Simulators - PMDG 738 NGX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simulators - PMDG 738 NGX
Any real commercial pilots had a go of the PMDG 738 aircraft available
for FSX, I am wondering how it appears to fair up to the real aircraft
in terms of instrumentation?
Kind Regards
Nathan.
for FSX, I am wondering how it appears to fair up to the real aircraft
in terms of instrumentation?
Kind Regards
Nathan.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to rain on your parade, but ....
I doubt many commercial pilots waste their time with PC simulators that on the whole are not at all an accurate representation of the real thing and also don't come anything near to what you get in the multi-million training sims.
PC sims have been and always will be categorised as a game, please don't kid yourself that they are anything more than that.
I doubt many commercial pilots waste their time with PC simulators that on the whole are not at all an accurate representation of the real thing and also don't come anything near to what you get in the multi-million training sims.
PC sims have been and always will be categorised as a game, please don't kid yourself that they are anything more than that.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nathan, rainfall excepted (Walter??
), I have to report that for 'screenshots' and timing exercises for planning simulator sessions etc these programmes have proved very valuable.
The PMDG is a pretty good programme, reasonably accurate in attitudes, power, systems, arr/deps/runways/nav, speeds, etc: the only bit I found difficult was the switching between displays required to make o/head and other selections while 'flying' - which in itself was fairly difficult with mouse/keyboard only (no 'joystick') but 'Autopilot in' asap was a good answer.
On one 'trip' I set up LGW-GVA for timing, and in VNAV at ToC selected the initial cleared altitude for the GVA STAR, went to the shops, and came back in time to fly the arrival and ILS
If you are looking for something to practice ADF/VOR approaches (ie seeing how the needles 'work'), SIDS and STARS or just to get used to working out where you are from the instruments and navigating to another point, I recommend it. Also quite useful in getting used to flowscans and checks - eg setting up from 'Cold and Dark'.
), I have to report that for 'screenshots' and timing exercises for planning simulator sessions etc these programmes have proved very valuable. The PMDG is a pretty good programme, reasonably accurate in attitudes, power, systems, arr/deps/runways/nav, speeds, etc: the only bit I found difficult was the switching between displays required to make o/head and other selections while 'flying' - which in itself was fairly difficult with mouse/keyboard only (no 'joystick') but 'Autopilot in' asap was a good answer.
On one 'trip' I set up LGW-GVA for timing, and in VNAV at ToC selected the initial cleared altitude for the GVA STAR, went to the shops, and came back in time to fly the arrival and ILS
If you are looking for something to practice ADF/VOR approaches (ie seeing how the needles 'work'), SIDS and STARS or just to get used to working out where you are from the instruments and navigating to another point, I recommend it. Also quite useful in getting used to flowscans and checks - eg setting up from 'Cold and Dark'.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@mixture - you are wrong and ill-informed.
Did you know that Microsoft transferred Flight Simulator X to Lockheed-Martin, and that if you want to buy a copy now you must agree that is must be used for professional training purposes?
FSX is now called "Prepar3D" and owned by Lockheed Martin.
Microsoft now sell a product called "Flight", which is a much simpler simulator for home users.
Most professional flight simulators use FSX are the sim engine, with custom high quality scenery and third-party plugins for things like flight computers.
Did you know that Microsoft transferred Flight Simulator X to Lockheed-Martin, and that if you want to buy a copy now you must agree that is must be used for professional training purposes?
FSX is now called "Prepar3D" and owned by Lockheed Martin.
Microsoft now sell a product called "Flight", which is a much simpler simulator for home users.
Most professional flight simulators use FSX are the sim engine, with custom high quality scenery and third-party plugins for things like flight computers.
before 9/11, the Captain would sometimes let you into the cockpit for a look around.
I once took gingerette to the front seat, and it looked just like the flight simulator we had at home. In fact, the flight simulator was probably a bit more realistic.
I once took gingerette to the front seat, and it looked just like the flight simulator we had at home. In fact, the flight simulator was probably a bit more realistic.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microsoft transferred Flight Simulator X to Lockheed-Martin
You're sitting at home, infront of a computer screen with a keyboard and clicking around with your mouse.... if that's not removed from reality, I don't know what is !
But hey... I guess the children of the magenta line must feel right at home...
Last edited by mixture; 5th Jan 2013 at 10:43.
N4790P
Most professional flight simulators use FSX are the sim engine, with custom high quality scenery and third-party plugins for things like flight computers.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're sitting at home, infront of a computer screen with a keyboard and clicking around with your mouse.... if that's not removed from reality, I don't know what is !
Did you notice the experience level of the OP = PPL? Seems to be more than yours?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OP = PPL? Seems to be more than yours?
There will always be two camps to this debate, but personally, with the benefit of an IT background, I know the hard fact is that given the limitations of your average home desktop PC, you're never going to be capable of making anything more than a glorified game. Even you yourself are not treating it as more than that by popping out to the shops leaving it running.
Last edited by mixture; 5th Jan 2013 at 12:12.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even you yourself are not treating it as more than that by popping out to the shops leaving it running.
PS I have thought again.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ZFT - you are wrong. Many certified trainers around the world are based on FSX.
I've never seen anything in technical requirements that precludes FSX.
It's actually an excellent simulation engine and very realistic.
I've never seen anything in technical requirements that precludes FSX.
It's actually an excellent simulation engine and very realistic.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any real commercial pilots had a go of the PMDG 738 aircraft available for FSX, I am wondering how it appears to fair up to the real aircraft in terms of instrumentation?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but ....
I doubt many commercial pilots waste their time with PC simulators that on the whole are not at all an accurate representation of the real thing and also don't come anything near to what you get in the multi-million training sims.
I doubt many commercial pilots waste their time with PC simulators that on the whole are not at all an accurate representation of the real thing and also don't come anything near to what you get in the multi-million training sims.
NGX, is accurate enough. For example, it is interesting to fail a bus, get the FCOM out and look at the impact of the failure and then get the QRH out and start working through each individual light. I would not trust it as is, but it gets you thinking!
The specific problem with FSX is the amount of time it takes to work out how to get the most out of it. Unlike more specific and dedicated training tools like Elite, Aerosim, RANT, etc, FSX is fiddly and finicky and clearly not designed with training in mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies which are most educating. I know of course this home based software isn't going to be comparable to the real world environment, the real 'feel' of the 737, but as I said, was just looking for comparability in terms of IFR. Of course, I don't have a cpl or even a ppl, had a few lessons is all, and I found it could be a distraction when learning to fly for the first time VFR, instead of concentrating on the airspace around me and physically looking for other traffic, placing a focus on the instruments too much. That said, it appears for you pro commercial pilots it can be a handy tool. I say appear because unfortunately the pmdg 738 cockpit is the closest I will see to the real thing, never stepped foot in a working operational commercial or jetliner cockpit, although I'd be thrilled like a kid to a candy stick if offered the chance, I'd be thrilled if I could loan the tuition fees for cpl training as can be done her other higher education training. I can go on to do a law degree and become a solicitor or barrister with help at first from the state, yet cannot even be offered the opportunity to be a pro pilot with the same help, I personally find that inherently unfair. Anyway, back to topic, I noticed pmdg employ real world pilots to config these software planes for realism, on the other hand I am sure the software makes a lot of money so as with all forms of advertising it can be seen with "invitations to treat" say anything and get away with it. I.e carlsberg being probably the best lager in the world lol.
N4790P
peterc005,
I don't dispute trainers, however I stand by my statement "None that are certified as Full Flight Simulators" as your original post referred to "Most professional flight simulators use FSX" not trainers.
I don't dispute trainers, however I stand by my statement "None that are certified as Full Flight Simulators" as your original post referred to "Most professional flight simulators use FSX" not trainers.
Last edited by ZFT; 5th Jan 2013 at 14:45.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peterc005,
While FSX may be good as an image generator for a visual system or a navigation/FMS/procedure trainer, it is completely inadequate as a flight simulation model which can be proven and certified through the kind of objective testing that "real" simulators have to perform. I know of no certified (JAR-FSTD, Part-60 or otherwise) device (FTD, FFS, whatever) which uses FSX for the core simulation. None whatsoever.
You might be thinking of X-plane, which is to my knowledge the only commercially available simulation program which has successfully been used as a basis for FAA-certified fixed-base trainers.
While FSX may be good as an image generator for a visual system or a navigation/FMS/procedure trainer, it is completely inadequate as a flight simulation model which can be proven and certified through the kind of objective testing that "real" simulators have to perform. I know of no certified (JAR-FSTD, Part-60 or otherwise) device (FTD, FFS, whatever) which uses FSX for the core simulation. None whatsoever.
You might be thinking of X-plane, which is to my knowledge the only commercially available simulation program which has successfully been used as a basis for FAA-certified fixed-base trainers.
Last edited by A-FLOOR; 5th Jan 2013 at 15:08.
If I can chuck my two-penneth in - I was involved in the construction of a fixed base simulator based on the 737-800. We used a shell of a real scrapped 737-200 and retrofitted a glass-cockpit, using our in-house software for display. FS9 was as the visual model and we had a 737 add-on (I can't remember which one) as the flight model.
There is a video of the sim here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUvYSa5VvKI
I had extensive time 'flying' this device and also had 2 hours in the same year on a real 737-800 Level D sim.
The two were obviously different, the biggest difference being the motion and the 'feel' of inertia on the Level D but the differences were not outlandish. I learned to fly on the fixed base sim and was able to handle the level D perfectly well.
On a separate note, I am planning to build a simple home sim and came across this thread after a search on Prepar3D - which is what I am planning to use as the sim. I just wondered if anyone has any experience with this sim product and can give any accounts of their experiences?
There is a video of the sim here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUvYSa5VvKI
I had extensive time 'flying' this device and also had 2 hours in the same year on a real 737-800 Level D sim.
The two were obviously different, the biggest difference being the motion and the 'feel' of inertia on the Level D but the differences were not outlandish. I learned to fly on the fixed base sim and was able to handle the level D perfectly well.
On a separate note, I am planning to build a simple home sim and came across this thread after a search on Prepar3D - which is what I am planning to use as the sim. I just wondered if anyone has any experience with this sim product and can give any accounts of their experiences?
