Now you’ve raised a good point and it is curious as to whether one has to be “thrown in front of the bus” before one is actually “under” the bus. Which is where most people get thrown. And, in most cases, where they belong.
2 Likes
The FMC does that for you. What you need is Charts as well.
The Legs Page in the FMC shows you what the plane thinks it should be doing. You can change that or override it.
Look at the FMC
Before you get to the TOD marker, reset your Alt to what ATC have told you or if you just want to get in, reset it to the Lowest alt before the runway, usually named the Platform ALT. The plane will fly down to it at which point you can intercept the ILS or do your RNAV or whatever. It isn’t as clear cut as this, but the FMC does tell you, that should be based on the actual STAR, and you really need Charts (Navigraph Sub is best) to check.
Look at my set up here.
Here is the chart:
In this Case I was cleared for the STAR, so it’s the pilot jobs to obey the Alt and Speeds, which the plane will do in VNAV. If ATC say different I will have to adapt.
Anyone else notice that Steel brakes now seem to be really weak in comparison to carbon ones. I am not saying it is wrong, but I just notice that there does seem to be a difference now. I did the same flight with 5 less pax (Steel Brakes) so I can’t see that having a major effect, very similar landing points, but with steel brakes I barely made the Runway turnoff I was aiming for, with Carbon ones I was actually having to increase thrust again so to keep momentum.
Both landings with Auto brake set to 3 and both with max Rev Thrust. I mean it could be something else, but I definitely feel like they have improved the physics on the brake disc types.
1 Like
Related and somehow unrelated to this thread: It’s fascinating how realistic and close some sceneries in MSFS are to the real world counterparts. During every part of the approach, i was like: “Yup i know those rocks, i know that mountain, hey that house looks the same, hey here’s the bridge below the runway!” etc…Not to mention that the airport itself is also very well replicated by a 3rd party dev in MSFS.
3 Likes
Thanks very much for posting this. I have been using VNAV mode for descent but a lot of time im high when nearing the latter landing wpoints or runway.
The speedbrakes in 737 are not very good as seen in several posts. Ive just been experimenting using lvl change and vertical speed mode along with green descent arc - had a lot more success managing the descent better using these instead of vnav mode and manage to land. I saw a real pilot video who said vnav wasnt usually used either (!).
Sorry missed out that your right - charts are a must
1 Like
I don´t “try” to find faults and bugs, but it´s one hell of an expensive airplane and when I find a visual glitch while enjoying the beautyful cockpit, pan around, try the switches and features… well when I find a visual glitch that can be fixed in under 30 seconds I of course want that fixed 
it was an expensive and wonderful airplane I love it, that´s why I want it perfect and graphics glitches destroy the immersion.
That´s rather simple why: The Fenix Airbus is now perfect from a pure visual point of view, there are no more texture and/or 3D modelling bugs left. (especially when using my cockpit overhaul.)
What is perfect must not critizized nor be fixed
When paying 140 bucks on an airplane fleet I insist in having a flawless looking cockpit. It´s a matter of respect for the customer and also of love and attention for their product. When I buy a car for 5000€ and there is a huge scratch on the bonnet and the Mercedes emblem missing, the salesman can talk for a full hour, maybe for a whole day “aaah come on that scratch 99,999999999999999999999999999 of all drivers don´t care about that, and that Mercedes emblem that can´t even be seen from most angles for example when looking at the car from behind, or from the side, or while sitting inside! And this scratch has not the slightest influence on how the car drives, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..”
(hours later…)
My answer will always stay the same “Oh and that scratch! You make that gone because I like my product flawless looking. And I want that Mercedes logo where it belonged…” 
No it is not, I contacted Fenix three times after having found some little bug and I am sure they will patch it. Afterwards it will be perfect.
And I don´t critizise the PMDG 737, it´s also a wonderful plane an I love it. But I just want a little tiny few of some annoying and easy to fix visual bugs gone. That´s all. No evil intentions behind it, and I am no Fenix employee trying to make PMDG look bad.
And here is a more complicated technical question about the 737, what does TR1 and TR2 and TR3 mean when switching through the Voltmeter panel?
And why has the left generator 50 ampere of power while the right one only delivers 45? Has engine 2 a slightly different kind of generator build into the CFM56.
Love the PMDG 737!
1 Like
Yes, usually LVL CHG is used with ATC constraints.
Here you go:
Click on it first, and it will appear on the rail, then you can drag it to whatever position you want. Do the same for the copilot.
1 Like
You have to remember that on a dry runway, the reverse thrust does not reduce your braking distance. Meaning, if you apply more reverse thrust, the autobrake reduces the braking intensity, and vice versa. It just helps you to not heat up your brakes. Now, on a wet runway, that’s a different story.
2 Likes
If you find yourself too high then you were probably too fast, the EFIS will show Retard when you need to apply the speed brake, this may show multiple times on a descent, so you need to keep an eye on it. There’s also a little purple marker that shows whether you are on the optimal descent path, this is in the same location as where you see the glide slope marker during an approach.
I totally agree with you.
It amazes me the unwillingness of people to educate themselves especially when the info they need is readily available. Sickening. You don’t want to go to PMDG forums and know what’s up, you see things you don’t agree with, you don’t seek an explanation, you make comments based on no facts at all, just assumptions, and these assumptions, you have absolutely no reason to have because they’re based on ZERO facts. Now, “you” does not refer to you, mhron. I’m agreeing with you. I’m referring to the multitudes of people on the forum complaining with absolute unwillingness to know what’s going on.
YouTube is already littered with videos of folk claiming all the jets fly the same, and it’s just an extension of the fuselage, bla bla bla, meanwhile, they only own the 600 or the 700, have never owned any other PMDG product, but somehow, they’re sure PMDG is out for blood. One claimed it didn’t have a cabin. The other just skimped over his walkaround, claiming it was just an extended fuselage of the 700, and why isn’t it $35 like the 600? Looked at the overhead panel and missed the new packs. On the exterior, he didn’t even notice the tail skid. One claimed “oh it’s the same aircraft, in fact, the -800 is bouncy…” because he convinced himself it was the same flight characteristics, and now was wondering why he couldn’t fly the same vspeeds.
Make your arguments (again I keep using you, but I don’t mean you, lol) based on, for instance, PMDG claims the plane flies in such a way, but after testing, I’ve found that out to be false." Then you’d have an argument, otherwise, you’re just willfully ignorant, and wasting everyone’s time.
If you’ve owned PMDG’s products, you’ll know they pay attention to detail, and nothing is cosmetic. The BW variants fly differently from the SSW variants, just like IRL. PMDG categorically states this, and IRL pilots both on and off PMDG tech team have confirmed this. The 800 obviously flies much different from the 700, and anyone who disagrees with this established fact is either being ignorant (sometimes willingly so), or plain dishonest in order to make a point. The only time PMDG has ever made a cosmetic expansion was in their first Queen of the Skies 747-8i/f expansions of the 747-400. And with this expansion, they made it abundantly clear that it was visual only, and the cockpit, flight dynamics and engines, etc., were still that of the -400. In fact, you had to check a box stating that you understood this before you could pay for it.
People create so much drama about features that don’t exist, meanwhile everyone knows that these features are coming for free because we bothered to check PMDG’s development updates. We know the EFB is coming. We know why it’s not available yet, and that it’s a from-scratch new EFB. We know the wheel well is just a placeholder, and they’re modeling the actual one, and it’s coming and whenever it comes, it will be passed down to earlier models. We know a better resolution cabin is coming, we know what’s keeping the weather radar. You have a $5 discount because you got in before all features have been completed (actual price is $74.99), and you have so many equipment options that other people would charge for. Heck, you’re getting 8 airplanes for $69.99. I don’t know which is better, getting the exact variant you want for $69.99, or getting an expansion pack for $29.99 which requires the base pack of $99.99 to function. Yes this is not an exaggeration. That’s how it used to be. We didn’t like that, so they made it cheaper, yes, CHEAPER. If you think it’s the same thing, why are you fussing about other variants? get the one you like and be content. After all, according to you, they all fly the same.
8 Likes
OK thankyou very much
Don’t arm the ground spoilers like you do in the A320. If you do that, you’ll get the take-off config warning.
1 Like
It’s probably the spoilers indeed. Will take a note next flights
Yes I totally get that about the Rev Thrust, but I put that in to show aside from probably 300KG being generous the same landings with different brakes but 300KG weight difference was really different with the brake discs. In the 700 I did not notice it as much. Maybe they have re done the physics on them is what I was thinking.
1 Like
But if you use VNAV you should be neither be too high or too fast as the plane works it out. I know IRL this rarely happens, that a pilot gets to let VNAV fly the complete the STAR down as per its constraints. But the point I am trying to make is that you dont have to worry to much if you learn on that basis.
I use either VATSIM or PILOT2ATC which is very good, and will vector you usually correctly and nicely. I can also request an Enroute Descent or if a STAR is Filed it may clear me for it, in which case I will VNAV down until about FL900 and then use level change as I like to control the speed etc.
VNAV is defo used more often, I am not sure where the OP got that from? Maybe some SOP or something. We have a real 737 Captain here, more than 1 actually. I hope they chime in on this if they have the time.
As a side note to the op and I might have this wrong but roughly… To calculate your Descent.
3X your Current Alt to the Target Alt +/- 10/15NM depending on tailwind or headwind gives you your Distance as to when you start the descent
So 3X37 = 111NM from say the airport, I would always add + 10 NM to that
And your Current TAS / 2 gives you your descent Rate
VSpeed would be e.g. 420 / 2 = 210 so that would be 2100 ft/min descent rate.
Remember for Alt your remove the 0 so FL370 becomes 3X37 and for the VS Speed you add a 0
I might have that wrong, I cant remember now, but that’s a rough guide.
2 Likes
Watch some of this pilots videos
1 Like
Thanks very much
1 Like