38 replies to this topic

[sebfsx]

wat do u guys think is better
i need to know for im going to get whichever is better

[alehead]

They are two completely different packages, if you ask me. The only common element is the fact that the NG is simulated. If you want the ability to simulate the NG as close to the real thing as is currently possible, with failure simulation, wear and tear, and so on, then you only have one real choice: PMDG. If you do not want this additional level of depth, you can safely choose both, as you are not forced to run the PMDG NGX in failure mode.

I would read a couple of reviews. There are plenty covering the iFly already. There have been a couple of reviews already of the PMDG too. It all boils down to what you want from your simulation time, a decision only you can make. I am not going to recommend the one or the other. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.

Andrew

[rocky]

Good advice from Andrew. However, I know how frustrating it can be when trying to get information about a new addon. The problem with your question is that it has been asked a million times! So I will try and answer it as best I can, with as much objectivity as possible. So please remember these are my own experiences and opinions.
Having flown both and own both aircraft I can say unequivically, in my view, the PMDG is a far more immersive aircraft. There are a number of main differences that I have noted. The first difference, which is immediately apparent is the resolution of both the exterior and the VC. The PMDG is far superior and I mean far superior to the iFLY. When viewing the plane from outside, the plane is a 3D model, by that I mean you can see through the windows and as you pan across the plane the interior will move accordingly. The reflection from the sun is extraordinarily realistic on the exterior. In the VC, in different lighting you can become suddenly aware of the shadows and dust marks on the instrument displays. The amount of detail in this plane is superb and by far the most immersive addon I have in my hanger of about twenty planes.These things are not present on the iFLY to this degree. Certainly the resolution is far lower on the iFLY and the external resolution was a massive disappointment to me. The windows for example are 2D giving the impression of having been 'painted' onto the fuselage. In the PMDG the overall resolution is similar to the Airbus x. I cannot over emphasise the importance of detail in the VC and it is this that has helped take the simming world by storm. IMO the sound effects are superior. The iFLY does have some good sounds, but again IMO the PMDG wins. In the PMDG all the switches, knobs and buttons work, even a switch to turn on the air for the footwell! The handling, well, what can I say. It is simply awesome! I didn't think there would be that much of a difference between the two aircraft, but there is. If like me you enjoy manual approaches and landings, then the difference will be noticeable. The immersion factor should not be something that's overlooked either. I find once in the cockpit of the PMDG, it has a feel about it that immediately makes me smile. Why, you can only guess, I just know since it's release the rest of my aircraft have hardly been flown!! As for performance, on my rig and that's all I can go by, the smoothness was slighly better on the iFLY and there was also 10% improvement with the iFLY.
If you simply want the finest of aircraft then IMO it has to be the PMDG. If on the other hand you are looking for something that is not quite so immersive, a little lighter on your pocket, the resolution is not a big factor and you can get a few extra frames then the iFLY could be for you. It is a superb aircraft and one that the designers should be highly proud of. Their support is second to none. It's quick, helpful and very friendly, so if you choose the iFLY then you will not have made a mistake by any stretch of the imagination, simply bought yourself a Porsche rather than a Ferrari!

[gmoreira]

Brilliant post above by Howard "Rocky"!

I second his opinion and I should add: Ever since I got PMDG's 737NGX, I can't fly anything else... plain and simple!
It sets a standard so high that whenever you move to another aircraft it will just be in the real world...

[flusi4ever]

Just one thing to add.
iFly has all modells of the NG-series (600-900 + BBJs), PMDG has 800 and 900 only. The other modells will be available later for a new payment

[kaspis29]

Also BBJs?

[alehead]

I believe the jury is still out on whether the BBJ will be released by PMDG. It involves a different model perhaps (fewer windows for one) and possibly modified flight dynamics thanks to the additional fuel tanks. However, without real world data on that, I merely speculate. Fact is, PMDG have not officially decided on doing the BBJ or not. Apparently, they wanted to see what the customer response is.

Andrew

[trisager]

Also BBJs?

Edit: Andrew beat me to it

One thing to consider is, if you want all the models, you will end up paying considerably more for the PMDG than the iFly. You'll have to decide if the added depth of PMDG's system simulation is worth the extra money. For me the answer is "yes", but your priorities may differ from mine.

[Emi]

I'd go for PMDG every time. At this time they have only the 800/800WL/900/900WL modeled, but more will follow. The other variants will cost some more money, but for this money you'll get exact flight dynamics (including fuel usage, etc.) and just everything you could want on an airliner.

Another cool thing with the PMDG is that they have moddeled many (all?) airline options, like the HGS, different panel variants (PFD/ND vs. EFIS/MAP), or the option to add the SFP (Short Field Package).

If you want to see something of the NGX you can search through PMDGs Forum at AVSIM and look for the videos done by AOA. Once you've seen them I'm sure you'll be convinced to take the NGX.
Here's just one example of those videos: http://www.flyaoamed...ckpit-thoughts/

[Mathijs Kok]

Edit: Andrew beat me to it

One thing to consider is, if you want all the models, you will end up paying considerably more for the PMDG than the iFly. You'll have to decide if the added depth of PMDG's system simulation is worth the extra money. For me the answer is "yes", but your priorities may differ from mine.

I think two very good points are made there.

• Is a $70 add-on better then a $40 add-on? I bloody well hope so, certainly if the add-on costs more then the simulator itself. With PMDG however you can be sure that it is.
• A B737 is flown by two highly trained persons, supported by far more people. And you, dear customer, are most likely a nice guy who drinks a beer while flying the aircraft on a rainy evening. I am the first person to say the PMDG 737 is too complex for my taste. It needs at least between 20 and 30 hours to learn the basics and far more to learn the ins and outs. I can list you dozens of people who bought a complex aircraft and are not using it now. You'll never hear about them because nobody likes to let is know they are too 'stupid' to fly the PMDG 737. You never read a bad review about a product like this because it is so important and so good a bad review more or less means the reviewer does not understand it. Fact is that for a good deal of customers this is a step they should not take unless they are very very serious and got time.

I get PAID to play with FSX and I can't even bother to get to grips with this product. Does it mean it is not good? Of course not, it just means it is not a product for me. The few hours I spend in FSX not being paid are in the Katana or the Catalina. Aircraft that take a fraction of the time to understand and still rather serious simulations. Keeping the Katana in good shape takes some serious thinking and keeping the engines in the Catalina running in realistic mode baffled me more then a few times.

Knowing your limits is the mark of a good pilot. Real pilots and sim pilots.

[Pilot Pete]

I think two very good points are made there.

• Is a $70 add-on better then a $40 add-on? I bloody well hope so, certainly if the add-on costs more then the simulator itself. With PMDG however you can be sure that it is.
• A B737 is flown by two highly trained persons, supported by far more people. And you, dear customer, are most likely a nice guy who drinks a beer while flying the aircraft on a rainy evening. I am the first person to say the PMDG 737 is too complex for my taste. It needs at least between 20 and 30 hours to learn the basics and far more to learn the ins and outs. I can list you dozens of people who bought a complex aircraft and are not using it now. You'll never hear about them because nobody likes to let is know they are too 'stupid' to fly the PMDG 737. You never read a bad review about a product like this because it is so important and so good a bad review more or less means the reviewer does not understand it. Fact is that for a good deal of customers this is a step they should not take unless they are very very serious and got time.

I get PAID to play with FSX and I can't even bother to get to grips with this product. Does it mean it is not good? Of course not, it just means it is not a product for me. The few hours I spend in FSX not being paid are in the Katana or the Catalina. Aircraft that take a fraction of the time to understand and still rather serious simulations. Keeping the Katana in good shape takes some serious thinking and keeping the engines in the Catalina running in realistic mode baffled me more then a few times.

Knowing your limits is the mark of a good pilot. Real pilots and sim pilots.

Well said Mathijs!

[Epikk]

Edit: Andrew beat me to it

One thing to consider is, if you want all the models, you will end up paying considerably more for the PMDG than the iFly. You'll have to decide if the added depth of PMDG's system simulation is worth the extra money. For me the answer is "yes", but your priorities may differ from mine.

+1

[ridgey]

i have used both

PMDG in every single way possible

[bionicCrab]

PMDG NGX is by far the most advanced product out there. You should buy it for that reason alone.

[The Badger]

I think two very good points are made there.

• Is a $70 add-on better then a $40 add-on? I bloody well hope so, certainly if the add-on costs more then the simulator itself. With PMDG however you can be sure that it is.
• A B737 is flown by two highly trained persons, supported by far more people. And you, dear customer, are most likely a nice guy who drinks a beer while flying the aircraft on a rainy evening. I am the first person to say the PMDG 737 is too complex for my taste. It needs at least between 20 and 30 hours to learn the basics and far more to learn the ins and outs. I can list you dozens of people who bought a complex aircraft and are not using it now. You'll never hear about them because nobody likes to let is know they are too 'stupid' to fly the PMDG 737. You never read a bad review about a product like this because it is so important and so good a bad review more or less means the reviewer does not understand it. Fact is that for a good deal of customers this is a step they should not take unless they are very very serious and got time.

Is the iFly easier to learn/fly than the PMDG? I'm one of those that would learn the basics, go away and fly something else for a while then come back having forgotten how to work it and then abandon it. If the iFly is simpler to get up in the air so I can learn as I go, that might be the better option for me.

Cheers

Badger

[ebksb123]

[/list]Is the iFly easier to learn/fly than the PMDG? I'm one of those that would learn the basics, go away and fly something else for a while then come back having forgotten how to work it and then abandon it. If the iFly is simpler to get up in the air so I can learn as I go, that might be the better option for me.

Cheers

Badger

I hope I didn't get this wrong, if so, please TELL ME!

But I think the pmdg is as easy to learn as the ifly as far as you just use the functions the ifly has. The pmdg is only more difficult if you use all the complex functions the ifly does not have.


You just should know for yourself how much you wanna pay for this. The pmdg has the HUD, so I'll get this one although I know I will never be able to learn all the options you have with that

And the difference in price is not THAT hard!

[Mathijs Kok]

I hope I didn't get this wrong, if so, please TELL ME!

But I think the pmdg is as easy to learn as the ifly as far as you just use the functions the ifly has. The pmdg is only more difficult if you use all the complex functions the ifly does not have.


You just should know for yourself how much you wanna pay for this. The pmdg has the HUD, so I'll get this one although I know I will never be able to learn all the options you have with that

And the difference in price is not THAT hard!

The HUD is a nice feature on the list but it's an option that not many airlines buy and even less pilots actually like to use. In fact I am pretty sure it is more used in FSX then in real life. That's realism for you! It's like the RAT on an Airbus. You know how likely you are to use that if you fly 'realistic'? It has been used one time on the A320/321 and that at the Hudson landing. Now it is not public how many hours A320/321's have flown but most people think it's around 3.000.000 hours. So a realistic deployment of the RAT would be needed every 3 million hours you fly your sim.

Pick the aircraft you like and the complexity level you prefer. Read feature lists with caution, think about what you really like. For the majority of customers a nice wing view is far more important then a realistic electrical voltage fluctuation problem. For the serious people the PMDG is the only option as it offers you a increase in complexity to a level very close to the real aircraft. Look it is this way... As you line up on the runway and do your checks look to the other seat. In every add-on that seat is empty and a missing second pilot is for sure a no go item! Still most customers feel a non issue like wing flex is far more important then the missing pilot!

[kaspis29]

I have to say that a wing view is also important to me (Bottom of the list, but still.). And I will tell you why. People who are in the hobby of simulation, love to fly. They try to do it often. When they do get on the plane the thing they see from their point of view is the ground, if lucky wing. That's the answer, people try to reproduce what they have seen and want to be in charge of the actions of the plane, why still being in the memories of what happend. This is only a thing for the people who do like the wing view.

[bionicCrab]

The HUD is a nice feature on the list but it's an option that not many airlines buy and even less pilots actually like to use. In fact I am pretty sure it is more used in FSX then in real life. That's realism for you!

Dual HUD is standard in all 787 models. It's the future. And that's the point the NGX is more of a platform than a single aircraft. Everything can be customized through the Livery. Most Liveries don't come with the HUD enabled, just like all but one don't come with the short field package either. You really have to fly the airlines individually to try out the combinations. The coolest part is you get the actual MCP used by that airline as well. Next month we get a whole new batch of 600/700's. What's not to love? The platform keeps expanding... now you can say a portion of the market doesn't want all those features, but I would wager the minority that do won't be setteling for anything less.

[Emi]

I have to say that a wing view is also important to me (Bottom of the list, but still.). And I will tell you why. People who are in the hobby of simulation, love to fly. They try to do it often. When they do get on the plane the thing they see from their point of view is the ground, if lucky wing. That's the answer, people try to reproduce what they have seen and want to be in charge of the actions of the plane, why still being in the memories of what happend. This is only a thing for the people who do like the wing view.

As you're talking about the wingviews already, do you know that PMDG implemented their own sound model for this view. So when you're in the wing view (Actually one of the 3 wingviews. They've got one befor, or above and one after the wing) you'll hear the engine sound like the passenger would hear it in the real aircraft and not just the sound from the outside model of the aircraft as it's in most addons.

I don't know if the iFly has such a feature though.

[Fabian Boulegue]

Just one word ... PMDG just wait for it untill we got it in our shop.

Greets
Fabian

[Moshe]

just wait for it untill we got it in our shop. Greets Fabian

.... and what will be the added value over buying it from PMDG? If your senior technical staff don't touch the aicraft then the support will have to come from users or from PMDG anyway

[Fabian Boulegue]

We do offer the box version

Greets
Fabian

[Mathijs Kok]

.... and what will be the added value over buying it from PMDG? If your senior technical staff don't touch the aicraft then the support will have to come from users or from PMDG anyway

Point taken. But we have close to 500 different products for sale and there is no way one person can know them all.

[Moshe]

Point taken. But we have close to 500 different products for sale and there is no way one person can know them all.

Thanks for taking the point Mathijs. Of course there is no one knows them all but I think your suppot team knows around 498 of them That is also why I have found the added value to purchase around 12% of your products

[Herman]

The HUD is a nice feature on the list but it's an option that not many airlines buy and even less pilots actually like to use. In fact I am pretty sure it is more used in FSX then in real life. That's realism for you! It's like the RAT on an Airbus. You know how likely you are to use that if you fly 'realistic'? It has been used one time on the A320/321 and that at the Hudson landing. Now it is not public how many hours A320/321's have flown but most people think it's around 3.000.000 hours. So a realistic deployment of the RAT would be needed every 3 million hours you fly your sim.

Pick the aircraft you like and the complexity level you prefer. Read feature lists with caution, think about what you really like. For the majority of customers a nice wing view is far more important then a realistic electrical voltage fluctuation problem. For the serious people the PMDG is the only option as it offers you a increase in complexity to a level very close to the real aircraft. Look it is this way... As you line up on the runway and do your checks look to the other seat. In every add-on that seat is empty and a missing second pilot is for sure a no go item! Still most customers feel a non issue like wing flex is far more important then the missing pilot!

Not in any way to disagree with your real point about the second pilot versus wing flex, even when there isn't any (was that ever a hot topic with the AirbusX !). Just to point out there are of course add-ons with a second pilot (the Do-27 for one). That noted, I turned her off because she turned me off. You're right, we all have our own definition of what "as real as it gets" is.

[alehead]

True to say, flying a 737 single handedly is less likely than being struck by lightning no doubt.

No doubt there are customers of both. Mathijs, you raise a good point about the reviews: nobody wishes to admit openly that they are too stupid to set up and fly the NGX. As such, reviews may end up a little biased possibly.

My current level of experience is around 280 hours on NGs, of which around 15 hours are NGX. I haven't started with failure modes and so on. I can get the flightplan entered and the aircraft prepared for push and start in about 15 minutes now. This comes from combining the knowledge of PMDGs NG from 2002/2004 and reading the introductory manual and tutorial flight. I delve into the FCTM and FCOM when I want info on specific systems, though that us done on a need to know basis and normally while operating. It is not as difficult as some suggest here. For simpler snd failure free operations, I would go so far to say that the operation is probably the same for both iFly and PMDG, my further guess being that the latter is just more accurate in its handling and so on. I mean, they have direct contact with Boeing.
As a potential customer, you have to weigh up the features and pick the one that suits your time available, your preferred level of depth, and so on. Either one is good, I went for the PMDG, and even with the prestigious hangar I have, have not flown anything else since I bought it, other than one single GA flight in the Katana4X.

Andrew

[bionicCrab]

Or that PMDG is run by an ex ATP who is a completely qualified nerd as well.... perhaps that's what's missing in every other product. Though I have to say if it can't be PMDG, a nice model from Stefan will suffice.

[Snave]

For me it's not the complexity or the sophistication as a barrier, it's the level of dissatisfaction when you don't have the time to prepare properly, or you use the `simpleton` modes to accelerate the take-off process. Once spoiled by the complexity, it's going back to a less-interactive model that is the frustration.

But I can see how if some find the knowledge acquisition difficult or lack the `stickwithitness` and perseverance to learn properly. `Seeing` and `understanding` however, become entirely separate concepts If the reasearch prior to purchase is absent as well...

Topics such as this might explore the relative benefits of the produt don't really interrogate the ability of the user. Generally though, with products that have been around for some time and have a wealth of comparisons avialable through this and many, many other websites, fora and newsgroups, the re-appearance of topics for such products usually provide a substantial clue to the ability of the pending-user and their research capacities.

[bionicCrab]

Well given how knowledge is spread via the internet these days, and not via elders makes it a little hard to take many forums or reviews seriously. Take the complexity of the NGX, and compare that to the mood and tone of the PMDG forums prior to release. Is that really the crowd that is meant to soak up a 3000 page manual or the 100 page tutorial and then pretend they know everything about the aircraft.

[alehead]

Well put, Simon. Can't agree with you more on that.

Andrew
PS: I partially disagree there BionicCrab (out of interest and OT, were you active on the Airsimmer forum?). It depends on where the review is, how and by whom it was written. An objective and fairly worded criticism highlighting the downsides and upsides, fairly and openly, regardless where posted, can be a major decider. I have purchased addons based entirely on comments made by certain individuals both here and elsewhere and so far not one of those purchases was a mistake.

Andrew

[Snave]

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand there is - necessarily - an absence of trust in reviews.

This, I think, is a very good thing. No-one should trust what they read. And certainly not on the interweb...

Conversely, while individual reviews cannot be trusted, I do firmly still believe that the broad cross-section of information and critiques applied across a number of reviews or websites, forums or newsgroups generally do cover all aspects of the pros and cons fairly.
When combined with the information sources accessible through use of the various search engines then there really is little excuse for any mug punter.

If you're looking for a sophisticated product and you can't handle the research, then obviously the product is not for you and you should go and find something less complicated or take up knitting...

The problem with most criticism and review in FS-dom is that it is written by rank amateurs or those with a vested interest. Who possibly lack the independent thought necessary for the role, if you know what I mean...

So Andrew really does sum it up very simply:
`here and elsewhere`.

Caveat Emptor is possibly more true today than at any time in history. And for those who don't know what that means, I have a valuable cash moving opportunity in Nigeria, if you'd care to send me your bank details..!

[machie]

I have been flying these Sims for over 25 years and the PMDG Sim is the best Commercial Airliner to ever come down the ways--If you go and sign up for the 737NG Training at Angle of Attack you will soon be able to amaze both yourself and your friends with your type rated 737NG Airline pilot knowledge---you will have a lifetime of fun with this deep Aircraft knowledge and understanding--this plane is what the true wonder of simming is all about--go to the PMDG site and watch the 1 hr long AOA video and you will answer your own question



Cheers and Happy Flying



Dorn Cranert---happy simmer and Instrument rated GA Pilot

[Mathijs Kok]

True to say, flying a 737 single handedly is less likely than being struck by lightning no doubt.

No doubt there are customers of both. Mathijs, you raise a good point about the reviews: nobody wishes to admit openly that they are too stupid to set up and fly the NGX. As such, reviews may end up a little biased possibly.

My current level of experience is around 280 hours on NGs, of which around 15 hours are NGX. I haven't started with failure modes and so on. I can get the flightplan entered and the aircraft prepared for push and start in about 15 minutes now. This comes from combining the knowledge of PMDGs NG from 2002/2004 and reading the introductory manual and tutorial flight. I delve into the FCTM and FCOM when I want info on specific systems, though that us done on a need to know basis and normally while operating. It is not as difficult as some suggest here. For simpler snd failure free operations, I would go so far to say that the operation is probably the same for both iFly and PMDG, my further guess being that the latter is just more accurate in its handling and so on. I mean, they have direct contact with Boeing.
As a potential customer, you have to weigh up the features and pick the one that suits your time available, your preferred level of depth, and so on. Either one is good, I went for the PMDG, and even with the prestigious hangar I have, have not flown anything else since I bought it, other than one single GA flight in the Katana4X.

Andrew

I think you make a very good point there. Although FS allows you to explore many different aircraft, it takes serious time to get to know one aircraft and you often only start to really enjoy it when you got 100 or more hours in it. I got one simple test for that. If I can fly three touch and go circuits, fully manual and they are all more or less the same I know that I understand how the aircraft flies and can start looking for the next one. Learning the systems is not half as complex as learning to fly the aircraft. I like flying and all systems are at best tools. An autoland after all is setting a few buttons right and watching your computer do the work! No skill involved there.

With the 737 and the Katana you got two aircraft that will keep you happy for a long time.

[Snave]

Yes, when you talk `systems` it's daft that simmers mostly think of overhead panels, buttons, switches and dials - the visible `in-sim` stuff.

We said this in the Katana X forum but I would be willing to bet that the coding of the `systems` in the Katana X is probably on a par with the PMDG. It might not seem fair to compare a single-engined GA with a twin-turbofan airliner but with the myriad of `if/but` animations and aircraft ageing and wear and tear, conditional animations and massive GUI and interactivity options I'd think the Kat stands close comparison.

It will almost certainly be more `system complex` than Accusim aircraft which - together with other sophisticated addons - form the bulk of my active aircraft collection in FSX.

Having to approach the Kat with the same mindset as the PMDG tubeliner really is saying something!

[bionicCrab]

Not quite sure you know the meaning of complexity.. I doubt anyone will get close to the NGX, not for another 5 years. Though a lot of aircraft are getting close to the previous gen PMDG. I would imagine the IFly/ConcordeX/Katana are in that category.

[ebksb123]

I think you make a very good point there. Although FS allows you to explore many different aircraft, it takes serious time to get to know one aircraft and you often only start to really enjoy it when you got 100 or more hours in it. I got one simple test for that. If I can fly three touch and go circuits, fully manual and they are all more or less the same I know that I understand how the aircraft flies and can start looking for the next one. Learning the systems is not half as complex as learning to fly the aircraft. I like flying and all systems are at best tools. An autoland after all is setting a few buttons right and watching your computer do the work! No skill involved there.

With the 737 and the Katana you got two aircraft that will keep you happy for a long time.

Now you mention it: I also prefer to fly manually- it's of course more fun, but I'm also often too lazy to create a flightplan, prepare the fmc, ... I think reality is not very different there. From what I've heard on the internet, most of the pilots fly manually whenever they can. You also see this in youtube-videos: when it's foggy, pilots use autopilot, but just at the point the runway is in sight, autopilot is switched off.
I think the topic-question includes also the flight dynamics, which are important for flying manually. I have no experience on fliyng the NGX yet (waiting for the box)...

[bionicCrab]

Flying manually and programming the FMC aren't mutually exclusive I'm afraid. Unless of course you don't want to fly the aircraft properly...the way the manufacturer intended. I save very short flight plans into the FMC mainly patterns at my favorite airports. Just load them and I'm ready to go with all systems operative

[Goof]

We do offer the box version

Greets
Fabian

Fabian-

Any hints which variants will be included in the NGX Box? Only 800/900 or 600/700 as well?

And (i have to ask this question )
any idea when the box will release? (Hopefully before Christmas ....)