Announcement

Collapse

PMDG Forum Rules

1) SIGN YOUR POSTS. Since 1997, we have asked users to sign their real name, first and last, to all posts in the PMDG forum. We do this in order to keep conversations personal and familiar. You took the time to be here, we want to get to know you. This is one of the few rigid rules that we enforce regularly. We do so because we feel that forums in which users must engage one another personally are generally warmer, more collegial and friendly. Posts that are unsigned will be quietly removed without comment by the moderators, so to make your life easy- we recommend enabling your forum signature so that you never need to remember. Do this by clicking the username pull-down at the top right, then selecting "User Settings." You will find the signature editor on the ACCOUNT tab, about half way down the page. Look for "Edit Post Signature." Be sure to click the "Show Signatures" box.

2) BE NICE. We are all simmers here and no matter our differences of opinion, we share a common love of aviation, computing and simulation. Treat everyone else in the forum with respect even when you disagree. If someone frustrates you, walk away from the conversation or ask for a moderator to get involved. Speaking of Moderators, they prefer not to be treated as "The Thought Police" but if any behavior infringes on the enjoyment of another user or is otherwise considered to be unacceptable in the moderator's judgment, it will be addressed in keeping with our view of ensuring that this forum remains a healthy environment for all simmers.

3) BE LAWFUL: Any behavior that infringes upon the law, such as discussion or solicitation of piracy, threats, intimidation or abuse will be handled unsympathetically by the moderators. Threats and intimidation may, at the moderator's discretion, be provided to law enforcement for handling.

4) BE FACTUAL: When you post, always be factual. Moderators will remove posts that are determined not to be factually accurate.

5) RESPECT COPYRIGHTS: Posting of copyrighted material such as flight manuals owned by Boeing or various airlines is not allowed in this forum. If you have questions related to copyrighted material, please contact a forum moderator for clarification.

6) RESPECT PMDG: We love to hear what you like about our products. We also like to hear what you think can be improved, or what isn't working. Please do tell us and we will always treat your feedback with value. Just be sure to treat the team respectfully, as they do put a significant amount of effort into building and maintaining these great simulation products for you.

7) RESPECT PMDG DEVELOPERS: All of the developers will spend some time here. Given the ratio of developers-to-users, it simply isn't possible for us to answer every post and private message individually. Please know that we do try to read everything, but developer workload is simply too high to manage personal contact with tens-of-thousands of users simultaneously. In most cases, members of the development team will stick to conversations in the forum and will not answer private messages.

8) RESPECT OTHER DEVELOPERS: PMDG has always advocated for a strong development community and we have many friends within this community. Every developer offers something unique that helps to make the simming community larger and more vibrant. We insist that you treat our friends respectfully.

9) RESPECT MODERATORS: Moderators have a tough job, and none of them enjoy having to stomp out negativity. If a moderator has to weigh in to keep a thread peaceful, please respect that effort and refrain from giving the moderator any grief.

10) If you require official support for any of our products please open a support ticket through the support portal, https://support.precisionmanuals.com

11) This forum is designed primarily as a vehicle for the PMDG development team to interact with our customers, and for customers to interact with one another in a manner that is positive, supportive and assists in the general advancement of understanding the simulation and helping to make this and future simulations better. Any other use of this forum is not permitted, including but not limited to discussion of pricing policies, business practices, forum moderating policies, advertising of non-PMDG products, promotion of events, services or products that are not approved in advance by PMDG or any other topic deemed unacceptable by any forum administrator

12) HAVE FUN: This is the whole point of it all.
See more
See less

I think it’s about time for another update...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I think it’s about time for another update...

    The PMDG 747-400 / 747-8 Queen of the Skies is impressive. Though in my opinion, I think there should be some upgrades, like adding in modeling, texturing, and features from the NGXU.
    Evan Cheauré (EvantheKidDS)


    #2
    I chime in here because the other thread "Update error", has been locked without understanding what I meant (thank you Kevin for always intervening without a reason). It's clear and aknowledged that the N1 issue IS an issue and is to be fixed, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN! (Understand, Kevin???). I just wanted to know if an update is expected soon, considering that more than one year has passed since my report… It would be nonsense and useless to say "ok, that issue has to be fixed" and, after more than one year, have completely no news on any update... Is that clear, now, Kevin? Or is my English too bad to be understood?
    James Goggi

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by EvantheKidDS View Post
      The PMDG 747-400 / 747-8 Queen of the Skies is impressive. Though in my opinion, I think there should be some upgrades, like adding in modeling, texturing, and features from the NGXU.
      Retrofitting the (further improved) taxi model to the 747 and also the dynamic cockpit lighting would be absolutely outstanding. Just don‘t do anything that breaks the FS2Crew module. Bryan has so much work already 😂
      i7-6700k, GTX 1080TI, 32GB DDR4 RAM @1600MHz, 4k

      Comment


        #4
        I anticipate that when GFO launches that all of the airplanes will receive some sort of update.
        Tim Barker FAA ATCS

        Comment


          #5
          We all appreciate your opinion...
          Matt kubanda

          Comment


          #6
          So I'm looking forward for a MASSIVE update

          Anthony Miller

          Comment


            #7
            Originally posted by Tbarker1989 View Post
            I anticipate that when GFO launches that all of the airplanes will receive some sort of update.
            They will probably have enough teething issues to fix for the GFO implementation... I don't think they will dare to add a lot of new stuff to the "older" airplanes as long as those things aren't fixed.
            i7-6700k, GTX 1080TI, 32GB DDR4 RAM @1600MHz, 4k

            Comment


              #8
              Originally posted by Ephedrin View Post

              They will probably have enough teething issues to fix for the GFO implementation... I don't think they will dare to add a lot of new stuff to the "older" airplanes as long as those things aren't fixed.
              I didnt say I anticipated a large update. Maybe just gfo implementation. But I would be surprised if GFO is released and there is no update to the 777 and NGX to work with gfo.
              Tim Barker FAA ATCS

              Comment


                #9
                GFO was initially tested and developed on the 744. What’s needed is already in there. Remember when a random update added limited ACARS functions?
                Kyle Rodgers
                PMDG Developer Emeritus

                Comment


                  #10
                  Originally posted by jgoggi View Post
                  I chime in here because the other thread "Update error", has been locked without understanding what I meant (thank you Kevin for always intervening without a reason). It's clear and aknowledged that the N1 issue IS an issue and is to be fixed, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN! (Understand, Kevin???). I just wanted to know if an update is expected soon, considering that more than one year has passed since my report… It would be nonsense and useless to say "ok, that issue has to be fixed" and, after more than one year, have completely no news on any update... Is that clear, now, Kevin? Or is my English too bad to be understood?
                  Based upon Robert’s response it sounds like they don’t plan on fixing it anytime soon. It’s not a bug but rather an inaccuracy they chose for the sake of the overall simulation. If the N1 in manual mode was modeled accurately then fuel usage would not, by as much as 8-10% less fuel computed upon arrival at destination.

                  What’s with the obsession on this? No simulator is ever 100% accurate to the real thing. Even the multi-million dollar Level D sims that airlines use for training aren’t 100% accurate. If you’re hellbent on 100% accuracy then the *only* way to get that is to fly the real thing.

                  P.S. That was a rhetorical question. I don’t actually want to engage in a conversation about why we should care about the small nit picky things. I made my point and I’m leaving it at that.
                  James Ward

                  Comment


                    #11
                    Originally posted by jgoggi View Post
                    I chime in here because the other thread "Update error", has been locked without understanding what I meant (thank you Kevin for always intervening without a reason). It's clear and aknowledged that the N1 issue IS an issue and is to be fixed, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN! (Understand, Kevin???). I just wanted to know if an update is expected soon, considering that more than one year has passed since my report… It would be nonsense and useless to say "ok, that issue has to be fixed" and, after more than one year, have completely no news on any update... Is that clear, now, Kevin? Or is my English too bad to be understood?
                    No, I understand your post just fine, I'm just trying to figure out if you're understanding anything that PMDG is telling you, given that Robert himself had to respond to you a second time, as per the following post:

                    https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-fo...1125#post21125

                    Yes, they acknowledged the N1 issue, however, they never said it was going to be fixed because doing so would compromise the performance of the aircraft, namely the fact that you would arrive at your destination with 8-10% less fuel than computed. If you like arriving at your destination with 8-10% less fuel than planned, fine, but don't expect that anybody else would like that. If Robert's response isn't good enough, I don't know what to tell you.
                    Captain Kevin

                    Kevin Yang

                    Comment


                      #12
                      Spot-on, James and Kevin.
                      Rick Almeida
                      P3Dv4.4
                      B777-200+300ER, B744+8i,DC-6, BAe J41, 737NGX
                      AS4, EFB2,PFPXv2

                      Comment


                        #13
                        Originally posted by krodgers View Post
                        GFO was initially tested and developed on the 744. What’s needed is already in there. Remember when a random update added limited ACARS functions?
                        I remember that but as it currently stands I am unable to change the Global Flight Ops: Disabled to Enabled in the CDU so I figured there would be some day 1 patch when GFO launches to accommodate this.
                        Tim Barker FAA ATCS

                        Comment


                        • Ephedrin
                          Ephedrin commented
                          Editing a comment
                          COULD be that there is an automation that activates this function as soon as it observes a valid GFO login.. we will see

                        • Tbarker1989
                          Tbarker1989 commented
                          Editing a comment
                          Possibly it could

                        #14
                        Originally posted by HighFlier View Post
                        Based upon Robert’s response it sounds like they don’t plan on fixing it anytime soon. It’s not a bug but rather an inaccuracy they chose for the sake of the overall simulation. If the N1 in manual mode was modeled accurately then fuel usage would not, by as much as 8-10% less fuel computed upon arrival at destination.
                        He did not say that it would 100% not be fixed. And no, that cannot be the reason, otherwise N1 would have been left increasing also in HOLD mode when the A/T in engaged. In that case it was corrected, and since the A/T and the related HOLD mode is used 99% of the times at takeoff, the effect on fuel usage would have been present 99% of the times...
                        Last edited by jgoggi; 02Dec2019, 08:04.
                        James Goggi

                        Comment


                          #15
                          Originally posted by Captain Kevin View Post
                          Yes, they acknowledged the N1 issue, however, they never said it was going to be fixed because doing so would compromise the performance of the aircraft, namely the fact that you would arrive at your destination with 8-10% less fuel than computed. If you like arriving at your destination with 8-10% less fuel than planned, fine, but don't expect that anybody else would like that. If Robert's response isn't good enough, I don't know what to tell you.
                          He did not say that it would 100% not be fixed. And NO, that cannot be the reason, otherwise N1 would have been left increasing also in HOLD mode when the A/T in engaged. In that case it was corrected, and since the A/T and the related HOLD mode is used 99% of the times at takeoff, the effect on fuel usage would have been present 99% of the times...
                          I don't understand your attitude, you prefer hands down to have unquestionable BUGS rather than aknowledging when I report something. Really unprofessional and childish...
                          Last edited by jgoggi; 02Dec2019, 08:07.
                          James Goggi

                          Comment


                            #16
                            Originally posted by jgoggi View Post
                            I don't understand your attitude, you prefer hands down to have unquestionable BUGS rather than aknowledging when I report something. Really unprofessional and childish...
                            Certainly not what I said at all, and as a matter of interest, I've reported my own set of issues with the plane in the past. In any event, there's only so much you can do within the limitations of the simulator. As it is, the simulator itself has its own set of issues, so not really sure how they're going to get around that. You posted an issue, PMDG responded. The fact that you don't like their response isn't going to change their response.
                            Captain Kevin

                            Kevin Yang

                            Comment


                              #17
                              All,

                              Can you PLEASE put this in rest finally? There is an official answer for this from Robert. We are not going to give information in which update will be fixed if it is fixed without compromising other product functionalities. If this keeps going this thread is going to be locked as well.
                              Chris Makris (Olympic260)
                              PMDG Technical Support
                              http://www.pmdg.com

                              Comment


                                #18
                                I guess it's somewhat reassuring to see that James has the same attitude with PMDG as he does with other developers!

                                James, you were told pretty definitively that this 'bug' you keep going on about was actually an act of PMDG trying to find a balance. You seem to have chosen to ignore this, despite quite a polite response from Robert.

                                I've included it again in case you missed it.


                                James,

                                Why is this topic back up once again in hot debate?

                                You brought this up about a year ago- and I agreed with you. In house we have a vast understanding of how thrust is being set and managed, and we also have a vast amount of technical knowledge of how to work within the confines of the FSX/P3D platforms. Thrust is set based upon a processed signal input of throttle angle and managed from there out to the EECs. It really is quite a simple process- except that in the FSX/P3D platforms- RAM effect is inaccurately simulated and through-mass of air volume is really not simulated at all- which means we can give you a rigid prediction of thrust setting OR we can give you accurate performance across all phases of flight. We choose performance as a minute change in N1 at a single phase of flight is insignificant to the overall simulation, but arriving at your destination with 8-10% less fuel the computed would have a way of taking the enjoyment and value out of the simulation.

                                I told you this back then- so frankly I'm a bit surprised you are back at it again and acting as if you have been ignored. If I answer you once on a topic, I generally don't make a habit of answering you again when you ask repeatedly. My days are exceptionally busy in code, research, actual flying in actual airplanes, and generally keeping things pointed in the right direction- so when you start secondary threads like this I tend to ignore them because the topic has been covered.

                                If this thread is to prove anything- it is that you probably need to ponder the broad spectrum of things that we are working on and managing simultaneously- and given our relatively high level of expertise in both the airplane types that we model and the platform that we work with- if we tell you we are aware of an inaccuracy, but that it is present for a valid technical reason- you may just want to accept the answer.

                                You have a history of perseverating on what are very very small details to the exclusion of all else- and the manner in which you conduct yourself discredit the otherwise positive impact you might have.

                                Just something to think about.
                                Last edited by RoDuSu; 02Dec2019, 11:46.
                                Robert Sutherland

                                Comment


                                  #19
                                  Ok, gents, like a sheep, you keep writing about Robert's reply, but no one is able to explain why the N1 increase in HOLD mode has been fixed! Wasn't the air volume problem present there as well? And the HOLD mode is used for 99% of takeoffs and also during descent.... So please, stop writing nonsense... When I get a satisfying explanation on why this does not happen with the HOLD mode, I will settle...
                                  James Goggi

                                  Comment


                                    #20
                                    Originally posted by jgoggi View Post
                                    Ok, gents, like a sheep, you keep writing about Robert's reply, but no one is able to explain why the N1 increase in HOLD mode has been fixed! Wasn't the air volume problem present there as well? And the HOLD mode is used for 99% of takeoffs and also during descent.... So please, stop writing nonsense... When I get a satisfying explanation on why this does not happen with the HOLD mode, I will settle...
                                    Different problem, different solution. Please stop bringing this up in every post. On two different post you were told by different people including myself Roberts answer.

                                    Also please refrain from using wording "like sheep".

                                    You have the official answer from Robert. If you choose not to accept it that's ok but please do not bring it over and over again. Nothing will chnage.
                                    Chris Makris (Olympic260)
                                    PMDG Technical Support
                                    http://www.pmdg.com

                                    Comment


                                      #21
                                      In keeping with the Animal Husbandry genre...

                                      Never wrestle with a Pig. He enjoys it and you get dirty.

                                      C

                                      PS- No one really misses Ferd, do they?
                                      Best- Carl Avari-Cooper

                                      Comment


                                      • DDowns
                                        DDowns commented
                                        Editing a comment
                                        Who was Ferd?

                                      #22
                                      Btw, as this is an update thread: you haven‘t simulated the CG change if someone goes to the bathroom and comes back a bit lighter.. at 400 people in a 747 this is a relevant number.. pretty please? 😇 and wouldn‘t a 737 shake if 2 people went there togeth... ah... forget it.


                                      In all seriousness and without any bad words, James, please consider one thing (and please understand that I’ll keep it simple for MY english reasons, not yours):
                                      Coding and programming a system like this 747 addon is not abcdefgh... you don‘t just write on and on and when you get to z you have a finished addon. You rather develop modules that get combined to more complexity and in the end they become married to one product. Like cars are built today: the engine comes from factory A while inside this factory the engine was mounted in seperate modules too. Some manufacturers develop their own anti skid systems, others buy it, and so on. Very likely different modes (THR HOLD, manual mode and all that stuff) have been coded seperately from each other, too. Otherwise this would end up in a huge mess and nobody would ever be able to find and fix anything. Combining different modules ALWAYS results in incompatibilities that need to be solved, all above if everything has to comply to rules set up by a main system as we have with P3D. And solving these things sometimes requires making compromises.and that‘s what Robert told you: either we have a not totally perfect engine output (ensemble of engine code modules) or we face a wrong fuel calculation (fuel prediction, environment, etc modules).

                                      Coding is always a game of compromises.
                                      Last edited by Ephedrin; 02Dec2019, 19:49.
                                      i7-6700k, GTX 1080TI, 32GB DDR4 RAM @1600MHz, 4k

                                      Comment


                                        #23
                                        Originally posted by cmakris View Post

                                        Different problem, different solution. .
                                        Chris, I would like to know why it's a different problem. In both cases there is no A/T and the thrust is completely manual, and in both cases the EEC keeps the actual N1 matching the green reference N1, so, once again, I still haven't had an explanation as to why in the simulation the behaviour is different...
                                        James Goggi

                                        Comment


                                          #24
                                          3,2,1... and locked
                                          Christian Mbeumo

                                          Comment


                                            #25
                                            All right, tell you what. If you think it's that simple of a fix, why don't you let them know how to fix it.
                                            Captain Kevin

                                            Kevin Yang

                                            Comment


                                              #26
                                              Originally posted by jgoggi View Post

                                              Chris, I would like to know why it's a different problem. In both cases there is no A/T and the thrust is completely manual, and in both cases the EEC keeps the actual N1 matching the green reference N1, so, once again, I still haven't had an explanation as to why in the simulation the behaviour is different...
                                              I don't know why everyone is coming down on this guy, it seems like a reasonable request and I can certainly see his logic. After all, PMDG charging a premium for their addons and being known as pretty much one of the best in the business, you have to expect the criticisms to be nitpicky, pmdg gets most things right so it's not you are going to see request for things you might see on a another forum for example, pmdg is in another league than all but one developer that I can think of. If we didn't care about stuff like this we wouldn't pay $150 for an addon.

                                              -Mike Iacovetta

                                              Comment


                                                #27
                                                Originally posted by Pilot53 View Post

                                                I don't know why everyone is coming down on this guy, it seems like a reasonable request and I can certainly see his logic. After all, PMDG charging a premium for their addons and being known as pretty much one of the best in the business, you have to expect the criticisms to be nitpicky, pmdg gets most things right so it's not you are going to see request for things you might see on a another forum for example, pmdg is in another league than all but one developer that I can think of. If we didn't care about stuff like this we wouldn't pay $150 for an addon.

                                                -Mike Iacovetta
                                                Well maybe so, but when the head developer (Randazzo) personally explains in detail the rationale behind why they chose to deviate from 100% accuracy in order to make the math work out, the sensible person might recognize the signals telling him that he's reached diminishing returns.

                                                This fellow is what I picture of somebody 500 years ago repeatedly hounding Michaelangelo about how big he carved "David's" balls or whatever...attention to detail is fantastic but push it far enough and it becomes a diagnosis. Good grief.
                                                Last edited by MattS; 02Dec2019, 23:33.
                                                Matt Smith

                                                Comment


                                                  #28
                                                  Originally posted by Pilot53 View Post

                                                  I don't know why everyone is coming down on this guy, it seems like a reasonable request and I can certainly see his logic. After all, PMDG charging a premium for their addons and being known as pretty much one of the best in the business, you have to expect the criticisms to be nitpicky, pmdg gets most things right so it's not you are going to see request for things you might see on a another forum for example, pmdg is in another league than all but one developer that I can think of. If we didn't care about stuff like this we wouldn't pay $150 for an addon.

                                                  -Mike Iacovetta
                                                  It’s because he already got an answer. The reason for the inaccuracy was explained by Robert and Chris explained how the issue regarding HOLD mode was a different problem with a different solution. That is already a sufficient answer. He doesn’t need to know the specifics of why it’s a different problem nor is he entitled to. Yes customers are entitled to product support but that doesn’t mean include getting to know the exact code.
                                                  James Ward

                                                  Comment


                                                    #29
                                                    Very disappointed by most replies. Unfortunately, I understand that this environment is not for professionals, but only for people who like playing with videogames. Ok, I will settle, this topic can be locked (at least I will not see further useless replies), but be aware that real life aviation is another thing...
                                                    James Goggi

                                                    Comment


                                                      #30
                                                      Originally posted by jgoggi View Post
                                                      Very disappointed by most replies. Unfortunately, I understand that this environment is not for professionals, but only for people who like playing with videogames. Ok, I will settle, this topic can be locked (at least I will not see further useless replies), but be aware that real life aviation is another thing...
                                                      I find this hilarious. There are 747 and 737 pilots with several thousand hours present on this forum using PMDG products. Please say again that the only people here are video-gamers. I bet there are also a ton of private pilots here with IFR and ME ratings.

                                                      Do you consider yourself a professional? Genuine question this time. Unless you fly aircraft as a career, you are not a professional no matter how much you wish to be.

                                                      I wasn’t going to bother replying at first but it’s one thing to obsess over a relatively small inaccuracy and an entirely different thing to actively disparage people because they don’t agree with you. It’s rude and deserves to be called out.
                                                      Last edited by HighFlier; 03Dec2019, 08:19.
                                                      James Ward

                                                      Comment

                                                      Working...
                                                      X