It should then command a 'near level climb' to flaps up speed. It currently isn't behaving that way (I think) - VNAV engages at 400' and the FD commands V2 + 20. At the FMC entered engine out acceleration altitude nothing happens. The speed bug just remains at V2 + 20. The solution would be to go speed intervene and select the flaps up speed. However the FD does not command a 'near level climb' - we'll still climbing at 800-900 fpm (and accelerating to be honest...maybe I'll try at heavier weights...). Does the FMC entered engine out accel altitude actually do anything? Is VNAV working correctly here? Adam Turley

I can't get armed failures to actually become active. Choosing an active failure from the the PMDG menu works fine - the specific failure text will go red and when back in the sim the failure is active. However, when arming a failure then hitting 'apply' and going back to sim the failure never happens. This is true for any set time period. The armed failure text turns bold in the failures list - is this correct, should it be red? Anyone had this problem over the years? It used to work fine for me... Adam Turley

Thank you for looking that up Kristian, it makes sense for it to work that way. Has Robert or someone else from the dev team seen this thread? Could it go on the SP2 list if it isn't already. I know it's minor for most but simulating non-normals is great fun and little errors do stand out in an otherwise superb representation of the NG. Adam Turley

If it is indeed modeled correctly in the NGX could the reason be for a possible go-around. To avoid the warning when going from flap 15 to flap 1, in a SE go-around? This doesn't really make sense though because you still get the gear warning aural...and that has priority over the flaps warning anyway. Adam Turley

Hi, I've been playing around with SE Flap 15 landings and I've noticed that the GPWS doesn't give a 'TOO LOW FLAPS' warning even if we don't inhibit the GPWS flap warning. Should we not get that warning with less than flap 30 or 40 selected? Now OK, the training manual says that flaps 15, 30 and 40 are 'normal' settings for landing. But the QRH tells you to move the flap inhibit switch to inhibit when doing a flaps 15 landing. Why does the QRH have this action if a flaps 15 landing doesn't generate the aural warning normally? A possible minor bug? Flaps 1,2,5 and 10 all generate the warning.... Really looking forward to the FS2Crew Emergency NGX now... Adam Turley

Bryan, In anticipation of Emergency NGX I've been practicing some failures. I've noticed that currently when I ask the FO to set the GPWS flap inhibit switch to inhibit, he responds and moves the safety cover on the switch but doesn't actually switch the proper switch on...should he do this? On a related note - does anyone know what actions in the QRH are memory items? For the life of me I can't see any symbols or guidelines on which actions are memory items and which are not. Cheers, Adam Turley

Thanks for the update, great news! Can you comment at all on a possible SP2 for the NGX? It's been mentioned that some of the 777 features will be back fitted in the NGX, as well as correcting a few tiny niggles still outstanding. Hopefully this is still on the cards too right? Adam Turley

I was definately still descending at about 700 fpm when the FO calls positive rate - this is on about 2 go-arounds, I haven't yet tested any more... One extra thing you could add if you like - a 'VNAV ALT' fma verification call. Currently we have all the other vnav calls but not this one. ooh...one more...when you've pre-armed LNAV AND VNAV for takeoff, the FO calls 'LNAV' and 'VNAV' at 400' LNAV actually engages at 50'. Could you make him call LNAV at 50' and VNAV at 400'. Or will this get in the way of 'postive rate' call? With the current UK voice set - Shutdown Checklist - the FO will call 'hydraulic panels' plural, rather then 'hydrualic panel'. A little one but grating.

Thanks Bryan. I've thought of a couple more things: 6) On a go-around the FO calls 'Positive rate' far too early. He's calling when the aircraft is still descending - could you program in a few more seconds delay to allow the climb to become established? 7) A little thing but the 'Select raw data on your side' command could be adjusted for a VOR approach. Currently the FO will always select APP on the EFIS control panel regardless of approach type. Could he select VOR for a VOR approach so we get a VOR rose? Really looking forward to Emergency NGX. Cheers, Adam Turley

I've just got back into the FS2Crew NGX version - and really having fun. However, a couple of possible additions occur to me: 1) A 'Cycle Flight Directors' command - to be used on an approach when you want to clear the FD&FMA but regain FD modes for a possible go-around. At the moment we have to command the FD off and then back on again - sounds a bit unnatural. 2) An option to call 'Visual' on an instrument approach. Calling visual would make the FO ignore the minimums callout and possibly say something like 'confirmed runway ahead'. The 747 version had something like this years ago. 3) For non-precision approaches - 'course alive' and glidepath alive calls - similar to the localiser and glideslope alive calls on an ILS - the boeing manuals have these in them. 4) There seems to be some mismatch between the GPWS height callouts and the FO's callouts. This is especially noticeable on a CAT 3A approach with 50' DH. I'm guessing the virtual FO is reading barometric altitude from FSX to simulate a 50' height call, only problem is the databases don't seem to match up, he's actually calling minimums at 25-30'. Any solution for this? 5) Final thing - back in the day of the original 737 version, you could do an abbreviated take off emergency brief for thru flights. Would be nice to have back...although I guess we wont get it. Cheers, Adam Turley

I'm not sure how many have delved into the fail operational autoland logic in the NGX (or how many want to!) but I've been experimenting tonight with a few things, and some odd things have come up. It seems to be that the airplane is happy to engage and continue with LAND 3 even with 1 ILS receiver failed. When I fail one ILS I get a 'No Autoland' message on the engine display - as expected. I'm then expecting the autoland status indicator on the PFD to say 'NO AUTOLAND' when passing 1500' RA. It doesn't - it engages in LAND 3 and does the autoland. Should this happen? In another failure situation I fail the standby ISFD. I get a 'NO LAND 3' on the engine display - all good. I also get the 'LAND 2' on the PFD when passing 1500'. This is as expected, and all fine. However if I fail the standby ISFD after 'LAND 3' engagement at 1500' I don't get a reversion to 'LAND 2' (the autoland message on the engine display does read NO LAND 3, but no PFD change) Surely we should get this downgrading of status, or have I read the systems wrong? The only failure that generates the 'NO AUTOLAND' on the PFD is if I fail one of the radio altimeters below 1500' - are there any other failures that should cause this reversion? I expect there might be. Complex and rivet counting to a certain extent, but it just shows the level of detail the NGX incorporates... Adam Turley