When will PM provide a CDU that works as it should be?

[Michael Carter]

There are some of us that are glad we're not a slave to PM.

The aircraft we chose to model may not be compatible with PM, and that's OK!

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

We may not have every output for the systems logic we need, but that's OK too. What we do have with whatever flight model we've chosen is reliability, and no wondering if "is it supposed to do that?" Or, "Why isn't it doing that?"

I'm not lumping all non-PM users into a 727 catagory or pre-FMC catagory, but the simplicity is refreshing.

Learn to fly the plane, by hand, or as it was designed to be flown and don't expect the AP to save your *** when thing don't work out as planned.

No slight to the many users of the software, but sometimes things get so complicated that one little function that doesn't work can lay waste to the most meticulously planned flight.

[RobertVdb]

After 10 years of development, i think that PM's s/w could be better for all of us.

Well, Eddie, that's also my opinion. I have installed now the latest CDU version and I must admit, the holds seem to be better now, but things are still going crazy when going in descend and approach.
In an approach configuration like this
WP1 270/FL150
WP2 250/FL090
WP3 220/FL060
WP4 190/3000
WP5 180/2500
it still doesn't follow the programmed speed. For instance after passing waypoint WP3 it goes suddenly up to 250kts again were it should reduce to 190 kts. So, approaching has to be done semi manual (AP).
And once again, it is not the kind of aircraft that is doing wrong, but it is clearly PM. If PM indicates 190kts and the aircraft does 250kts, that's something else, but that isn't the case here.

If we don't need PM we can always revert to Ford trimotor or something like this. FS9 is full of those a/c.

Best regards

[Matt Olieman]

I and like others have mentioned before, this is not the place for constant disgruntle conversation regarding your views of satisfaction/expectations of vendor products.

If we (fellow users of this or other products) can help correct a situation through software/hardware manipulation, I know their are plenty of folks that will gladly help.

As I mentioned before, when I bought my PM Software 7 years ago, I was happy with what I got and expected some updates, but they've developed it way beyond my expectations. I feel I've gotten my moneys worth at least 20 fold.

Go talk to some real world pilots and ask how many times their MCDU freezes up or can't punch in certain settings.

I'm paraphrasing Mikes words; but, you don't fly an airplane by pushing buttons, you fly with yoke/side stick, rudders, throttle at hand. That takes skill and that's what I call being a pilot. The rest is learning how to fly a game by manipulating buttons.

This is why Airline pilots go home at the end of the day and fly their C-172's or whatever.

Matt Olieman

[RobertVdb]

I quite agree, Matt.

Just, one remark - we don't have a co-pilot and have to handlle everything by ourselves. A better CDU in approach would be helpful

But, also a positive note: the holds and the messages (in coop with the Engravity) are now working fine with the new version.

For the rest - let's enjoy FS - it has never been so good than nowadays !(XP-FS9-many add-ons and... a GF9800GTX+)

Case closed

Cheers

[767300]

Hi guys,

Im a long time user of PM.As a 767 builder I find the software does what it is supposed to for manual flight. As Rhys says regarding real world ops with various hardwares and various softwares, things do screw up from time to time. Read the Big Boeing FMC guide. A great read but it scares the life out of me to read how messed up things can get with these amazing systems. The are an aid to the pilots, to make life easier.

The point made by Robert is the fact the software "works" for one flight but not the next. Personaly I think the CDU has come along way from where it was when I purchased in 2002. Its based on the 737 system. In the real world 767 uses PIP or pegasus. And they suffer from some terrible bugs. I have nearly every build on an external HD. I may sit down and read the release notes with them sometime. The NAVDATA from navigraph has made the route planning alot easier and more stable. I havent had a CDU failure in ages. A Few things bug me but I have so many other problems with a project this size that it fades into the "out of my control" folder. I have found Enrico very helpfull anytime I mailed him with a problem or indeed a request. And the 767 is NOT a primary aircraft on PMs list.

So its grin and bare and enjoy the process even though it gets on your goat!!

James

[mounty]

I remain amazed at the way people just brush of anothers issues. Robert has a very legitimate complaint. And you wouldn't expect this performance in a real aircraft! I use PMDG and the Engravity CDU and it works perfectly. Pm charge a small fortune and all I hear is people having problems with the software. I paid $60.00 for PMDG and it works. Other than the price of PM, I would not purchase their product because there are too many glitches, especially for a supposedly top of the line product. While I may not have the hardware functionality of PM, I do have a reliable system and hardware configuration.

Like Warvet says - just my ten cents worth.

Rob

[eudoniga]

I do recognize that one cannot expect to download the smiths FMC manual from this site, fire the sim, and watch the CDU performing EXACTLY the same wonders ...

I am aware of (some of) the many options that Boeing/Airbus offer on customers' demand ...

That's to aknowledge that PM task is not an easy one, that's for sure.

But you can't help to witness the sharper degree of accuracy that some other replicas have reached, and it would take 'em just one more step, that is the ability to run as standalone modules on networked pcs, instead of FS gauges on one single machine ...

Just speaking out loud, I truly can't understand why - whilst they're fighting against major problems - PM don't pay (enough) attention and fix some little annoying details; or why - after one bug has been fixed once - it shows up again in later releases ... really puzzling.

Take one, since we're talking about the CDU (for a 737): the PRE FLIGHT status, which shouldn't be coupled by any LSK links to other CDU pages, once it has become COMPLETE.

Take another: the "active phase of flight" page, since the TAKEOFF page that doesn't switch to ACT CLB page, then to ACT CRZ page, then to ACT DES page, all by itself.

PMDG CDU does both these things correctly ... and I guess it bothers us quite a lot to see that PM - on one side - can offer far more, but - on the other side - can't just get rid of these stupid kind of hobbles !

It's another two cents ... long live PM, anyway.

Rgds,
EU