Initial Thoughts on the PMDG 777 for FLY!

By Andrew Jones (13 March 2001)

First off, anyone familiar with PMDG's 757 or 767 will find the basic start up procedures very intuitive. There are differences, but I managed to get it cranked up and in the air without even looking in the manual (and NO I did not use the E key). This was a fun accomplishment, but after take-off, things quickly became more complicated. This is because, for the first time, the FMC is fully modeled and completely integrated into the system. Without learning how to use the FMC the autopilot and navigation instruments will drive you batty, mysteriously changing the values that you input. So plan to do some serious studying. Once you do, it is works like a dream.

That being said, this model is a considerable improvement over the previous two. I think it is safe to say that it is a much larger step forward from the 767, than the 767 was from the 757. The instrument panel is beautifully done. Finally we are rid of the Hawker PDF and EHSI. The colors on the PDF are unusually rich and sharp. The interior shots are also impressive, all the more so since switching views does not cause stutters like in FS2000. The opening/closing cockpit door is a fun touch too :-)

The exteriors are less impressive, soft and cartoony just like all the planes in Fly!. I guess there is no hope for fighting that until Fly!II comes out. However the landing gear is nicely rendered with the main gear hanging in the air at an angle, just as they do in real life. Also, the thrust reverser deployment is more visible than it was in PMDG’s earlier products due to a green background painted on the engine interiors.

The sounds are also much improved. While there is still some of that tinny sound we have all come to loath, it is much better than before. More importantly, they are recognizable as 777 sounds. The engine startup sounds in the cockpit are especially impressive.

In flight, it handles very well. Boy does it accelerate down the runway! No need for full power, 90% of N1 will do just fine. Descents are tricky however, as it tends to pick up speed quickly, even when spoilers are deployed, and even when fully loaded. The 777's I fly in MSFS have a similar tendency, but not this extreme. Because of this, it is hard to land without floating endlessly down the runway even at 135 KIAS. I know that the 777 is supposed to have good gliding characteristics, but I do not believe that they are this good. Maybe there is something I am missing, but a little tweaking of the flight model might be called for here.

On the ground, you have a strong feeling of being high up in the cockpit and driving something big, and yes the nose wheel does turn. It feels heavy, but it handles quite well in turns, better than any MSFS 777's I have tried.

The afore-mentioned FMC is indeed extraordinarily complex, and I will no doubt spend many enjoyable hours learning all its features. The autopilot works much better than in any Fly! aircraft I have ever used. Finally, an altitude hold that works well! Both it and the auto throttle are very accurate.

Judging by what people say in the forums, there are probably a few bugs, and I have little doubt that they will be addressed in a patch somewhere down the road. Most of the problems people are having, however, are with learning to use the FMC.

All in all, the PMDG 777 it is brilliantly done and well worth the cost, especially with extra liveries thrown in for less than $4.00. It offers a complexity that simply cannot be duplicated in FS, at least not without paying a terrible price in frame rates (although I am told that PIC 767 may give it a run for the money, and a comparison of the two would be interesting to see).

Really, the biggest drawback is the visual world of Fly! which has always bothered me. The generic scenery and aircraft exteriors just do not look very convincing in comparison to FS2000 (or even FS98). Hopefully, Fly!II will solve this issue if we are to believe what we see in the screen shots. Until them we will just have to focus on the instrument panel and practice our IFR skills. With a panel like this, that is hardly an unpleasant task.

I will not give it a number grade here, because I have simply not had the time to evaluate it long enough to do so fairly, but I am nevertheless tempted to give it high marks.

Andrew Jones
jonesinbos@hotmail.com