Jump to content

threexgreen

Members
  • Content Count

    3,158
  • Donations

    $10.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,931 Excellent

1 Follower

About threexgreen

  • Rank
    Member - 3,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

8,829 profile views
  1. Oh okay, I was asking more about manufacturer like FSC or Jetmax but that would be Boeing.
  2. There's something out of whack. But I don't think it's the sim or the PMDG because I've never had that experience, and others apparently don't either. I have the FCOM from the PMDG 737 in P3D when it still shipped with the addon, as well as a big 737 operator's flight manual which describes flare behavior and techniques in more detail. I find the PMDG does what the manual says about the real plane, and the described technique works too.
  3. I think this is close to the issue. Sensitivity is the go-to setting for flight simmers, but it's far from desirable. Flight controls are linear, not a curve like sensitivity. Flight controls won't deflect faster just because the yoke is further backward, they will deflect at the same rate, and the pitch will increase at the same rate throughout yoke movement. I only use reactivity and extremity dead zone and stay away from sensitivity. My settings are 33 % extremity dead zone and 63 % reactivity. The only downside with this is that you will lose some travel distance when you decrease extremity dead zone, but you won't ever get anywhere near the dead zone in anything resembling normal flight, so it doesn't really matter. What yoke do you have?
  4. You don't just pull the yoke back once and center it. You have to keep it backward and sometimes even pull back further just to maintain the descent rate. Pushing the yoke forward is never desirable and suggests mismanaged energy. Landing with the Zibo your descent rate was way higher than in the PMDG video, where you came in much more shallow. That's two very different energy states and a pull on the yoke will have different effects. If you're as shallow as in the PMDG video you barely have to pull to flare and if you pull just a tad too much you'll float. I don't know if it's just the screens, but it also looks like you're very fast, hence high energy. Couple that with a shallow descent and it makes perfect sense you would have floated or even climbed with a harder pull, especially since you were still on thrust. Again, the situation is completely different in the Zibo video. The approach speed of 155 kts is very high as well, but given the high descent rate a decent pull was required just to achieve a normal touch down rate. I'm not saying this to be confrontational, but I've flown the PMDG in MSFS more times than I can count (700, 800, 900 and 900ER), and I've never had an issue with floating or climbing, much less had to push on the yoke. Even with a high wind additive I can't remember coming close to ballooning, even though it's definitely possible in that energy state.
  5. But you do have to baby the yoke. That's realistic behavior. You flare gently rising the nose by 2 to 3 degrees, retard thrust to idle at about 10 feet and from there on it's necessary to keep back pressure on the yoke to maintain or even increase pitch to maintain the descent rate to touchdown, because the nose wants to drop after thrust reduction. The PMDG 737 replicates exactly this, and it doesn't float if handled correctly - and it definitely doesn't climb if you're anywhere near correct technique and energy state. I have an exact full replica 737 yoke myself and there is significant back pressure required to fly the nose onto the runway. This is exactly real world procedure as per flight manual. In your MSFS videos you were never even close to climbing at any point. I genuinely don't see any problem here. I also don't know why we are even assuming the Zibo is what PMDG should simulate. I have never flown the Zibo but if you don't have to baby the yoke and fly the nose onto the runway it's incorrect.
  6. The aircraft isn't climbing because it's being flown onto the runway in a continuous descent, regardless of thrust or how quickly the pilots pulls on the yoke. I really mean no offense, but physics and flying an aircraft are more complex than your argument of idle thrust. If you land the PMDG 737 like in the video it is not going to climb. If you think there is a problem though, I would suggest posting a video demonstrating what you mean, otherwise we'll just keep going in circles.
  7. In all seriousness, it's easy to joke about it now but it's pure luck there wasn't a person in that seat and it didn't happen higher up. A boy got his shirt sucked off his body who was near the door plug.
  8. Yep. I've been waiting for a MAX since 2019 when PMDG first confirmed it. I'd appreciate it if they could just say what's going on. I'm sure they have their reasons but it's starting to bug me.
  9. I'm most interested to see how they are simulating ground friction and engine behavior on this in MSFS. For some reason, they never simulated anything outside of P3D and as a result the P3D version still suffers from grossly unrealistic ground friction where you have to continuously keep thrust above idle to keep moving, as if you're taxiing through deep mud. The engine model is off too because it too relies on the P3D (even FSX) model with its limitations. This is one decision on their part I never understood given how well the iFly is made in other aspects.
  10. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm positive they said offline voices use AI too - local AI, not cloud AI.
  11. ... so you're saying there are go-arounds on idle power? Come on, no one is claiming an airplane will climb - like actually climb far out - on idle power, just like your car isn't going to go uphill without hitting the gas. But your car will still keep rolling forward for a bit if you go uphill and take your foot off the gas - it's not going to slam to a halt. It carries energy. An airplane, especially a 130k lbs 737, isn't going to lose all its energy the second the engines hit idle (which is flight idle - so you're not actually even fully at idle). If you carry excess energy or overflare there is still energy left to translate into a short climb even at idle (we're talking seconds). If you're applying correct landing technique and fly a nice flare with engines at idle - you're right, it's not going to climb and you actually have to keep it from dropping its nose. This is exactly the PMDG does, and if you're easily making it climb instead you're carrying excess energy, hence landing technique matters. It's not rocket science, and a real 737 pilot already gave you all the evidence you need. But it seems you just ignore all of that and keep pushing your narrative that the flight model is junk, so carry on.
  12. Sorry, but it absolutely does. You don't quite seem to understand why landing technique matters. It's very hard to make it climb in a low energy state at thrust idle, so what you're describing shouldn't happen like that, at least not as easily as that. However, if there is some energy left it can climb a little bit on idle, especially with a strong headwind. If you come in hot (excess energy), you can absolutely still overflare and achieve a positive rate for a moment, even at idle. Idling thrust doesn't equal an instant state of zero energy. The thing has momentum. That said, from countless flights with the PMDG in P3D and MSFS I can say it doesn't exhibit the behavior you're describing. If you're stable at around -700 fpm at normal pitch, initiate flare at 30 feet by raising the nose two to three degrees max, retard throttles at 10 feet, and increase back pressure to counter the nose drop and maintain flare pitch you're going to nail the touchdown at around -100 to -150 fpm. There is no tendency to float, much less climb. That can only happen with excess energy or by overflaring (disregarding environmental factors for simplicity). That's why I said maybe check your landing technique. If you can make it climb that easily it has a whole lot of energy that shouldn't be there under normal circumstances.
  13. True, but I wonder how much one would have to yank on the yoke to achieve that when the engines are fully in idle, given you have to increase back pressure just to maintain pitch to touchdown, and in that state to actually climb away you'd have to be close to a tailstrike. I can absolutely make it float when the engines are still above idle by pulling back too much when initiating the flare, but at idle thrust it just wants to drop. This seems like a hardware sensitivity issue if it happens to him that easily.
  14. That's quite the statement. You're gonna have to check your landing technique. If the engines are actually in idle, you have to pull back on the yoke and hold it back throughout flare just to keep the nose where it is, because it wants to drop as soon as thrust is reduced. You're either in an inappropriate engery state during flare with loads of excess energy or your engines aren't actually at idle. Increasing yoke back pressure and keeping it to maintain pitch because of thrust transitioning to idle is correct technique and aircraft behavior, and I don't know how you manage to make it climb in that energy state.
  15. I think people need to cut them some slack regarding "recycling" planes. They sure aren't bringing many, if any, new features to their planes these days. But the fact they are doing the same planes mostly I think owes to the changes in platforms and new ones coming out. No one anticipated MSFS when it was announced, and given how much of a departure it is from the stagnant days of P3D or even FSX they would be foolish from a business POV not to bring their addons that are selling like hot cakes over to the new platform, even if people see it as recycling. The same goes for P3D going 64 bit or even FSX to P3D. There was just never a world in which they would leave something as popular in both type and addon as a 737, 777 or 747 behind and not bring them into MSFS (or P3D). The high demand for the 737 and now the 777 and more than likely the 747 shows people want these in MSFS despite saying PMDG is only recycling. I think there would be a lot if disappointment and criticism if they abandoned, say, the 777. If MSFS hadn't happened and we would still be on P3D, there wouldn't be much, if anything, to do on the existing planes and I'm sure we would be seeing new aircraft types from PMDG already. When all their addons are stable in MSFS I'm sure there will be new types too, and they've already said there will be. So I think the "recycling" is owed to the quickly changing environment rather than unwillingness to do a new aircraft.
×
×
  • Create New...