FSX AND PMDG versus the best of Xplane

[Morten XPFW]

Those killer first shots from PMDG on their NGX were renders, not in-sim shots...now that you see it "in sim", it's not quite so rich looking.  At least the ixeg guys claim their screenshot is insim...and knowing Morten the way I do, he wouldn't lie when asked about such things.

Right Tom, the IXEG latest shots are IN SIM  ;D

Like thisone (click for high res)

[FlorianR]

pinch me, i think i'm dreaming!

In all seriousness, Morten, that looks absolutely amazing!

[Alliance_Airways]

with 75 FPS...you must have stole a computer from NASA

[FlorianR]

Not NASA's, but IMB BlueGene . With 360 teraflops, you can have like 10000 of Peters A380 flying over Paris with interminable FPS 

[Morten XPFW]

Nothing spectacular hardware, iMac i5 dualcore.

With regard to FSX/PMDG vs XP there is nothing stopping us from

making a better 737 aircraft, on the contrary, we already have in a couple of areas

[MaidenFan]

Nothing spectacular hardware, iMac i5 dualcore.

With regard to FSX/PMDG vs XP there is nothing stopping us from

making a better 737 aircraft, on the contrary, we already have in a couple of areas

Looking at those pictures, your team's 737 will beat any MSFS airliner.

[MatthewS]

Nothing spectacular hardware, iMac i5 dualcore.

With regard to FSX/PMDG vs XP there is nothing stopping us from

making a better 737 aircraft, on the contrary, we already have in a couple of areas

Sure the graphics look slightly better.... but somehow I think the systems will pale in comparison to the PMDG NGX.

[Cameron]

Sure the graphics look slightly better.... but somehow I think the systems will pale in comparison to the PMDG NGX.

Time will tell. That said, I think you're very wrong in your assumption.

Then again, what do I know?

[Redfisher]

Sure the graphics look slightly better.... but somehow I think the systems will pale in comparison to the PMDG NGX.

Time will tell. That said, I think you're very wrong in your assumption.

Then again, what do I know?

MatthewS must be a beta tester of the team.  I wish he'd share his insider information.

[MatthewS]

MatthewS must be a beta tester of the team.  I wish he'd share his insider information.

Re depth of systems modelling on the NGX just visit the PMDG forums on AVSIM. I have a hard time believing that any XP product will be able to compete with the depth of systems modelling offered by the PMDG NGX (at least for the next 12 months, if ever).

Yes I agree the graphics quality of the IXEG 737 VC in XP seems to be slightly better than the PMDG NGX VC.

[tkyler]

but somehow I think...

Nothing more to be said here.  Matthew thinks one way, others think differently.  My buddy here in the office "THOUGHT" that LeBron James and the Miami Heat would win the NBA championship....but he was wrong.  I'd bet that Matthew would love nothing better to be proved wrong...and see a super high quality airliner sim for x-plane.  At least by psyching himself up that an xp product can't be better, then at least he can't be disappointed.....only elated.  It's a safe mentality.

[MatthewS]

I'd bet that Matthew would love nothing better to be proved wrong...and see a super high quality airliner sim for x-plane.

Yes for sure!

But how many "X-Planers" commenting here even use FSX and have purchased the PMDG 747-400/800, MD11 or say the LDS 767?

If they compare the current XP offerings to the PMDG/LDS offerings it would be obvious that XP is behind regarding systems modelling.  The CRJ-200 seems the only one that comes close (though it doesn't have VNAV for starters).

And the PMDG NGX raises the bar (for systems modelling) yet again in relation to the current offerings.

I do agree that the VC/external visuals in XPlane (eg CRJ-200 and IXEG 737) are better than what FSX is capable of in terms of clarity and lighting abilities.

[Simmo W]

Matthew, quite a few of us have FSX. I don't use it though, very close to uninstalling. Would you get 60fps with the PMDG?

As stated elsewhere, the CRJ200 does not have VNAV as the real plane doesn't. Real pilots don't need it anyway  ;D

[MatthewS]

Matthew, quite a few of us have FSX. I don't use it though, very close to uninstalling. Would you get 60fps with the PMDG?

My 'aging' Q6600 (2.6gz quad-core), 4GB RAM, GTX460 1GB VRAM, FSX on SSD

- PMDG 747-800i 30fps in the VC, and 50 to 100fps in external view (depending on altitude).

As stated elsewhere, the CRJ200 does not have VNAV as the real plane doesn't. Real pilots don't need it anywayv;D

Yes exactly, do any XP aircraft model VNAV?  When one does then we can at least compare "apples with apples".

[dpny]

Yes exactly, do any XP aircraft model VNAV?  When one does then we can at least compare "apples with apples".

Since we're comparing third-party add ons, any plane which can be used with the UFMC does VNAV, with both cost index and reduced climb and thrust schedules. That said, the UFMC also has an option to disable VNAV, so when used with something like the ER-140 (which, like the CRJ, has neither VNAV nor ATHR) it can be flown more realistically. Additionally, the latest version of vasFMC does VNAV.

[MatthewS]

Since we're comparing third-party add ons, any plane which can be used with the UFMC does VNAV, with both cost index and reduced climb and thrust schedules. That said, the UFMC also has an option to disable VNAV, so when used with something like the ER-140 (which, like the CRJ, has neither VNAV nor ATHR) it can be flown more realistically. Additionally, the latest version of vasFMC does VNAV.

I bet though the generic VNAV modelling in UFMC/vasFMC doesn't match the intended aircraft's vertical profile very closely.

Here's a quote from Robert Randazzo over at the PMDG forums  (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/337111-some-days-progress-just-doesnt-come-easily)

we have VNAV operating about as close to the actual airplane as it can get. VNAV is, after all, the primary pitch mode used by airline crews around the world and it *must* perform as expected or the sense of "being there" gets destroyed. One of the beautiful things about VNAV is the intelligent way that it manages the airplane through climbs and descents while providing speed protections and accurate predictions by which the airplane is flown in order to reach the altitudes that define the vertical path of flight.

At PMDG we have always taken great pride on our LNAV/VNAV model, but I have to tell you that this new implementation blows the doors off of anything you have seen to date. The predictive methodology is so accurate that we were able to verify with Boeing that, in the real world the 737-800 Winglet airplane is significantly more slippery in the descent than any of her sisters. We're talking about differences of 1/10th of a degree of descent slope, but the aerodynamic forces at play on the 800 in flight are nearly perfectly simulated in the NGX. Our VNAV model is able to handle this with aplomb and the airplane flies smoothly, on speed without throwing any strange behaviors or unexpected deviations at you, the pilot.

VNAV is *the* go-to pitch mode in the real world- and you'll get the same benefits of reliability and stability with the NGX.

[dpny]

Since we're comparing third-party add ons, any plane which can be used with the UFMC does VNAV, with both cost index and reduced climb and thrust schedules. That said, the UFMC also has an option to disable VNAV, so when used with something like the ER-140 (which, like the CRJ, has neither VNAV nor ATHR) it can be flown more realistically. Additionally, the latest version of vasFMC does VNAV.

I bet though the generic VNAV modelling in UFMC/vasFMC doesn't match the intended aircraft's vertical profile very closely.

Why don't you use it and find out rather than assume?

First of all, VNAV in the UFMC isn't generic: performance is based on how well the UFMC config file is set up, and the config file is pretty comprehensive. Second, performance is also predicated on how well the .acf is modeled. Used with Heinz's 787, the plane climbs right on the numbers. Used with the x737, the plane flies right on the numbers. Used with a plane whose .acf file isn't accurate, the performance will be off. Set up a config file improperly, and performance will be off.

As in all things computationally based, garbage in, garbage out.

edit: I also have to laugh, at little, when using PMDG as an example of well-modeled performance. These are the same people who admitted X-Plane's flight modeling was too complicated for them to figure out.

[MatthewS]

Why don't you use it and find out rather than assume?

First of all, VNAV in the UFMC isn't generic: performance is based on how well the UFMC config file is set up, and the config file is pretty comprehensive. Second, performance is also predicated on how well the .acf is modeled. Used with Heinz's 787, the plane climbs right on the numbers. Used with the x737, the plane flies right on the numbers. Used with a plane whose .acf file isn't accurate, the performance will be off. Set up a config file improperly, and performance will be off.

As in all things computationally based, garbage in, garbage out.

edit: I also have to laugh, at little, when using PMDG as an example of well-modeled performance. These are the same people who admitted X-Plane's flight modeling was too complicated for them to figure out.

So you're trying to tell me that UFMC/vasFMC's "generic" VNAV implementation will use the same predictions logic as the Boeings NGX VNAV implementation (which PMDG has simulated precisely).  I very much doubt it.

[Cameron]

So you're trying to tell me that UFMC/vasFMC's "generic" VNAV implementation will use the same predictions logic as the Boeings NGX VNAV implementation (which PMDG has simulated precisely).  I very much doubt it.

Predictions and implementation are only as good as the programming behind them.

I can without a doubt state that the UFMC has fantastic representation of VNAV provided that the config file you're using is well coded. The developer of the UFMC provides some preset ones for you when purchased.

Bear in mind that the UFMC does NOT use X-Plane's generic VNAV implementation. Instead, it uses custom logic (just like PMDG) to properly calculate things. In fact, the UFMC pretty much overrides the entirety of X-Plane's autopilot with it's own, creating a much more true to life experience.

At this moment you are taking something PMDG says at face value. There are people justifying experience here who HAVE flown PMDG products plenty, and are vouching for the integrity of the UFMC and the experience it provides. You can take it at face value as well, or you can purchase it and see for yourself!

[dpny]

So you're trying to tell me that UFMC/vasFMC's "generic" VNAV implementation will use the same predictions logic as the Boeings NGX VNAV implementation (which PMDG has simulated precisely).  I very much doubt it.

I am trying to tell you, and you're not interested in listening. As you've decided that no one can do better than PMDG, why waste your time here at all?

[MatthewS]

Instead, it uses custom logic (just like PMDG) to properly calculate things. In fact, the UFMC pretty much overrides the entirety of X-Plane's autopilot with it's own, creating a much more true to life experience.

Yep, but PMDG implements the NGX FMC ver 10.8A, does UFMC/vasFMC?  So it's highly unlikely the generic VNAV implementation in UFMC/vasFMC is going to come up with the same vertical profile during all phases of the flight as the PMDG NGX.

Sure the climb rates might match reality if you config UFMC/vasFMC correctly but the vertical profile flown wont match the NGXs vertical profile logic.

[MatthewS]

I am trying to tell you, and you're not interested in listening. As you've decided that no one can do better than PMDG, why waste your time here at all?

See previous reply re vertical profile logic.

And yes I don't think anyone other than PMDG will do a more accurate airliner simulation (NGX or otherwise).  It's just unreasonable to suggest that the UFMC/vasFMC generic fmc implementation could be more accurate for a specific airliner than the accuracy of PMDGs custom written NGX specific fmc is for the NGX.

[dpny]

It's just unreasonable to suggest that the UFMC/vasFMC generic fmc implementation could be equivalent to PMDGs custom written NGX specific simulation.

You say this based on your programming experience? Your thousands of hours in the cockpit of airliners? Your experience as an aeronautical engineer? Your intimate knowledge of the flight characteristics of the planes in question? Or are these just PMDG's words coming out of your mouth?

You're offering no proof other than, "I say so!" You'll have to excuse us if we think you look ridiculous.

[MatthewS]

You say this based on your programming experience? Your thousands of hours in the cockpit of airliners? Your experience as an aeronautical engineer? Your intimate knowledge of the flight characteristics of the planes in question? Or are these just PMDG's words coming out of your mouth?

You're offering no proof other than, "I say so!" You'll have to excuse us if we think you look ridiculous.

If in doubt go visit the PMDG forums on AVSIM.  You will be pleased to know that PMDG does have vast experience in developing airliner simulations in addition to numerous NGX pilots on the beta team (with tens of thousands of NGX hours in total).  The PMDG NGX is licensed by Boeing and in addition PMDG have access to Boeing NGX engineers. 

[Goran_M]

If in doubt go visit the PMDG forums on AVSIM.  You will be pleased to know that PMDG does have vast experience in developing airliner simulations in addition to numerous NGX pilots on the beta team (with tens of thousands of NGX hours in total).  The PMDG NGX is licensed by Boeing and in addition PMDG have access to Boeing NGX engineers.  

Which pilots are on the beta team?  I don't remember seeing any and I have been following that thread for over a year.

We've all seen how easy it is to get Boeing licenses.  Ariane 737 for FSX (One of the worst add ons on the market), the orgs Boeing licenses.  I refuse to shell out $$$'s for a license.

Believe it or not, I also have access to 2 Boeing engineers (both retired) and they are both helping me with the 747-200 AND -400.

These engineers have offered up contact details of more Boeing staff should I need them.  

Matthew, don't get sucked in to the hype.  Yes, they are making an exceptional add on, but it is far from impossible to do in x plane.

You might be surprised how easy it is to get airline staff to help on a sim add on.  PMDG just do an excellent job of letting everyone know about it.