threexgreen

I was wondering what the issue is with FLCH. This is a genuine question out of curiosity.

What's incorrect about it?

The 777 PMDG used as a survey aircraft is an older aircraft that has been in service many years, according to them. So it makes sense it has slightly misaligned displays. The 737 PMDG used meanwhile came straight out the factory and was brand new. This is also why in the 777 cockpit there is visible wear that has been modelled whereas the 737 has almost completely clean textures.

Why is a video more evidence than a photo?

With all due respect, you're simply wrong. The 777 has RF legs, the 737 doesn't. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the 777 follows the magenta line much better than the 737, and that the FD is much more reliable, even it's still not perfect. Anyone who has flown either in the sim can clearly see that. You can even just go on YouTube and watch videos of how both products handle this. As for the gap between instrument discussion, I've shown actual photos in which it's clearly visible that the aircraft in these pictures have the same gap or lack of gap that the PMDG has. I'm not making that up. So please quit the personal attacks. All I did was correct *two* things based on facts for the sake of being factual and if that's disrespectful to you, I'm not the issue here. That response was entirely unnecessary.

It's not just that, it's filling pages arguing against photo evidence that should have put the nitpicking to bed a while ago.

That's not true though. The 777 has RF legs and even if it's not 100 % accurate at all times, following the magenta line and FD are miles better than in the 737.

N1 was as high as around 85 % at one point and others have even reported 90 % at landing flaps. Obviously, the MD-11 has higher N1 settings at landing config than your average 737, but N1 at or above takeoff N1 seems too much. Not sure if this is due to excessive flap drag or the engine simulation. I've also had that happen once early in the approach somewhere downwind-ish where the engines wouldn't spool back and I couldn't slow down. Deep diving into the systems for me means using the addon to learn the systems of the aircraft type and generally paying more attention to the numbers shown vs. what would be expected on the real thing after studying some of that etc. So strange N1 settings and the LSAS problems are disappointing at this time. It's otherwise a nice aircraft but it appears unfinished when it comes to systems. I think the system depth TFDi are aiming for is pretty deep, but again, it doesn't seem there yet to me considering LSAS seems to have been engineered kind of upside down and N1 likes to fluctuate a lot at times hunting the target and get "stuck" every now and then. Other systems seem fine and deeply modelled, but other than the more obvious problems like engines and LSAS I don't know enough about the MD-11 to say if there are more problems. Someone mentioned wrong FMA indications on an ILS in this thread, for example.

How does the FOV compare to the G2? It's obviously bigger but what subjective impression do you get moving from one to the other?

I installed the Fenix into the community folder and then just moved it to my preferred location. I never had an issue. First time I'm hearing it doesn't play well, but again, I'm not noticing anything being out of whack.

No need to be sorry. But I genuinely don't understand why you or some others still think it's wrong. There are photos of real aircraft showing the same kind of gap, and even different gaps (or no gap) on Captain and FO side in the same aircraft. I never noticed this before it was brought up, and if I hadn't looked at photos I would have thought it's wrong too, but it is there in the photos.

In that picture, yes. In the other I posted there is a noticeable difference between Captain and F/O side however.

Not sure what you're saying. The displays in that last picture look almost if not just as close together as in the PMDG. I think the photos show clearly that real aircraft sometimes have wider gaps between displays and sometimes they're very close, so I would conclude the PMDG 777 is accurate in that regard.

So the goalposts have now been moved from there is too much space to there is not enough space? FWIW, the display units look pretty tightly squeezed against each other on the FO side here. Looks quite a lot like PMDG's...

Not for me. I prefer Jeppesen charts. What's a non-starter though is that I need my charts in aircraft EFBs and that's only provided by Navigraph. AviaPlanner also doesn't feed navdata into aircraft. If you just want charts, it's an alternative, but I think they're still different products serving different needs in the end.

Yes, I see it. That's literally what I've been telling you. Some aircraft have gaps, some don't, some have small ones, some are wider and PMDG's has one on the FO's side that's virtually exactly the same size as the one on the Captain's side in the real picture I showed. Not sure what we're even still discussing. The whole point was to show that gaps like that do exist in the real aircraft, even if not on all airframes. My screenshot from the sim is taken with a zoom factor which distorts the whole cockpit. It's not supposed to compare dimensions; it's just supposed to show the gap between the instruments. You can't judge the cockpit scale based on that picture. What you're looking at in a sim is a 3D environment that is projected onto a flat 2D screen anyway. It's naturally impossible that it ever looks right. The only way to actually judge the cockpit is in VR where the cockpit looks completely different than on a 2D screen. I don't know if you have a headset, but the displays you're mentioning are much bigger in VR than what they look like in pancake mode. Not saying the cockpit is 100 % correct, but judging dimensions from a 2D screenshot is impossible. Even the real world picture is distorted by the camera.

I think he's negating the problem because there isn't one. The picture uploaded by the other poster is bad quality, so I just had a look myself. The gap in the PMDG on the FO's side looks pretty much exactly like the one on the Captain's side in the real picture. There many more pictures where you can see gaps as well. There isn't a problem here. PMDG most likely didn't even do this on purpose but it's probably inherited into the 3D-model straight from laser scanning the cockpit of the real aircraft they had access to.

Had a look myself, and yes, on some aircraft the gaps are the same, on some aircraft one gap is wider than the one on the other side and on some one gap is wider at the bottom than at the top... There are also differently sized gaps between other parts of the cockpit, not just the displays. PMDG's 777 having differently sized gaps makes sense if they had a 777 survey aircraft that happens to have different gaps since they laser scan the cockpit and the instruments including the gaps are part of the 3D-model built from the laser scan. I guess what @Bobsk8 was trying to say before the whole town jumped on him is that gaps can differ due to the work being done to built the panel and units, assemble them and even replacing units later on, wearing parts down. Kind of a major fail to jump on him given it appears he's actually right... One example:

It seems to me that what you're miscontruing as raining drama and disillusionment is simply a result of different priorities for different people. What is and isn't a showstopper is completely subjective. If you don't put as much value in accurate systems and flight modeling and aren't bothered by the issues others are raising, that's fine. But there are some of us who like to go deep into these areas and in that case, the aircraft isn't all that satisfying right now. And that's fine, too. I'll be blunt here: For me, personally, there are showstoppers right now. LSAS isn't doing what it's supposed to do. It kicks in under the wrong conditions and makes the aircraft more pitch sensitive when it's supposed to alleviate exactly that. Turning it off makes the aircraft easier to fly when in reality, it's the opposite. There are also issues with the engines losing N1 targets and then overcorrecting or getting stuck at high N1 settings making it hard to slow the aircraft, and what appears to be excessive drag at high flap settings causing abnormally high N1 settings. It's also my opinion that these aren't your usual post-release issues that are fixed a week later, but that they appear to require quite some work and time because they seem to be relatively deep-rooted. Again, if you don't mind this, fair enough. But others do and there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, other $70-ish aircraft have virtually no issues like these. So holding TFDi to that same standard that comes with the price they're asking is completely reasonable.

That's amazing, thanks! The broadband switch depends on the satcom option in the FMC equipment settings. Some configs like 2KU+SATCOM come with the switch on the left upper overhead, some don't.

For the record, those were examples from other releases. A friend of mine mentioned the PMDG 777 lacking APU sound in external view. Maybe this has already been fixed. The mirrored textures happened on a few occasions elsewhere. None of these are in the MD-11. I used them as an example for things that are common in releases and are usually quickly fixed, whereas some of the MD-11's sound like more than that.

So, as an example, switching from the PMDG 737 to the Fenix A320 would work just fine, while doing the opposite may result in degraded performance since Fenix doesn't clear their Lvars - unless you restarted the sim with the A320 already set?

Thing is, currently LSAS is essentially doing the opposite of what its whole point is and also makes the plane easier to fly without while it should be easier to fly with it enabled. It's engineered the wrong way, and I'm not sure if that's such an easy and quick fix because it sounds like LSAS would need a rewrite and perhaps even parts of the flight model (I'm no expert however). Turning it off to fly the aircraft in a state which is plain wrong (easier to fly while the real aircraft would be harder to fly) while using extreme reactivity or sensitivity settings isn't the way to go. It's one of the unique systems to augment some of the unique flying characteristics of the MD-11. That should be done right if your price is higher than other aircraft addons offering higher fidelity. Not sure how this went unnoticed in testing or why it was released without correcting that. It's the fact that after almost 2 years of pre-order and pre-purchase and an $80 price tag the plane ends up with LSAS upside down and other issues like N1 hunting and pitch oscillations which doesn't instill a lot of confidence for me. Obviously, it's far from unflyable and not necessarily a show stopper, but these issues aren't just the usual after-release issues like forgetting an APU sound file or mirrored textures. Rather, systems and flight model seem to be flawed in certain ways. Just my 2 cents and I don't mean to "hate" on it. But as someone who's looking for true-to-life behavior and fidelity in aircraft addons, this is a bit of a worry so far.

@FS++ I've completed my flows and I found only a few things not working: "Your ND mode to" and "Your ND range to" don't do anything. The respective switches aren't operated. "TCAS mode to" commands don't do anything. The respective switches aren't operated. A few other things: "EICAS recall" command would work better if there was a longer delay in between recalling and canceling. The current implementation doesn't give enough time to read what it says before it's canceled. Would be cool to have commands for the F/O's instrument source and air data switches to the right of his PFD so he can check them during preflight. Alternate flaps switch (the rotary one to extend and retract flaps) doesn't have a command. Would also be cool to have a command for the broadband switch (depends on livery configuration is it's there or not). If possible, controlling only the visors on the F/O's side with the "visor stow/unstow" command would be better. Currently, he actions all of them and kinda slams the Captain's ones into your face (in VR). That's all, 98% work flawlessly. Edit: Is it still necessary to have the plane to be used with MCE set as the one MSFS loads on start-up? Is restarting the flight once still necessary?

Was that when going through the route pages?