Stearmandriver

I thought selflessness (eg putting the financial gain of others ahead of your own) was a self-assigned gen y/z thing, and boomers were supposed to be selfish? I feel like you're mixing generational metaphors here now. 😁

Of course... What do you think pilots are displaying on their tablets? Forecasts and observations, right? Where do observations come from? METARs. That's literally what a METAR is, simply an accurate, standardized observation of weather conditions over an airport. Without METARs, all we would have would be forecasts. No one in their right mind (and no commercial operator, legally) would commence an approach without an idea of what to expect at the other end of it. Without METARs, there's nowhere else to get that information.

This is a completely bizarre statement. You're suggesting that pilots should be flying from and to airports without any observations of current weather conditions? They should instead just be relying on forecasts that were issued hours ago? In my world, no current destination METAR = no dispatch. It would be rather inconvenient if they were just to "die off"...

A lot of this is outright false. First of all, it seems you're not aware that the default MSFS weather actually does use METAR injection around airports, precisely because it IS more accurate than the Meteoblue model data. So trying to claim that model data will ever be more accurate than actual observation data is not only false, but ignores the way MSFS default weather actually works currently 😉. Secondly, it's worth considering WHY observation data is inherently more accurate: because the Meteoblue model - like any model - is only run a few times a day (actually only twice in their case if I remember right.). So, if you're viewing weather produced strictly by the Meteoblue model, you're simply viewing a forecast that is up to 8 -12 hours old. These models often blow the timing of synoptic and mesoscale changes like frontal passage by whole hours, and this could produce weather in the sim that is entirely different from what that location is currently experiencing in reality. This is specifically why MSFS started blending in Metar injection starting with SU5.

Heck man, I stream semi-regularly (firmly gen x here btw.). Over the last couple years I've been ignoring Twitch's increasingly strident suggestions / requests / almost-demands that I turn on affiliate status. This is a game, a hobby, not a job. I don't need or want anyone's money lol... All my streams do have charity donations enabled though and the community has been pretty generous, raised a couple thousand dollars for various charities so far which is awful nice to see. Good folks on twitch. 👍

When playing video games is compared to having a job....

I wonder as well. They do state that when using the Active Sky wx depiction mode, it is preset-based. Sounds similar to Rex.

There's this... No imagery of the actual headset, but a bit of talk about how and why it's useful. I've never heard the fixed base procedures trainers sims called "half simulators" but it's not a bad term. I agree that the official forums will censor weird things. In this case, what probably got you is that they are hyper touchy about players telling other players the "right" way to play. They work hard to keep it inclusive. So for instance, arguments between real hardware vs virtual, VR vs 2d, PC vs Xbox, they all get shut down pretty quick. I can kind of see the point... Inclusiveness is good, and in the end this is really play for all of us, but people do get pretty fired up about it.

To be fair, every US airline training department I'm familiar with is currently using VR as part of the training footprint. It doesn't replace the FFS models later in training, but is a much better tool for early-stage cockpit fam / flows memorization than sitting in front of a poster (the way it has been done until now.). My airline is currently issuing headsets to folks in an initial qual cycle; it's great for giving a sense of cockpit scale and geometry, and actually being able to manipulate switches and see systems operate in flight is hugely beneficial. It's far superior to the old paper tigers and arguably superior to the fixed-base procedures trainers.

The PMDG autolands very realistically; even gives you the choice between fail passive and fail operational (most operators use fail passive, but you can switch it to fail operational and have full automatic centerline tracking during rollout. As others have said, there is no reason to arm VOR / LOC before approach. If that guidance exists in a PMDG tutorial, it's wrong - that, or it's their way of helping you avoid the pitfalls of their always-IAN-equipped sim. The aircraft behavior of capturing FAC and/or GP instead of LOC and GS if you arm approach before receiving a valid loc and glideslope IS correct, it's just unexpected considering most 737s do not have IAN. Many of us have been asking PMDG for quite a long time to make this optional. While it exists in limited use in reality, IAN is functionally a useless mode. It was originally designed for airlines to be able to fly satnav approaches without needing to train another approach profile, but the use cases are pretty limited (straight in approach etc.). In reality these days, almost everyone simply uses the more capable LNAV / VNAV modes. Now if you want some fun, dispense with the autoland altogether and just hand fly the Cat III approach 😉. https://www.twitch.tv/stearmandriver/v/1592372849?sr=a&t=102s

PMDG's failures have always been the best around. It's pretty amazing how many they've got in the NG series. It's a given they won't include any sort of trim runaway scenario of course, as they should not.

I know, that's why I asked. 😉 I was gonna say, we use VOR/LOC for these types of approaches if LNAV isn't available, so I was trying to figure out what type of 737 couldn't haha. I get it now.

Which types of airplanes? Those equipped with IAN?

Not that I've seen... I imagine an engineer somewhere probably knows. We're talking small differences of course; it can't fly like a completely different airplane or anything or it wouldn't be part of the common type. My guess would be just more weight and a longer arm, combined with control rigging. All of the Max family have slightly more crisp roll control owing to fly by wire spoiler programming vs the old hydraulic aileron/spoiler mixing unit. The -700 is pretty pitchy in reality, being short-coupled compared to the -900s. It's fun to fly but there's a bit of adjustment when you haven't flown one in a while.

In reality, I like flying the Max 9 more than the 8. They're both good planes, but the -9 has a smooth crispness to it. A similar thing can be noticed between the -800 and -900ER. To PMDG's credit, a bit of this does come through in their flight modeling of these variants. In terms of sim use, the -8 is no doubt the more versatile plane, making places like BUR, SNA, LIH etc more realistic.

God knows it matters to somebody. And wing flex too... Must have ALL THE WING FLEX. 😂

Not to perpetuate the PMDG stuff here, but it simply defies reason that this is still being misunderstood. A great example of folks allowing a bias to interfere with communication / comprehension. To explain it again and hopefully for the final time: no, I don't think anyone ever asked PMDG to model the FDAS and they ALSO never said they would not make the cockpit door open. Someone on this thread claimed that Robert DID say they'd never make the door open, for security reasons. That person conflated two separate issues, and made a false claim. Robert said they'd never model the FDAS. He ALSO said they'd probably make the door open at some point. Why not yet? If I had to guess, it's at about the very bottom of the priority list, right there with open windows, because... Who cares? What could possibly be less useful lol? Hope that clears it up. 👍

Agreed... There are layers, as in any security system. Some are carrier specific, and some just... Are. Really, none of it is a big deal... I was just pointing out that when Robert said he wouldn't model aspects of the door, he was talking about this stuff, not about just making the door open. I really don't know what the rest of that was about... About who's "best" or "justifying" something? But whatever, I think we've clarified what needed clarifying.

What nonsense? I think there's a lack of understanding here. What was originally claimed was that PMDG wouldn't model an openable cockpit door for security reasons. That's simply incorrect. What they said was, they wouldn't accurately model the security mechanism on the door, for security reasons. Because yes, if they did, then folks could use a video game to learn how it worked. This would obviously be ridiculous. This same system exists on Airbuses, but I'm willing to bet Fenix has not modeled it. How do you open the door in the Fenix? Do you just click on the knob? Do you honestly think you just turn the knob to open the door in reality, in the post-9/11 world?

I'm still trying to understand what folks are having trouble with, about this. Are you honestly suggesting that security sensitive operations should be modeled in a video game? Do you suppose DCS should model classified sensor capabilities as well? That would actually be less immediate of a security threat, I'd think. There are folks who just like to look for any opportunity to bash a dev that isn't their chosen one. Obviously, there's a baseline level of silliness in that... But if you're gonna do it, it at least has to make some kind of SENSE. 😉

I don't understand what you're not getting about this? We were just clarifying that Robert never said they wouldn't make it possible to open the 737 cockpit door at some point, just that they'd never model actual operation of the FDAS system for obvious reasons. I've never bothered trying to open the door in the Fenix or anything else, but I assume it's just a click spot somewhere? It would be extremely irresponsible for a dev to actually model the operation of the system, and illegal for any SME to actually give a dev that information as it's all SSI.

Good Lord the tribalism in flight sim land is ridiculous. In the first place, guys: Fenix and PMDG are not competitors. Competitors make the same product, and each tries to convince the consumer that theirs is better. PMDG makes pretend Boeing jets, and Fenix makes a pretend Airbus. These two things are NOT the same. They do not compete with each other. Regarding security features around the cockpit door: yes, Robert did say they'd never actually model the operation of the door - not that it would never just click to open. There are elements of the door security mechanism that are visually modeled in the PMDG if you know what you're looking at - because these things are openly visible to pax when the door is open - but their operation will never be modeled.

Hard to say, and as Threexgreen points out, you'll find different philosophies at different airlines. As usual, there's room for different philosophies and techniques. In our case, because most of the shortest runways we operate to are also often at risk of being contaminated as they're in the state of Alaska, we do not want folks to lose the habit pattern of prompt (but smooth) manual braking, for the times the autobrakes don't work (even though that's very rare). You take no landing data performance credit for autobrakes use; landing data is predicated on rates of decel that correspond to an autobrake setting but it can be manual braking. So, we like to encourage folks to fly the plane manually when and where appropriate, so the habit patterns are there if they find themselves needing to fly more manually than they'd like in a difficult situation. Naturally in difficult conditions with everything working, you're going to use the autobrakes as appropriate assuming they're working. They're a great tool. We have a policy that any landing on a runway less than 7,000ft with braking action less than good requires the use of autobrakes max (if available) for instance. If they aren't available, the ca can reference braking force via the decel carat in the HUD. I personally like this philosophy and do believe that, just like over reliance on other forms of automation, it doesn't do a lot of good to make folks over reliant on the automation. Of course, this is all muddied further by type of brakes. With carbon brakes, there is a wear and effectiveness advantage to beginning the brake application as soon as possible. The brakes actually last longer this way. So, autobrake use is highly encouraged on the portion of our fleet with carbon brakes. For us that's all the Maxs but other airlines may have them on NGs as well. So lots of ways to slice it.

Unsure about Airbus, but the 737 does have 4 autobrake settings that can be used for landing and that target a decel rate: 1, 2, 3, and Max. Max does not give you maximum brake pressure, it's just another decel rate (too much, on a dry runway.). Only RTO gives full available brake pressure, and cannot be used on landing. If you want the full 3,000psi to all brakes on landing in a 737, you'll stand on the brakes yourself - max manual braking does yeild full brake pressure. I've heard that autobrakes use is normal in the bus, so I'll add that there is really a 5th normal autobrake setting for landing in the 737: off. There's no need to use them just for the sake of it, and they're routinely left off if there's no reason to use them (long runway, no contamination, no crosswind.)

All Boeing *landing* autobrakes settings (to include Max, but excluding RTO) do target a decel rate. On a dry runway, reverse use is therefore fairly irrelevant, though we use detent 2 as a standard on every landing for a few other reasons. You might be confusing 737 auto brake Max with Airbus RTO though. The Boeing RTO auto braking applies no deceleration rate, but rather 3000psi (max hyd pressure), immediately, to all brakes. No brakes or wheels are usable again after a high speed abort; it feels like an arrested landing. I can tell you that Boeing autobrakes Max is extremely uncomfortable on a dry runway; it's much more than needed to make any valid landing performance work. Where it's applicable is on contaminated runways where it's understood there will be some level of antiskid activation, so by asking the autobrakes for a higher decel level than they can provide, you're ensuring you get every bit possible.