tnorton776

PMDG, I noticed an inconsistency in the cfg file with the realworld 737-800-900 NGX engine rating from both boeing manuals and wiki. [TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain=0.002inlet_area=22.619rated_N2_rpm=13200.000static_thrust=24200.000 // Thrust by EEC [26300 TO SLS here]afterburner_available=0reverser_available=1AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0 -Should read-[TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain=0.002inlet_area=22.619rated_N2_rpm=13200.000static_thrust=27300.000 // Thrust by EEC [26300 TO SLS here]afterburner_available=0reverser_available=1AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0 Static thrust is set at 24200, but according to boeing and wiki, Maximum static thrust for the 737-800/900 is 27300. After the 3k rating adjustment the plane behaves far more realisticly now after FL300, and climbs out at much more realistic rates at Climb settings for a reduced thrust take off N1 90-96%. I noticed in the FMC that N1 performance adjustments allow for a 27k max thrust take off which is available, but if the .cfg file is wrong then the plane was only giving 24k, even with 27k selected. If anyone else is having these issues, I would suggest adjusting this value in the .cfg file under TurbineEngineData. I'm sure PMDG knows the proper values, but may have just typed it in as a 600-700 variant by mistake, which have less powerful version of the CFM engines.

This is completely false. The CPU has roughly an equal amount to do with FPS performance, namely hyperthreading or not, GHZ speed, and the amount of MB Cache on the processor has a tramendous affect of FPS performance. It doesnt matter if you have the best video card in the world, if the processor doesnt have enough MB Cache to handle the high data count indstruction set, your FPS will always be low and limited. So does the motherboard, the motherboard is a huge bottleneck. So does the speed DDR3 and quality and amount of RAM. Pretty much every component in your computer, even the sound card, affects either FPS and/or graphic quality. The bottom line is this - All computer components work synergisticlly together to form high FPS and quality video.

Should I get LGA 1366 or 1156? Intel Core i7-980 Nehalem 3.33GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7980 ? Intel Core i7-970 Gulftown 3.2GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7970 ? Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80601960 ? Which processor and set up will give me the most FPS. I already know which Graphics card I am getting. Thanks!

Hi all, I have been reading all about autoland in 4.20.17 Vol. 2 with GS and LOC capture etc. and how to do single channel and dual channel and full autoland with flare rollout. I've been reading it in detail and fooling around trying out the different landing setups in FSX, but I seem to get inconsistent results when trying to do the full autoland. Can someone just real quick that understands how to set up a full autoland from LNAV/VNAV and from HDG/VS set ups. Just a short 1,2,3,4 list would be great. Like when to push the APP switch etc. I just sometimes get single channel land when I want a full autoland and I dont know why. Thanks

No I meant 1000-750 ft/min climb after FL300 all the way to FL390 @ N1 100%. N1 should be around 90% for that kind of performance not 100%

I am having lots of fun an loving the new NGX! Just would like to report a couple things I have found so far.. 3 bugs I've noticed so far is - When switching from LNAV to HDG select and back an forth the NGX can snap violently into the turn, unlike the very smooth normal auto pilot operation at most times. Causes occasional FSX freeze and crashes at random times, hard to describe exaclty the cause I noticed even with 33% fuel and 60% payload that I had a very difficult time achieveing any altitude over 30,000 feet. With N1 at 100% the NGX struggled to get to 39000, was only climbing at around 750 FPM. I have noticed a few others have reported similar issues. Maybe there is something wrong here. Enjoying it bunches! Cant wait for the patch.

Thank you very much. I am loving everything about the new 737NGX. It is unbelieveably relastic and fun to fly. It is everything I've been hoping and waiting for! Thanks so much for making it PMDG, its truly a treasure. I was very impressed with the 69.99 price tag too. I would have paid 99.99 for it.Best regards

Hello everyone. I would appreciate it greatly if someone could kindly guide me to which manual and where in it is located the information about how to correctly engage the autoland system. I am very used to the MD-11 now and it is completely different. The 737NGX manual is very large and I'm having trouble locating the information regarding Full Autoland. Thanks Tom Norton

No, you're wrong. it IS southwest policy to perform this type of landing at ALL airports with runways around 7000 feet or less. Regardless of the MD-11 comments, (which I generated to get attention to the issues the PMDG MD-11 sometimes has with climb rates, which there have been many posts about) I am correct about this. This is the field i Work in, and I know what I'm talking about. Fast turnaround, an extreme amount of cycles + a policy of drop it on the runway = STRESS FATIGUE. Any idiot can figure this out. Just use your brain. The age of the plane makes no difference after the first couple of years. After that its all amount of cycles, and how hard you land the plane over and over. and southwest cycles them faster than a rabbit gets F****** and beats the living daylights out of them when they land.Their entire business model and creed is a direct assault on the structural integrity of their planes! Dont you get it? thats howcome they are so profitable and huge and havnt had the problems financally of other airlines. I seen 3 or 4 southwest planes come and go in the time it took for 1 UNITED flight to arrive and leave! Time is money friend and the short turn around times = more money generated. also = stress fatigue.

my FSuipc is unregistered i cant use anything from FSUIPC that im aware of.I have no trouble in the C340II. the mouse wheel is not set to trim.

day after day after day after day after day cant crack something .030 thin? thirty thousands? thats REDICULOUSLY thin for most fields of work. lol I know I work on CNC and EDM and we hold tolerances up to .000050"!

@ 2:50 - 3:15 is a perfect example of exactly how they perform their landings at midway. they hover over the touchdown zone marking and then drop it like a rock at the aiming point bars. My landing was IDENTICAL to this, aside from the fact that our landing was about 15-25 feet higher, and the drop it like a rock became a stall it like a rock @ 25-50 feet above the runway. If this doesnt convince you that landings like this, hour after hour day after day cant impact the stress fatigue or yeild strength stress ratio of a aluminum airplane, then you needa go take a course in metallurgy. So does southwest. before they start killing people.

Watch from 2:30 - 3:00The landing I was a part of at chicago midway in 2009 was easily 150% harder than that landing.It is blatently obvious to me that the shock absorbers didnt absorb 100% of the shock either, if they had then there would have been no loud bang and the plane would have not shook like an earthquake.

I am an engineer and i work on CNC and EDM equipment in a precision tool and die shop, the kind that make the parts for these planes. Anyways, Its based on engineering and scientific evidence. The structural integrity and critical tensil strength of these aluminum airframes can only take so much before they bend or wear and tear is caused. Landings can cause wear and tear anywhere on the plane, including the fuselage. landings in excess of around 500 FPM will start causeing yeild strength issues. If you do this to the plane over and over again, the yeild strength and ultimate strength gradually decay over time. the aluminum used in boeing 737's is strong but its not THAT strong. hundreds upon hundreds of rough landings in excess of 500 FPM could easily cause cracks and ruptures anywhere on the plane,. And how can you possibly make the statement that you doubht very seriously boeing and the FAA would allow SWA to adopt a SOP that endagers the structure of the aircraft when they were just fined millions for not taking care of their planes? Boeing and the FAA dont even have no say in what landing procedures an airline adopts. Southwest was fined millions for illegal maintence practices and they did find cracks and stress fatigue in more than just several of the planes in their fleet.These planes can and do suffer from metal fatigue, and routine hard landings most definetly speed up the process. there is scientific data to back that up.

The media is terrible at reporting most stories. They always get facts wrong and overhype everything and make it seem like the world is comming to an end in 10 seconds. Anyways, The number one issue here in my opinion is how hard they land their planes, espeically at midway. I've had to be a part of one about a year ago, and the plane hit the runway so hard an overhead bin came open. Southwest landing protocol calls for very hard landings at airports with around 7000 feet or less of runway. This protocol was a direct result of the two runway overruns during the past decade. This can and does take a big toll on the airframe, espeically with the quick turnaround stop and go rate and workhorse likeness of the southwest fleet. Southwest may be a safe airline, but I believe its just because they are getting lucky and relying on how well the boeing 737 is made and its saftey designs in place when a breach in the hull does take place. While this is purely speculation at this time, it might also be worth noting to take into account how well the pilots responded with almost instantaneous full situational awareness of the problem and solution. It is almost as if they were expecting it to happen, and knew this could be a problem at any time because of the stresses southwest puts on their aircraft. Incidents like this make me question how well the hard, but brittle new plastic airframe of the 787 is going to hold up after 5 - 10 years of similar conditions and rough landings.

Midway airport, southwest landing protocol, and sketchy maintence is what is causing all these problems.We all know how hard southwest runs their planes as well. As for midway,1. Short runways2. Strict landing protocol southwest adopted, especially at midway that basically slams the planes down on the runway3. Constant take off and landings day in day out pounding the planesIts basically simple wear and tear, sped up by their protocol and rules that are followed regarding landings. I landed last year in a southwest plane at midway on a trip to see my cousin in chicago. The plane hit the runway so hard one of the overhead compartments flew open and everyone was pretty startled. it was one of the loudest bangs ive ever heard in my life. I bet we were doing around -600 fpm when we hit. I'm sure the fact that southwest has a sketchy maintence track record comes in to play as well here.

the patch to fix the autopilot is not working for me. still unable to set/arm cruise alt up down etc.

ty god for the patch my sanity is saved for another day. well... sorta

I amma gunna keel mahself if dis gaddam Carnado saratoga bounces one moar TIMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when i switch view or do ANYTHINGGG this insane plane does not likeee!!!111! plzzzzzzzzz wheree is a real fixxxx halpppp meeeeeeeeeee :( carenado patch nawt wurrkinggggg

I refined my rant just for Shh and giggles. I do make some good points tho lolz. wilco But seriously whats with the damn bouncyness? it makes me pull my hair out! where is the patch for the gad dam bounceyness!?!?!?

Getting this problem too and others. None of their planes work 100% but I tolerate it. the planes are usually released 75%-90% finished, but even after patching theres always hiccups here or there. The default FSX planes have hiccups here and there, but the ENTIRE program plus acceleration cost me 30 bucks. With that 30 bucks you get around 20+ planes, a whole world of scenery and airports, and etc. Buying from aftermarket gives you ONE plane for the same price of the entire god damn program. Do I have a right to be more picky about that one single plane? DAMN RIGHT! Carenado's aftermarket planes are better than default FSX, but they have so many bugs! The one that really gets me is the ######ing bounce like a ######ing bouncey ball one! i mean #####? not a single one of the default planes has this issue? #####? its really starting to tick me off because I bought this product amongst about a dozen other carenado aircraft and this is just one more plane to have all kinds of rediculous preventative problems at release. I cant really use it for any medium to long range flights. I paid the money and the plane is basically stuck in the hanger. I have to wait while they have my money to fix a product that should have been 100% at release. I mean really Who wants to sit there and keep reajusting the trim for 3-5 hours? are you serious? I think it is unprofessional of carenado to release a for profit product that has a problem with one of the essential, critical components of its avionics at release. Not impressed with the principle of the matter. I hope this is not a sign of things to come or future slips in QC.The bottom line is, its sloppy, and I dont appreciate companies who take my money and give me some sloppy 75% finished work in progress deal.

Am testing with 0 weather conditions now, will modify post with results when done :( .

Thank you for the assistance, I will follow your instructions and will do this experiment. I just want to say I am not trying to disrespect or put down PMDG in any way, I think PMDG is obviously fully capable of producing state of the art planes for FSX and their MD-11 is awesome and very well done and i Enjoy it and am looking forward to buying the 737NGX, I just want The MD-11 it to work right. That is all. I am using REX and REX weather software. Are there any known issues with REX 2.0 for FSX or its weather system?

They fly right over where I work smarty. I know what I'm talking about. And im not the only one who has complained about PMDG MD-11 Climb performance. after 20k its almost impossible to climb, no matter what load. that is not right. there is something not right. This is not the only post about this issue. it was empty no cargo service flight. fuel was at 50% though and I have tried similar settings with PMDG MD-11 and cannot even come close to the real world perfrormance.

Before you post a reply, please know that I work about 10 miles south of KOAK right in line with their takeoff/landing main runway 11 and I see FedEx MD-11 take off and land from there at least a dozen times a month, and they definetly look like they have no trouble climbing out at 4-6k FPM at 60-80% N1 with a pitch angle of 20 or greater. I have also ridden in the cockpit of an MD-11 taking off out of KOAK once because my friend is a pilot with FEDEX and the tower cleared us for a max performance take off because it was midday and we shot up like a rocket to the moon after only 5k feet of runway. We was eaisly doing 10k FPM for the first 30 seconds and gaining airspeed.For some reason, the PMDG-MD11 climb performance is very subpar to real world performance. espeically in the 20 - 40k alt range. I understand poor climb performance when things are loaded 100/100. but when things are 33/33 or less the MD-11 is like a rocketship.Basically what I'm trying to say is, I do not believe the PMDG MD-11 performs nearly as well as the real world one and I would like to know why, and how if possible in the INI i can change settings or fix the problem.