jrw4

If I understand this correctly, the 800 is unique in having a "dead band" in elevator authority on takeoff. Apparently airflow over the wing disturbs that over the horizontal stabilizer/elevator shortly after establishing a positive rate of climb. This requires that one pull back a bit further on the yoke to continue pitching up to 15-20 degrees. This phenomenon was successfully simulated by the Zibo mod in XP or so we were told in some of the excellent videos by flightdeck2sim, but perhaps not in the PMDG simulation in P3D. 737NG Driver confirmed that it is observable in one of his recent videos on the MSFS -800. It's a small point, but there you go.

Thanks Matt. This is a very expensive undertaking, and thanks, too, for all the great work on the NXi. Simply amazing.

No. I'm assuming that much of the development work is being done either by contract workers or consultants, neither of which have any long-term job security nor company benefits like medical. In my line of work (STEM and its administration), consultants routinely were paid double their annual rate on an hourly basis, but I agree that the hourly rate looks mighty attractive, so sign me up, too. Unfortunately, no one seems very interested in my rusty skills at FORTRAN 66. I just looked at the iFlySimSoft web page and there's nothing there about the MAX for any platform, but we should all wish them much luck. PMDG has stated its intention to produce a MAX variant, but has not released any details that I can recall. If I were in the process of creating a MAX variant, one real concern would be that as I got closer to releasing my product, PMDG would simultaneously start teasing MAX screen shots and the odd video or two. That and the occasional somewhat rambling forum post would probably put a serious ding in the market for an alternate vendor's add-on. If iFly can release that MAX next month that would be great. If it's this time next year, not so much. And yes, it's all about the money.

Again, my memory fails me sometimes, but I do recall that Cpt. Randazzo mentioned something like 6,000 hours for the 737-700, so I figured that a number like $150/hr fully loaded with overheads, fringes, etc., for highly skilled technical personnel (along with an estimate for long-term free tech support to users) brought me very close to that number. What I don't know is how much a MAX model could depend on 737ng development, so maybe that number is somewhat high. If others have a better guess, please feel free to share, especially with regard to that per hour guesstimate. Cheers.

It's interesting how nostalgic folks are concerning the iFly 737 family product line. Some even seem to compare it to that offered by PMDG, which really surprises me, as I can't even recall the iFly product. I was about to chalk that up to my admittedly shaky memory, soI thought it would be useful to look for an objective comparison of those two product lines. For that, I chose the number of search returns in Google's video section. Here is a brief list: iFly 737-->1,930 iFly 738-->12,100 PMDG 737-->127,000 PMDG 738-->42,300 Honestly, I never had access to the iFly model, but I did enjoy the Zibo freeware add-on in XP. There was much discussion in their forums concerning how the Zibo compared to the PMDG and vice versa, but I don't recall any such conversation about the relative merits of Zibo to iFly. None of this is meant to denigrate previous iFly products, but the data do seem to suggest that its impact on the broader flight sim community can in no way be deemed comparable to that of PMDG's. If (and this is a big "If") these video search results in any way mirror actual sales figures, this raises an important question. Which of these vendors is likely to have access to the amount of capital required to create a high fidelity MAX from scratch? It could easily take a million dollars to create such a product. Who has the bucks/euros/pounds to make this happen? PS The Google video search for Zibo 738 returns roughly the same number as the iFly 738, for what it's worth.

Thanks everyone. This discussion has put things into perspective for me, quite literally. I don't have room for a screen larger than 30" anyway, so 4K is probably overkill in any case. My current system (i7-7700K, GTX 1080, 32 GB DDR-4/3000 MHz) runs the PMDG 737 adequately with few stutters on mostly medium graphics settings with locked 30fps. The thing that annoys me the most is that at HD resolution those CRT screens are at the edge of legibility when I'm sitting at 24 inches and in the normal pilot's position. The Fenix A320 would probably be right at the hairy edge, but I haven't tried it yet. So bottom line is that it sounds something like an i7-11700K, RTX 3070ti, 32GB DDR-4/3600 MHz) set up would be quite adequate at 1440 even with the more advanced tubeliners and give me some headroom for more advanced models in the future. Cyberpowerpc offers a such a system for under $1900 these days, and I think I could get the parts for $1500 if I wanted to put the thing together myself. Thanks again.

I'm in the midst of trying to build an upgraded MSFS system and so am very interested in how one defines a sweet spot for this sim. Is a 30 inch 2K screen superior in some way to a 50 inch 4K, for example? Does 4K not look better than 2K due to sim limitations? I have tried to keep up with the various discussions on this forum and have to admit that I'm somewhat confused. This is going to be fairly expensive no matter which way I go. I'm hoping to keep the system below $2K and can just about see how to do it if I'm satisfied with 1440 displays. Beyond that, costs seem to escalate significantly. Many thanks in advance and best wishes to all.

FMA readout? Airspeed? AP still engaged [CMD displayed]? Is the AP disconnect on input option enabled? Also, have you checked on the PMDG forum? If it's reproducible, you should certainly submit a support ticket. EDIT By any chance have any of the Assist options become enabled in MSFS? They should all be off.

Excellent point. Thanks for sharing.

Just to be clear with regard to Skyvector, hovering the mouse over the airport works as indicated, but first you need to go to the Layers tab titled "Weather" and click on "Text Weather". There are lots of other selections available, including winds aloft, and weather radar/satelllite maps. Lots of info in a compact graphical format.

Thanks so much for the explanation. Could I ask for a reference for where this is stated. Cheers.

And so are all the others, but I guess that's the point. Or maybe there are real differences in what the servers are displaying.

Might I also ask the settings that others are using for GENERAL OPTIONS > TRAFFIC > GROUND AIRCRAFT DENSITY? For this test I have it set to zero, because none of those static aircraft are injected by the MSFS real-time online function. Many thanks. I did just try KPHL (two aircraft visible) and LEPA (zero).

On my system, at least, I can get a few real-time a/c to display on a sporadic basis, but that's about it. It seems like whatever system MSFS uses for the traffic, ADS-B coverage is poor at best. Right now at the height of the morning rush hour at KLGA, for example, there are two incoming flights for runway 22, but nothing departing or on the ground. Coverage may be especially poor on the ground due to limitations of radio reception, but something similar was observed at KATL a few minutes ago. Looks like one needs to go the 3PD route (described above) in order to get better coverage, as well as to observe correct models and liveries. Too complex for many folks, including yours truly.

Thanks for reminding me that this even exists. I had forgotten. Tried it a couple of hours ago and everything worked like a charm.

It can be useful, both on approach as has been discussed immediately above, and also for those RNAV approaches that permit "Descend via" clearances, where energy management does come in. However, pilots generally do not have discretion to undertake that descent until cleared to do so, and then must begin the maneuver without undue delay. It's also very handy on some SIDs, of course. The DES NOW button on the Descent page plays a role here as does the dreaded speed brake. Try undertaking early and late descents sometimes, just to see how these things actually work.

Lots of folks on the forums misunderstand the significance of the TOD computed by airliner FMCs. It serves only as an pilot advisory, not as the point to start one's descent. That is determined by enroute/center ATC. Of course, if flying a simulator offline, you can use the TOD to help set where you want to start your descent but when I do so, I always enter the "EXPECT" altitudes into the CDU so as to achieve a reasonably realistic flight path. In this case, the real world traffic was probably flying the Milton 4 STAR into KLGA. https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2207/pdf/00289MILTON.PDF As noted on the chart, there are several step down fixes at which the flight can "EXPECT" to find itself on the way down. These are set in this case, probably much more by the need to be clear of north-south traffic into and out of KPHL, KIAD, KDCA, and KBWI than it is by the desire to optimize fuel efficiency. Note that that the MIP4 STAR is not an RNAV STAR for which a "Descend via" clearance will be given. Separate "Descend and Maintain" clearances are required for each of the stepdown fixes at MARRC, BILEY, and BEUTY.

I believe it's the BAVES 1D at LGIR at Iraklion, Greece. Quite the pretzel. Amazing how the FMC keeps recalculating the path in real time.

We are all, of course, entitled to our opinions, but might I inquire which of the many responses to your original post, some quite detailed and thoughtful, lead to the impression that MSFS is still in beta? Is there some confusion about the current extensive opt-in beta testing of SU10, perhaps? Many thanks and good luck.

If someone finds software that checks all those items @Virtual-Chris has thoughtfully articulated, do let the FAA, etc., know about it. I'm sure they would be very interested. In the meantime, do try VATSIM, PIlotEdge, POSCON, etc. I'm pretty sure that I won't live long enough to see a desktop software solution that mimics human controllers in anything other than a fairly trivial way.

If you have a set of flight parameters that make it possible to reproduce this effect every time, please consider submitting them directly to Asobo at Zendesk. I have the impression that it's precisely this kind of observation that has been difficult to pin down, but if folks have a sure way to observe the problem, please let the developers know directly. Best wishes.

First noted here Only a handful of comments, so maybe it just worked and no further discussion needed. 🙂

Saturday?

And, of course, Navigraph's iPad-native Charts app (Android, too, I think) serves as an excellent chart resource at no additional charge to the Navigraph subscription. EFBs are in my "that's nice" category, but hardly "must have". But that whole discussion is moot. It will be ready when it's ready.