Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tango4

Request for PMDG: List of items NOT SIMULATED (NGX and 777)

Recommended Posts

+1, can't understand why such an error wouldn't be fixed after 3 years.

Well they are kind of busy, but yes I do agree. The NGX is perfect thats all thats wrong with it for me. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the forward toilets flush but I would need to check. And the cover on the oil inspection access doesn't seem to open, or maybe I missed the click spot.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


The flight crew never messes with them anyway...that's a job for maintenance.

 

Yeah, well.. sometimes you have to. Usually when trying to get some computer to work at an outstation, but from time to time, you have to, for reasons. Like that LOT 767, they pulled CB as part of abnormals for HUD failure, I think? Ended up having to belly land.

 

 

 


So I know this is not the way a company usually advertises, but in this case, I really think it would be helpul if we could have such a list in the documentation, updated according to the various service packs.

Am I forgetting things ?

 

There is not full ARINC424 routing capability as of now, since the navigation data format does not allow for that (RF legs were a big topic on the forum for a while). Some other things stem from data format, EOSID absence being one of those.

Share this post


Link to post

Well they are kind of busy, but yes I do agree. The NGX is perfect thats all thats wrong with it for me. 

having 3d modeled myself another well known addon co i understand that to fix the vc dimensions mentioned here  would be no small task believe me.there is a significant amount of inaccuracy there

 

 

kav

Share this post


Link to post

Getting ARINC424 is too much of a workload even for PMDG. They have said they will consider someday, but I don't think it's going to be any time near.


Alexis Mefano

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


I just want to know if there are other functions of the plane not simulated that I might find in the FCOM or QRH.

 

I appreciate your frustration but I also think I see the source. To generate a list of everything that is NOT in the simulation is, I'm sure, quite a task. My thought is that PMDG has described everything that is in the simulation and that, if they haven't described a function, then it's probably not there. Asking about a specific issue, such as engine out VNAV, seems a good topic starter. Believe me I am not trying to be condescending here, just sharing my perspective.


Steve Dwyer
Z370 GAMING M5 (MS-7B58)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-9600K CPU @ 3.70GHz, 3696 Mhz
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super 8GB
Installed Physical Memory  32.0 GB

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate your frustration but I also think I see the source. To generate a list of everything that is NOT in the simulation is, I'm sure, quite a task. My thought is that PMDG has described everything that is in the simulation and that, if they haven't described a function, then it's probably not there. Asking about a specific issue, such as engine out VNAV, seems a good topic starter. Believe me I am not trying to be condescending here, just sharing my perspective.

Thanks for your kind reply.

Actually, my frustration comes from two points:

1) Some items were simulated in previous PMDG products. Emergency release gear handles were simulated in the MD11 if I remember correctly. So I expected them to be in the NGX. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS A BIG DEAL , just saying that I spent some time looking for a click spot that did not exist. Much easier if it was clearly written in the tuorial.

2)In former documentations, the rule of thumb was, if it is not mentioned, it is not simulated, basically. The problem is that now we have the FCOM, and it is hard to find those little things being left out. In the 777 intro document, there is a very interesting part mentioning "things you would not otherwise notice". I just think it would have been great to get a short list of items not simulated.

 

And once again, this is not a feature request list. I too would like better rollout sound, rain effects and so on but this is not my point with this post.

 

There is not full ARINC424 routing capability as of now, since the navigation data format does not allow for that (RF legs were a big topic on the forum for a while). Some other things stem from data format, EOSID absence being one of those.

I'll try to add it to the list but I can't edit my first post and I don't understand why... Trying to figure that out.

 

Thanks for all your replies.

Well at least here is the updated list.

If I manage to do it I will update my first post. But it seems I did not miss many things.

 

UPDATED LIST:

 

-Weather Radar

-EFB

-Emergency gear release handles

-FMC: *Engine out VNAV guidance

           *RTA (Required Time of Arrival)

           *ISA Dev in descent forecast (possible to enter but not taken into account in descent profile calculations)

           *ARINC 424 routing

          *EOSID

-Autoflight: A/T impossible to re engage after engine failure (Bug ??)

-Maintenance pages of the FMC
-Circuit breakers
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

All I want for the NGX are the ground roll sounds from the 777 and the Overhead panel and glareshield position height to be fixed. 

 

 

same here the Overhead in the 737 is way way way too high.

  • Upvote 1

Ron Hamilton

 

"95% is half the truth, but most of it is lies, but if you read half of what is written, you'll be okay." __ Honey Boo Boo's Mom

Share this post


Link to post

My wishlist for an 'realism-upgrade' of the great PMDG products is the following:

 

- Maintenance based items such as a real Maintenance menu in de FMS.

- Circuit Breakers.

- MAT ('Maintenance Access Terminal').

 

Seriously, I HOPE PMDG will take a look to all our comments. It's not do downsize the quality and realism level of PMDG, it's to 'upsize' the level from great to more great. ^_^

 

This is not going to happen. Airlines have entire departments devoted to maintenance servicing for large jet aircraft - it is not something pilots get out and do before/after every flight like with a GA aircraft. It happens in the middle of the night in a huge hangar and happens relatively infrequently compared to the flight hours these airplanes accumulate. Pilots do not bring up maintenance terminals or pages in the FMC - it's just not done.

 

Circuit breakers - no way, adds a ridiculous amount of complexity to the programming for very little tangible value to the product - even in abnormal situations you aren't going to be pulling breakers on a modern jet unless it's something maintenance specifically instructs you to do over a satcom call.

 

Our goal here is to simulate the normal and some of the abnormal *flight operations* of an aircraft to a reasonable degree, not to simulate everything that ever possibly happens to a real aircraft.


Ryan Maziarz
devteam.jpg

For fastest support, please submit a ticket at http://support.precisionmanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post

having 3d modeled myself another well known addon co i understand that to fix the vc dimensions mentioned here  would be no small task believe me.there is a significant amount of inaccuracy there

 

 

kav

 

I have no doubt that it's not an easy fix, and I understand the workload for PMDG is immense (especially after a new release such as the T7).  I'm just hoping they don't continue moving forward with the cycle of new products, followed by new service packs, all the while leaving the NGX in the rear view.  At the rate PMDG moves forward, I have to wonder if they'll ever find the time to go back to the NGX.  They're the upper echelon of FS developers, and it seems strange to leave such an error after 3 years.  It just isn't something one would expect from PMDG, that's all.  

 

Regardless, it does NOT keep me from enjoying the NGX, it's still a masterpiece, and one in which I'll fly for many years to come. 

 

I've said it many times, but we're a lucky bunch to have developers like PMDG creating such detailed products, and for that I'll be forever grateful.

Share this post


Link to post

Ty,

It wasn't completely an "error" as if we had no clue what we were doing - part of it has to do with how the HGS works technically in FSX and needing enough view space in the window to make that effect happen. We're not even certain we can fix it without hurting the HGS functionality - if it turns out we can't then it's staying the way it is. We're extremely proud of that HGS modelling (which really no one else has equaled 3 years later in any airliner addon) and we aren't going to mangle it just to fix the window dimensions. When we go back to update the NGX it'll certainly be looked at but I can't guarantee it'll be fixed due to the above.


Ryan Maziarz
devteam.jpg

For fastest support, please submit a ticket at http://support.precisionmanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post

Then how about making options, I mean those who don't use the HUD, can press a button in the FMC and the windows get smaller, just like with the eyebrow windows?

Also, could the FF (fuel flow) indication be made as an option in the FMC? around 40% of 737NG operators don't have the FF indication below the engine readings as in this picture:
http://www.aviafilms.com/photos/boeing_737_800_cockpit.jpg

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Ty,

 

It wasn't completely an "error" as if we had no clue what we were doing - part of it has to do with how the HGS works technically in FSX and needing enough view space in the window to make that effect happen. We're not even certain we can fix it without hurting the HGS functionality - if it turns out we can't then it's staying the way it is. We're extremely proud of that HGS modelling (which really no one else has equaled 3 years later in any airliner addon) and we aren't going to mangle it just to fix the window dimensions. When we go back to update the NGX it'll certainly be looked at but I can't guarantee it'll be fixed due to the above.

 

Thanks for clarifying Ryan, that actually makes a lot of sense.  I wouldn't want to give up the HGS permanently in exchange for fixing the windscreen dimensions, but as Alan stated, perhaps giving one the option to choose would be a good compromise?  Though I can imagine the headache that may cause, and would understand if that isn't an option.  Either way, I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks a lot for your clarifications Ryan.

If you have time to check it, could you confirm that I did not miss anything significant (pilotwise I mean !) that is not simulated in the NGX ?

And if possible could you confirm the A/T issue on single engine is a bug ?

 

Best regards.

 

Charles

Share this post


Link to post

This is not going to happen. Airlines have entire departments devoted to maintenance servicing for large jet aircraft - it is not something pilots get out and do before/after every flight like with a GA aircraft. It happens in the middle of the night in a huge hangar and happens relatively infrequently compared to the flight hours these airplanes accumulate. Pilots do not bring up maintenance terminals or pages in the FMC - it's just not done.

 

Circuit breakers - no way, adds a ridiculous amount of complexity to the programming for very little tangible value to the product - even in abnormal situations you aren't going to be pulling breakers on a modern jet unless it's something maintenance specifically instructs you to do over a satcom call.

 

Our goal here is to simulate the normal and some of the abnormal *flight operations* of an aircraft to a reasonable degree, not to simulate everything that ever possibly happens to a real aircraft.

 

Thank you Ryan for your response, I appreciate that. I understand your vision and opinion as stated as a 'pilots view'. Of course, pilots do not need maintenance pages in the FMC, they (almost) do not need any Circuit Breakers and finally they do not need the Maintenance Access Terminal. But these items are a kind of a new side of Flight Simulation, the Engineering & Maintenance side with a 'ground engineer view'. Maybe is goes way beyond the mission and vision of PMDG, however it can be an eye-opener to extend the value of realism of the products of PMDG. In this case PMDG is able to be a CBT for pilots and ground engineers aswell to become familiar with the systems and practise with them. Nevertheless, I understand that Circuit Breakers requests ridiculous space of time to simulate  those complex functions and maybe a small segment of all PMDG customers will actually work with them and thus not profitable nor valuable.

 

Please keep in mind that I'm not dissatisfied with the product of PMDG ofcourse.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...