Jump to content

ifly 737 vs pmdg 737


sebfsx

Recommended Posts

  • Deputy Sheriffs

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. :P You're right, we all have our own definition of what "as real as it gets" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... :glare_s:

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..!

:hi2_s:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P )

any idea when the box will release? (Hopefully before Christmas ....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use