The Latest Java from Cafe PMDG...

[Guest andi_edds]

>Personally I don't think ye guys should bother working the>MD-11 for FS2004. Like you said, it takes up time, inhibits>features, and by the time it comes out almost everyone here>will have upgraded to FSX anyway (add-ons by both you and>other companies will dictate this).Then let me just share with you my personal "calculation".If i want to use the MD-11 and only FSX is an option, the costs for me total at around 135 Euros, if i set the price of the MD-11 to roundabout 60 Euros and get FS X Deluxe. That's a lot of cash and FSX won't run as smooth on my system as FS9 does at the moment.If haven't made this business decision yet, but the only thing that is clear to me: I won't hesitate a second if the MD-11 is available for FS9 upon release.So, as a software developer myself, i do understand the problems involved with multiple codebases and supporting "legacy" applications, but as a customer i would seriously think about postponing the purchase.Just MHO.

[craig_read 43]

All sounds fairly reasonable to me..I can think of a lot of companies that give out release dates and then fall hopelessly behind through no fault of their own.. Perfectly reasonable.. Gives false hopes and that can lead to loss of credibility..There are a few things though that I'd like to mention, one being the TRC programmes.. could someone update the website download page to include the 4th? I got incredibly confused when someone mentioned there were 4!!!As for the MD-11.. worth the wait.. personally I think it's sensible to disregard FS9 all together.. ultimately I thought FS9 really wasn't all that much of a breakthrough going from FS2002... I thought they'd reboxed it and changed the graphics a bit.. From the demos of FSX, they seem to have changed a lot, including the architecture of the software itself.. WHICH.. interests me.. I think this means VISTA.. might be a big change too...As for the MD-11.. I think personally.. if it were me.. and my own opinion.. creating a sim of this level for an out of date software architecture and product.. that is built for a soon to be out of date operating system.. would be an uneconomical move in effort and money terms.. and not in the customers interests either..I think you're making the right decisions..CheersCraig

[Guest SAS449]

Andreas,I'm inclined to agree with you.Fs2004 will run for a long time, except perhaps for some that always have to be the first to have the latest, i.e. true Geeks. They will get FSX the day it hits the shelves. Do they realize that it's optimized for Windows Vista? Perhaps, if not they'll realize it when they install FSX.And Windows Vista is yet to be seen on the shelves. When it is released only the Almighty knows. And before Vista is patched it will contain so many bugs, remember how it was with XP. Now that XP works nearly flawless it will be around for at least 5 - 6 years on. There are other aspects to why people will hesitate to switch from XP or even '98 to Vista, except for the aforementioned Geeks.From a business point of view it's a question of releasing a product for the few or for the majority. And then it must be determined which is the bigger group - and that is not the relatively few loudmouths making most noice here on the forum.Essentially: Both FS2004 and Windows XP will have a much longer lifespan that one can get the impression of when reading the posts made by a few (Seen in the total perspective), very focused, enthusiasts. I beleive at least as many are as hesitant as me to FSX and Vista, if not for anything else by the mere fact that it will cost many

[kevinh 409]

I too will be very disappointed if the MD11 doesn't come out on FS9 as previously announced. I've been eagerly waiting for the MD11 since it was first announced, understand the delays, but it seems people like me who plan to stay with FS9 for the foreseeable will not now get to fly the PMDG MD11.I'd rather see a slightly limited FS9 version than none at all. The announcement makes sense, but no FS9 version will be a big let down, however understandable technically.Kevin

[craig_read 43]

I can understand peoples concerns regarding potentially (and I don't know) MD-11 being FSX only.. but quoting figures and saying it and VISTA will be bug ridden isn't really fair..Windows XP and Windows VISTA are going to be VASTLY different products for the PC.. They will look similar.. and have similar features.. and the majority of people will not notice much difference in how it looks and feels.. apart from the odd and subtle improvements.. It's the software concept and architecture that sits behind VISTA that's new.. AVALON for example.. the new way of 3D drawing.. Direct X 10.. which is supposed to be a big leap.. and new generation of Direct X technology.. They proposed a new file system entirely at one point.. WINFS.. to replace the old NTFS and the new stone age FAT32.. But this was not mature enough at the time..Microsoft get a lot of bad press and this although I can understand it at times.. is a bit unfair too... let's think about it a moment.. MAC machines come as set boxes with set hardware Apple chooses which you then buy from a vendor, then their operating system is tuned for that hardware.. PCs are mix and match with 1000's if not 10's of 1000's of manufacturers of components.. MAC Operating Systems are optimised for THEIR machines... Windows.. has to be optimised for almost every potential combination of hardware that could exist.. it's EMENSLY complex.. and their are some differences that you might not expect.. When you consider the breadth that Windows has to operate within.. AND the level of backward compatibility people demand.. (some running MS DOS applications!!!).. frankly.. it's amazing it works at all!.. Getting it to run with the odd crash here and there is a miracle!Microsoft is just as aware as we are of their reliability issues.. and their products have gotten MORE.. and MORE reliable.. 95 was a nightmare.. 98 was rubbish with PnP.. ME was even worse! 2000 better.. XP even better.. They are also aware of the bloating nature of their software.. and VISTA is an attempt to cut that down.. to STREAMLINE the OS and take advantage of some hardware features that are not yet used to their full potential (64bit for example).. So I think you'll see a performance increase even without changing your hardware.. I for one will be getting it the moment it hits the shelves for that reason.FSX I believe will be the same.. it's not just the latest update with more features.. in terms of it's coding for developers and for users.. it's a TOTALLY new design.. Look in your FS2004 directory.. you'll see remnants of the old FS2002 in there!!!! FS2004 is bloated and needs pruning... FSX is an attempt to do just that, to wipe the slate clean.. and I for one welcome it.. It will most likely be optimised for windows VISTA, AVALON and DX10.. Althought VISTA will be DX9 and DX10 optimised at the same time (great news for FS9! as it's DX9a - c).. but that's progress people! But if you then think about the potential performance decrease with that FSX optimisation not in your favour.. with the new more efficient coding and architecture design.. you probably won't notice a difference until you upgrade to VISTA and then DX10 supporting hardware.. FYI.. the FSX demo ran better in the same res and display settings as FS2004 did on my PC.. in DX9135 euros isn't really all that much when you consider it's good for 2 years and the potential of it with new hardware and VISTA, and no one will be making add ons for FS2004 anymore, a lot have already stopped.. even PMDG announced their new products are all FSX only.. AND you'd have to spend the 60 on MD-11 anyway.. so really it's only a 60 euro investment in FSX for anyone, you can run both in the meantime... They're very different and won't conflict with each other..I think the move for FSX only would be wise for PMDG, and would defend them in that decision if they went that route.. With the future versions of FS.. Microsoft will no doubt follow the old tradition of building on the old platform.. and rightly so.. it's a simple principle... Develop a NEW platform.. and invest lots of money and time.. then REUSE that platform.. till it's cost effective for another major new development.. You can see it in all their products.. DOS.. 95 on DOS.. 98 on DOS... 2000 was the first one to do away with it.. how long did we have DOS for!? Then 2000... XP.. XP64.. 2003 server.. all on a similar platform.. and now.. again.. wipe slate clean for VISTA.. Since FSX has just been renewed.. I imagine the new FSX software architecture is definitely here to stay for probably 2 versions (if not more) of Flight Simulator.. making all the add ons for it produced now, easily upgradable to future versions.. Making it the ideal platform of choice for software makers to pitch their efforts in development and sales.. To invest time and money in developing software for a soon to be obsolete platform that runs on a soon to be obsolete platform.. with no chance of future FS versions supporting add ons made for FS2004.. is.. nuts.. I'm sorry to say.. Not good business sense.. If it were to happen.. the development cost for it (the FSX product and FS2004 product would probably be so different as to be pracitcally two equally sized development projects in their own right) over the projected sales would mean high prices (which would sting all the FS9 users anyway) were required for PMDG to claw their investment back and make a profit, and for them that is important.. a return is important.. so they can reinvest in themselves, grow and keep producing these fantastic products for us.. the fans.. and rightly so!I do sympathise with those that would like the MD-11 to be a FS9 product too.. in some ways I would too.. it means I will have to wait a while before I can get stuck into FSX properly as my favourite add ons won't run on it just yet.. PMDG 744.. etc.. VISTA and FSX mean a transition for all of us.. including developers.. BUT I will be upgrading as soon as the first add on comes out on the FSX platform.. and I will run both FSX and FS9 on my machine as PMDG and other add on companies go through the transition period between the two and start releasing my other favourites in the new platform.. Once they're all there for FSX.. FS9 for me.. will be retired..And it's not all bad news.. and money spending.. Xmas.. is coming soon folks!... Ask Santa for FSX this year! Hehe We might have some of these products on the market by then too! hehe.. no offense PMDG team.. I know you're all beavering away and working hard :(Whoa I talked a lot... :|Craig

[Guest SAS449]

Craig,Ever applied for a job with Microsoft marketing dept. ;-) or perhaps already working there?I'm not all that enthusiastic over what they achieved in the past. They have more made me feel forced/compelled to use this or that, upgrade from enough to very much.Bill Gates words from early '80s echoe in my ear: Who could possibly need more than 640kb of memory?When you talk about 135 euros, shurely you're not talking about the cost of a new graphics card, faster processor and more memory, perhaps even a new mobo??? Thought so, neither does Microsoft...

[Chaos81 110]

>When you talk about 135 euros, shurely you're not talking>about the cost of a new graphics card, faster processor and>more memory, perhaps even a new mobo??? Thought so, neither>does Microsoft...So you're still using the same computer you used with Win 98, 2000, ME, or whatever you used before XP?

[Guest SAS449]

Can't see what that has to do with the issue?No, I had to replace my old computer last year after components had burnt in it - not because of any FS or OS thing.

[Chaos81 110]

You're talking about upgrading a computer, correct? Because of Vista and FSX. Most people had to upgrade their computer to go from 98, ME, 2000 or whatever to XP, because it uses more ram. Most will have to do the same thing to run Vista. That's all I'm saying.I don't see why it's a big deal anyways. You either have the money to upgrade to Vista and FSX or you don't. If you don't, so what, wait until you do and then upgrade. It's not like FS 11 is going to come out any time soon, or the next OS from Windows.You're making it seem like having to upgrade is a big deal. All I'm saying is it had to be done for XP, it has to be done for some with Vista, and I'm sure it will have to be done with the next OS as well.

[Guest SAS449]

No, I was talking about the

[craig_read 43]

No, I did mentioned that.. I understand the hardware costs you're talking about... I talked about DX9 and DX10 hardware.. the graphics cards etc.. and said there would be a performance gap between the two for FSX and FS9 as FSX will be DX10 orientated.. But I also said.. that if you take into account the fact the FSX software itself will be more efficient in it's structure and execution by some considerable margin than FS9.. that any loss in performance due to software optimisation towards DX10 hardware will probably be compensated for by the new more efficient nature of the FSX software.. And when you eventually upgrade your hardware.. you'll see a further improvement still.. and you can wait them till the DX10 hardware is a lot cheaper.I anticipate... in terms of performance.. using DX9 hardware.. you won't be able to see much difference in performance of FSX and FS9... in my case the Demo of FSX was actually quicker than FS9 with the same display settings.. etc... which demonstrates the change of software architecture has made a big difference.. When we eventually upgrade to DX10 hardware you'll see a further improvement.. and this is the same for the VISTA OS.. 64bit is not utilised as well as it could be in XP64... with 64 bit processors VISTA will be able to take more advantage.. 3D apps are not as efficient as they could be.. and again, AVALON is going to change that.. VISTA will be a more efficient platform..lol.. I'm not a Microsoft marketing manager.. lol... but You have to understand the software they are trying to make.. and the breadth and scope within which they have to make it.. MAC hardware is limited.. and frankly as a result they have NO EXCUSE to have an OS crash.. since they know EXACTLY what hardware it's running on.. HENCE it's better reliability.. Windows runs on so many different hardware platforms it's unreal! Tablets... Phones.. PCs with millions of different potential configurations.. And yet it still runs with a reasonable reliability on ANY configuration you throw at it.. and XP is EXTREMELY reliable.. VISTA I think you'll find will top that again..I understand your concerns.. but the software changes and improvements.. may mean your performance aspect under FSX won't actually suffer when you change, even though you keep the hardware you have... But when you eventually DO change your hardware, with DX10 hardware.. and when you do change your OS to VISTA... you'll see further improvements in performance... that you wouldn't get keeping FS2004...I think Microsoft are aware of the bloaty nature of the software they have produced.. and are trying to slim things down.. but like I said they opt for the quicker.. "build on what we've got" approach.. with the odd.. "let's scrap it and start over"... FS2000 then FS2002 and then FS2004.. were built on each other.. look in you FS2004 directory.. look at the FS2000.exe... and then FS2002.exe... and the FS2004.exe.... see what I mean!? FSX will be a NEW SLATE.. and be FAR more efficient.. THIS.. is one of those "scrap and start over" times.. FSX and VISTA are going to be totally new.. and the aim for MS is less bloaty, with more efficiency, reliability and speed!CheersCraig

[KevMac 0]

Thanks for the update Robert. Can't wait!-Kev

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Gentlemen-ENOUGH.This is not the Plouralist Hardware Upgrade Debating Society.No matter what road we decide to take, someone in this forum will be unhappy- so the goal for us is to make decisions that benefit the greatest with the least inconvenience to the whole.There are a vast number of factors to be considered- far too many for us to engage in a detailed discussion in this forum. At the end of the day, we will make a decision that is economially viable, provides the best chance of success for the code base, and benefits the greatest number of PMDG customers in our opinion.If you were to filter back to read forum posts during the transition between FS98/FS2000, then FS2000/FS2002, then FS2002/FS2004- you will find that there are always folks who indicate that they will remain with the older version in order to preserve performance and wait for technology to catch up. Either way- the majority of the market will move forward and in order to remain viable all developers will move forward also. This is the law of business- and PMDG is subject to this law...So please guys- lets not get into a long winded debate about upgrade preferences. We each have our own- and we'll all move to Vista/FSX in our own way.

[VH_JLC 1]

Gidday..Do you reckon you's could show some updates an these great announcement updates on your own PMDG site as i an probably many others check there before coming here..CheerzJosh

[kevinh 409]

Well, whatever the outcome with the MD11 product, it's very pleasing to see PMDG continues to be this open with its customers.Kevin