ArjenVdv

It is, at least from my experience, pretty uncommon for developers to ask for feedback in any stage of the development... This doesn't mean we should give it.

Haha, I never intended to release a flame war. I just wanted to make an obvervation clear. With every single flaming post, you are proving me more correct, because this shows you have no proper counter argument to show. There is nothing to prove about the real world videos, any idiot can read out a few numbers and notice it says "95.x". How is this not proof? If my obversations of the beta videos are wrong, then prove me wrong. People have time for flame wars on forums, but don't have time to jump into FSX, select the 747V3 (if you are a beta tester), hold F2, make a screenshot and post it here. Then it's done. People don't want to do that by the looks of it, that fine, but then you're proving me correct. People keep saying "it's just a beta", but from experience I know that in a beta, the fundamental features do not change drastically anymore. I am actually confident enough to put my money on it that the reverse thrust will be way off. I was only mentioning I thought the reverse thrust in the beta is wrong. Maybe that was a bit too much of an accusation from my side. If the beta is not wrong, I was wondering why it was modeled that way. That is all. It isn't even that much of a big deal to me, the bigger deal has now become how people on the forums are reacting to me and each other. I have been around here for quite a while (since 2010), and this community has become quite cancerous. Watch out, before we get banned.

Not sure why the "student" part had to be written between quotes, but okay. No, I will never be a qualified 747 pilot, unfortunately. All I wanted to make clear, is that I am not a layman on the area of jet engines, neither am I an expert. I had hoped to be gaining a bit more credibility with that, but I guess words are just words. You say you trust the people that are qualifed on the 747, so do I. It seems people are thinking I don't trust the experts, I do. So we are on the same page. It is just that I wondered WHY there is such a big difference of reverse thrust relative to the real plane. Could it be that FSX has a limitation, and a trade-off had to be made to compensate for the limitation? Perhaps 95% of available reverse thrust would create much more stopping power than what is actually realistic? So, PMDG compensated to 58% to obtain the correct stopping power? Just speculation now...

And this is what I meant with "PMDG has become like a religion." This is what is wrong with the PMDG community. People are so much in heaven with their products that any critisism is completely unheard of. Such a mentality is very bad for product quality in general...

Kyle, I never meant to negatively attack PMDG. I am not that type of person who sends you PMs moaning about what is wrong and what is right. My only intention is inform my observations and ask why the footage is different from the footage of the real plane. And yes, if I think it is incorrect, I will say that too. This should not be a reason to be reluctant to show beta footage at all. People are going to ask questions, and give feedback, that's inevitable. But for the last few years PMDG seem to have become more like "religion" or something. Even the forum members don't accept any constructive critisism to PMDG, anymore. They all assume that the almighty PMDG is always right. We shouldn't ask questions, and should take things as they are. Don't get me wrong here again, you deserved that amount of trust from the community because the quality has always been great. I love your products and you are my number 1 favourite developer (together with FSLabs), but I just don't think there is any company out there that can do everything flawlessly. And you know what? That is perfectly fine, as long as the company and its members don't feel offended about some critisism. If I am wrong, that is fine. I am completely prepared to admit my mistake. But instead of everybody waving things off as always (because PMDG cannot be wrong because they are PMDG), maybe someone can come up with an answer to my question, why there is such a big difference. I am sure proving me wrong should be a piece of cake. It litterally takes 1 minute to fire up FSX, engage reverse thrust in the 747V3 and show us a screenshot of the EICAS, and show that there is 95% available. Lastly, I am no pilot, nor am I an engineer (yet). But I am a third year Aerospace Engineering student, so it's not like I am completely unfamiliar with engine dynamics. So calling me a YouTube scholar, is a bit unfair. Of course, YouTube is not always reliable, but some simple rational thinking brought me to the conclusion that there is no 95% of reverse thrust available in the 747V3 (I am not going to explain again how I came to that conclusion). If I am wrong, fine, but if I am right, I really hope you will consider this as constructive critisism, and hopefully do something with it. My only intention is to assist by making an observation.

I know, but 58% is not idle reverse. If 95% was available, then this means all the beta guys had to be using the EXACT same setting of reverse thrust by accident to end up at 58%, which is next to impossible. This makes me believe the 58% must have been the maximum available reverse thrust. Which is wrong.

I understand reverse isn't either 0 or 1, but in FSX people use max reverse thrust in the big majority of cases. They often program their Saitek reverse detent to "F2", so yes, in case of FSX reverse thrust is mostly either 0 or 1. Assuming that the beta guys have been using full reverse thrust, it should have gone up to 95%. If the beta guys had used idle reverse or something in between, then 58% might be correct. But it is extremely uncommon for simmers to be able to do that, because we need a reverse thrust axis for that.

Hello everyone, Yes, I know it's still in beta, but I noticed the reverse thrust in beta videos only goes up to 58% N1. I am getting very hyped over the 747, so I have been watching many 747 videos lately, and came across something by accident. I noticed that the reverse thrust on the real 747 goes up to 95% N1, and not 58%. That is of course a very significant difference. I mentioned this in a thread, and it wasn't believed this is not a real thing. I need documented evidence, which of course, I cannot obtain in any way. But then I realised PMDG use video recordings and photos to help them develop the aircraft, so I don't see why videos would not be proper evidence. So here you go, some video evidence. 6:33: 6:15: (a bit harder to read, but still possible to make out "94" on the EICAS) I cannot imagine PMDG were not aware of this difference, so I assume there must be a very good reason for it. Perhaps a trade off that had to be made to model stopping distance properly? (just speculating here)

Thank you Ben, I know TSS, but never really liked their version either. It is 5 years old now. I saw however, they are starting to record new sounds for the 747 GE, which I think will be amazing this time. However, I hope I will not have to buy a third party soundset, because I prefer using the original sounds. Listening to the NGX and especially 777X (which is spot on), I know they have the ability to edge close or even match TSS quality. I guess I will just have to wait and see. Back to studying Aerospace Engineering now.

Armen, I just wanted to add something. Yeah I know, sorry for being so hyped about the GE variant. I wanted to say that I noticed the GE sound from the cockpit is very very loud i reality. The whine is more like a whistle, an extremely loud whistle. From the RTO video on YouTube I noticed this whine was there somewhere in the background in the beta, but was not loud and distinct enough from my view. Yes, I know the bad quality of the video made it sound worse, and yes, I know you're working on the GE variant. But I just wanted to give my two cents on what I think it SHOULD sound like. Loud and whistly. The grind, should in my opinion also sound quite a bit more grindy. For reference, this is how loud the whine is compared to the other cockpit sounds. The KLM 747 brings back memories, so the sound is an extremely big deal for me. I know the systems and visuals are always top notch and so are the sounds, so I shouldn't be so worried, but I can't help being obsessed with it because I want to have the best immersion possible in my nr 1 favourite plane. If the GE sound is good I will definitely be buying, not a doubt.

Thank you Armen, for those in-dept explanations. I am a big fan of the KLM, and therefore the GE engines in particular. The CF6-80 sound is my favourite, so I am having my fingers crossed that they will turn out great. The sound is a vital part of the simulation experience for me. But I am quite amazed at your professional approach to produce top-quality sounds, so I am having high expexpectations. Please don't release the plane if you are not happy with the sounds yet. I am looking forward to it and will probably be buying from day 1.

Question to Kyle: considering there are three different engine variants, does that mean you guys go flying on all three 747s on the jumpseat to record the sounds? Or do you record the sounds of the engine from the cabin?

Thanks Kyle, so does that mean that it will actually be possible to set our reverse thrust as high as 90+%, assuming we put our levers to their absolute limit?

That is very great to hear!

No, I believe PMDG has much better access to that than me. If it's not a real thing, then what is it, do you think? The videos of this uploader are clearly not fake, and just listening to the sound, clearly shows that the reverse thrust is much higher than the normal 55-60%. I can ask the uploader for confirmation, as he is a real world pilot. Such information should be nearly as sufficient as documentation, considering PMDG rely very much on real world pilots. I do not mean to negatively criticize the plane. I am a great fan and owner of most of your products, and I love what I am seeing so far about the 747. I am just trying to inform you about something I have noticed that might be of interest at this stage.

Here Kyle: I can clearly make out 94 on the EICAS. I am not sure whether this is exclusive to KLM, but if it is, then my best guess would be that it is meant for short runways such as St Maarten. Some sort of short field package maybe?

Thanks Kyle, Just from that video, I must admit I am slightly disappointed with the GE sound. But due to the possible bad quality and Aaron's sound settings, I will hold off on judging too much. It also seemed that Aaron had his engine sound volume set relatively low, compared to the ambient sounds. I had expected a much louder whine. I also have a question: will there be an option for extra high RPM reverse thrust? I know that KLM's 747s can use their reverse up to 95% N1. I think that is due to their St Maarten landings.

Can anyone PLEASE do a GE video? GE engines produce the best sound in my opinion. It has the loudest and most distinct whine that the 747 has.

.

Luke, have you customized the colors on the displays? The colors of the articifical horizon, the pink and green numbers/letters look very different to screenshots from other people. I actually your colors look more like what I have seen in videos. I like them, they give me a more realistic feel, even though I know the colors in videos are probably way off of the real thing. Putting blame on pilots just after they saved hundreds on souls onboard, reminds me of US Airways 1549 landing in the Hudson River.

Okay, I actually wasn't aware of that because I'm still using FSX until P3D goes 64-bit. I read P3D is sending a lot more data to the GPU, making bufferpools useless. What's the point of that if P3D is going to perform worse than FSX with bufferpools disabled. I'd rather fly a CPU bound P3D, than a P3D that still isn't making optimal use of our GPUs.

FPS is extremely dependant on settings and configuration (obviously), not just your system. I am not running AI traffic and only 1080p, and high scenery settings, and in the air I can achieve 30-60 FPS in the 777. 25+ on the ground on add-on airports. Lower than 25 pretty much never happens. My system is 5 years old. It also depends if you are running unlimited FPS internally or not. I also run BufferPools=0. With modern, systems, run BufferPools=0. Please everybody, just do it, It works perfectly fine as long as your system is stable and balanced. It increases your FPS by 25-50%. It will not cause artifacting unless you're often doing erratic panning in outside views. Let's say I'd run a bit of AI traffic, ORBX scenery, 4096 clouds, high AA and AS, with three monitors, bufferpools turned on, then I'm sure I would only get 20 FPS... Equal configurations on equal systems cause equal performance, it is as simple as that. Check your configurations, and don't go extreme.

Looks amazing, but PMDG, please clear them to give us some videos already! I am actually way more eager to hear the sound of the GE engines spooling up.

24-28 FPS seems low on both systems. My system is similar to your current system, even though my GPU is worse. In default scenery, and in the air, FPS is 40-60 in the NGX. Taxiing at add-ons airports, FPS is at least 25. But I'm running BP=0 so maybe that's where the difference is. Nevertheless pretty disappointing though. I have seen people reporting different results, saying their new system runs FSX so much better.

I disagree on the Haswell, better go for Skylake. Also don't bother upgrading that system. If money is not an issue: i7 6700K Z170 chipset motherboard GTX 1080 16GB+ RAM 3000 MHz+ SSD Watercooling Overclock that to 5 GHz. Never get below 30 FPS again, assuming you don't throw crazy amounts of AI traffic at it. It's also important to think ahead of what you will be running in a few years. FSX will be dead soon, and people will be using XPlane or P3D. In a future in those sims, you will benefit a lot more from a proper video card than you would now in FSX. Don't be fooled by these "ultra realistic" videos. They are edited and FSX doesn't look like that all, no matter what add-on you use.