PMDG 777 EFB

[LRBS 996]

1 hour ago, threexgreen said:

How is it a shortcut to develop something new from the ground up (new EFB) to replace something else (old EFB)? That doesn't make any sense. It's more work, not a shortcut.

They decided to do away with the old EFB because it's clunky and not popular anymore in the real world and because they decided to develop a uniform EFB for all their aircraft with more features. This has nothing to do with prioritizing profit over upgrading or fixing issues, especially since they are, in fact, upgrading from the old Boeing EFB.

The old EFB used in P3D had almost all the features available, making it an easy transition to MSFS. Many aspects of programming found in P3D were brought/converted to the new MSFS.

An Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) greatly enhances the appearance and functionality of the airplane, providing a level of realism superior to that of a tablet.

 

That statement about EFB being "clunky and not popular anymore in the real world" is completely unfounded.

 

I understand that a tablet is a PMDG choice, but I never heard of anybody carrying a "clunky" EFB, that is part of the airframe. I wonder why is so "unpopular" when it is used by so many airlines in many aircraft like Airbus, Boeing, and other manufacturers. 

 

Many individuals may lack a thorough understanding of the distinctions between a tablet and an EFB developed by an aircraft manufacturer.

[threexgreen 3,261]

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

The old EFB used in P3D had almost all the features available, making it an easy transition to MSFS. Many aspects of programming found in P3D were brought/converted to the new MSFS.

An Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) greatly enhances the appearance and functionality of the airplane, providing a level of realism superior to that of a tablet.

 

That statement about EFB being "clunky and not popular anymore in the real world" is completely unfounded.

 

I understand that a tablet is a PMDG choice, but I never heard of anybody carrying a "clunky" EFB, that is part of the airframe. I wonder why is so "unpopular" when it is used by so many airlines in many aircraft like Airbus, Boeing, and other manufacturers. 

 

Many individuals may lack a thorough understanding of the distinctions between a tablet and an EFB developed by an aircraft manufacturer.

The statement isn't unfounded. It's data straight from Boeing on how many customers ordered or use an in-built EFB. It's also been discontinued by Boeing for some time. Plus it's been corroborated by many pilots, you can find plenty of such discussions online.

As for the advantage of an in-built EFB vs. a tablet-based one, I would argue that's entirely down to personal preference. Personally, I didn't mind the in-built EFB in P3D in the 777, but in the 737 it was too huge, especially in VR. A much more compact one is much better IMHO. As for realism, not sure how an in-built EFB is more realistic than a tablet, given that the former is falling out of fashion and the latter is used widely in reality, and especially considering most aircraft don't even have an option for an in-built EFB.

The point I was actually making though is that PMDG didn't take a shortcut or prioritize profit over upgrade by developing a new tablet-based EFB for their fleet. They are actually doing the opposite.

[LRBS 996]

56 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

The statement isn't unfounded. It's data straight from Boeing on how many customers ordered or use an in-built EFB. It's also been discontinued by Boeing for some time. Plus it's been corroborated by many pilots, you can find plenty of such discussions online.

As for the advantage of an in-built EFB vs. a tablet-based one, I would argue that's entirely down to personal preference. Personally, I didn't mind the in-built EFB in P3D in the 777, but in the 737 it was too huge, especially in VR. A much more compact one is much better IMHO. As for realism, not sure how an in-built EFB is more realistic than a tablet, given that the former is falling out of fashion and the latter is used widely in reality, and especially considering most aircraft don't even have an option for an in-built EFB.

The point I was actually making though is that PMDG didn't take a shortcut or prioritize profit over upgrade by developing a new tablet-based EFB for their fleet. They are actually doing the opposite.

Ok, that's where the disagreement will start. At my company and many others, all new airplanes are ordered with EFB. 

 

TOTALY FALSE INFORMATION/NONSENSE, AS TO THAT EFB HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED BY BOEING. OUR COMPANY RECENTLY GOT 2 NEW 777 AND 787 ALL HAD EFBS.

 

As you mentioned, some airlines will choose not to be equipped with EFBs.

 

What you are not familiar with and believe that tablet is the preferred choice over EFB is grossly misunderstood. I will list a few scenarios where while using both I concluded that the tablet is the last choice.

 

TABLET

1. Additional responsibility
2. Additional items to be carried
3. Needs to be charged
4. For international pilots, you need special plug-ins for the electrical outlets and convertors for that particular area.
5. You need internet either at a hotel or a phone connection to download data.
6. Your software and manuals need to be updated manually or pushed by the company via the Internet.
7. If you download any data before leaving the hotel, by the time you waste all that time and arrive at the airport most of the time that preliminary data is changed (90% of the time).
8. Sometimes those tablets after software or operating systems update will lock or crash.
9. At certain airports, they will require you to take all the electronics out of your flight bag for inspection and to turn them on, even if we go through a crew security check. 

Did anyone during all these plenty of discussions online mention all these big "plusses"? 

 

None of this is applicable with built-in EFB.

 

As for the PMDG, re the tablet, my opinion, again, based on what they had on the P3D and being able to convert to MSFS is different. 

 

[threexgreen 3,261]

28 minutes ago, LRBS said:

TOTALY FALSE INFORMATION/NONSENSE, AS TO THAT EFB HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED BY BOEING. OUR COMPANY RECENTLY GOT 2 NEW 777 AND 787 ALL HAD EFBS.

Please chill out. I have spoken about this to a maintenance employee for Boeing airplanes at work who told me this. Apparently that's conflicting information and the Class 3 EFB is still being offered, but given the source I had no reason not to go with that information.

As for the rest, that's still not my point. Obviously, tablet-based EFBs and integrated EFBs have their own pros and cons, and it's down to whatever one prefers. But one isn't more realistic than the other.

PMDG's tablet-based EFB on the 777 is more feature rich than the old one and had to be created from scratch. That's the opposite of taking a shortcut and it minimizes profit because more resources go into developing a new one than sticking with an existing solution for a simple port-over. Of course we can disagree about it, that's fine, but since you leveraged that point as criticism it's fair to point out it's not correct, regardless of opinions.

[Nuno Pinto 1,476]

Back in the day:

Systems > Aircraft Model > Texture Quality > EFB (what the hell is an EFB you would ask)

 

Today:

EFB > GSX > How well the passengers animate > Model for proper youtube/twitch stream quality > systems (do they actually use them?)

[LRBS 996]

55 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

Please chill out. I have spoken about this to a maintenance employee for Boeing airplanes at work who told me this. Apparently that's conflicting information and the Class 3 EFB is still being offered, but given the source I had no reason not to go with that information.

As for the rest, that's still not my point. Obviously, tablet-based EFBs and integrated EFBs have their own pros and cons, and it's down to whatever one prefers. But one isn't more realistic than the other.

PMDG's tablet-based EFB on the 777 is more feature rich than the old one and had to be created from scratch. That's the opposite of taking a shortcut and it minimizes profit because more resources go into developing a new one than sticking with an existing solution for a simple port-over. Of course we can disagree about it, that's fine, but since you leveraged that point as criticism it's fair to point out it's not correct, regardless of opinions.

There's no need to "chill out," as that's not the issue at hand. To clarify, I simply disagreed with Boeing's statement and the EFB. It's clear we have differing views, and there's nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, the MSFS TABLE compared to the EFB from P3D is a more accurate and realistic representation of fidelity. As for other non-EFB options, many could be integrated into the FMC. Which one do you believe is more realistic?

[sloppysmusic 408]

5 hours ago, threexgreen said:

That's one hell of a way to dramatize what I said.

Well,,,, using the 3 strikes rule, you used the world 'old' in a derogatory way 3 times in that post so I had to make a point. There is some irony in people wanting the latest trendy (meaning the temporary demand/popularity of a technology that will itself become old in 5 years) tech in planes that themselves were designed before their parents were born.

Yes they want planes outfitting to correspond to current tech but not every Airline in the world uses latest gen electronics. Give me a choice and I'm happy.

Boeing Mk1 EFB vs This Years Model.

Only thing is, I will be happy with option 1 for the rest of my days but those who chose option 2 will be wanting 'improvements' ad infinitum.

[Aglos77 203]

37 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

En mis tiempos:

Sistemas > Modelo de aeronave > Calidad de textura > EFB (¿qué diablos es un EFB?)

 

Hoy:

EFB > GSX > Qué tan bien se animan los pasajeros > Modelar para una calidad adecuada de transmisión de youtube/twitch > sistemas (¿realmente los usan?)

And croissant and pillows falling to the floor

[fluffyflops 1,892]

you can download the boeing OPT and import the data files if you have them 

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/onboard-performance-tool/id584211407

Edited Tuesday at 03:57 PM by fluffyflops

[ABurek 4]

14 hours ago, LRBS said:

Jim, while I'm away from the T7, I've never heard of any company removing the EFB in favor of tablets. My company is authorized to use tablets and yes, they did acquire a few T7s without EFB and some with, but they never removed them. As you know, removing parts/components is very difficult, especially when they work. I'm not denying it because I don't know and have never heard of any airline doing that. 

Regarding the FPL import, charts it was available with the EFB, for aircraft options, or control ground equipment I think that is done within the FMC options. 

This field of aviation is intriguing, and the business surrounding it is no exception.

FDX did.  While theyre nice, they are clunky, not as easily updateable as a tablet, and in most cases, the crews defaulted to the iPad anyway.  

Edited Tuesday at 04:12 PM by ABurek

[threexgreen 3,261]

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

There's no need to "chill out," as that's not the issue at hand. To clarify, I simply disagreed with Boeing's statement and the EFB. It's clear we have differing views, and there's nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, the MSFS TABLE compared to the EFB from P3D is a more accurate and realistic representation of fidelity. As for other non-EFB options, many could be integrated into the FMC. Which one do you believe is more realistic?

I mean, you did write in all caps, which is generally considered yelling in text form, and also used the word "nonsense" to describe what I said. That kinda creates a hostile vibe. But if wasn't meant to, fair enough.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here though. I thought you said earlier integrated EFBs are more realistic than tablets? As for non-EFB options, many people are very vocal about wanting PMDG to put all the options into the EFB rather than the FMC. Personally, I don't care what's more realistic because pressing a button to start boarding is unrealistic anyway, regardless of whether that's done from the FMC or the tablet.

1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said:

Well,,,, using the 3 strikes rule, you used the world 'old' in a derogatory way 3 times in that post so I had to make a point. There is some irony in people wanting the latest trendy (meaning the temporary demand/popularity of a technology that will itself become old in 5 years) tech in planes that themselves were designed before their parents were born.

I respectfully disagree that calling a virtual EFB "old" can be derogatory. Besides, it's been developed some 8 years ago, so saying it's old compared to one released 1 year ago and in development is just a statement of fact. The world moves on, things evolve, including flight sim EFBs. If we didn't replace older stuff with new, improved stuff, we'd still be flying on DC-6s across the pond.

[sloppysmusic 408]

4 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

I respectfully disagree that calling a virtual EFB "old" can be derogatory.

Except ....that's how you MEANT it. Inferior, out of date, obsolete, OLD

:D

As regards AIROPLANES. That's a different topic. A tool however is a tool, if it does it's job as intended, let the user decide if they want.

IF the FAA does not rule it as unsafe and not to be used then I'm ok with it.

Except THAT plane....

[jcomm 6,137]

On 6/24/2024 at 11:33 PM, 737_800 said:

I am watching the stream of blackbox and he is showing the FlightFactor 772 for Xplane, I was watching it thinking it's the new PMDG and was really impressed by it. I noticed that he is not flying the pmdg when he used the EFB.

I can understand why the use only one EFB for all their aircraft, however, to be honest I don't like it. I think it was special to have the original Boeing EFB, I will miss this feature for sure but hope if many people dislike it, they might implement it. However, I can see that it's not economical to maintance different EFB. I am sad about that.

He also mentions how more realistic is the feel of the aircraft in the FF X-plane version and how it captures the feel of the real thing in terms of correctly modeling stuff like C*u law... The pmdg from his videos and s few others makes some weird pitch oscillations on final indeed... I'm honestly much more inclined towards the FF this time...

Just as FlightDeck2Sim in this videdo: 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:08 AM by jcomm

[Ricardo41 5,990]

19 hours ago, LRBS said:

What you are not familiar with and believe that tablet is the preferred choice over EFB is grossly misunderstood. I will list a few scenarios where while using both I concluded that the tablet is the last choice.

 

TABLET

1. Additional responsibility
2. Additional items to be carried
3. Needs to be charged
4. For international pilots, you need special plug-ins for the electrical outlets and convertors for that particular area.
5. You need internet either at a hotel or a phone connection to download data.
6. Your software and manuals need to be updated manually or pushed by the company via the Internet.
7. If you download any data before leaving the hotel, by the time you waste all that time and arrive at the airport most of the time that preliminary data is changed (90% of the time).
8. Sometimes those tablets after software or operating systems update will lock or crash.
9. At certain airports, they will require you to take all the electronics out of your flight bag for inspection and to turn them on, even if we go through a crew security check. 

Did anyone during all these plenty of discussions online mention all these big "plusses"? 

 

Hmm, funny, my Fenixtablet needs none of these:

2. Additional items to be carried: - I've never carried the Fenixtablet anywhere
3. My Fenixtablet doesn't need charging
4. The Fenixtablet works everywhere without needing any special converters
5. Whatever I need (simbrief flight plan) is loaded straight into the Fenixtablet
6. I never need to update the Fenixtablet manually
7. I never take the Fenixtablet to any hotel
8.My Fenixtablet has never locked up or chrashed
9. My simairports have never asked me to take out anything out of my bags. 

 

[Stearmandriver 2,343]

You likely won't find a line pilot anywhere that prefers the Boeing EFB to a tablet.  

The reality is that there is no advantage to the built-in EFB; that list posted earlier is all simply opinions.  

The main advantage of the tablet is simple - the airline can control it, what's on it, and what they want it to do.  As just one example, we use an app on our iPads to calculate and track holdover times for de-icing.  This is an app built in-house by the airline, tailored to our operation, types of fluid and deicing techniques etc.  We didn't have to buy it from Boeing, pay them to install it on their devices in our airplanes etc... Our own IT team simply built it and pushed it to the pilot iPads.  It just showed up one day, ready to go.  It is updated every year and whenever else necessary, all automatically. 

We build and maintain our own release app as well, that incorporates release and flight plan data with weather and notams, relevant company memos, performance data, crew info and flight/duty time tracking and notification, up to the second MX status... And more being added all the time.

We have probably a dozen tailored apps like this, for things unique to our operation.  Most airlines do.  None of this can be done with the built in EFB.

Conversely, there's nothing that can be done with the built in device that cannot be done with a tablet.  Choices are always good but from PMDG 's standpoint, it's understandable that they'll only want to deal with maintaining one version of an EFB, and it's understandable which one they chose... And ironically, for the same reason as in real life - an iPad is infinitely scalable in terms of what you can realistically make it do.