The Latest Java from Cafe PMDG...

[Guest 777jockey]

It's easy for me to say, but two-versions support seems extremely reasonable to me, given the question when to ditch the old and focus on the new. Obviously I don't get a say in it; it would certainly be nice (and quite accommodating).Anyway, I don't expect an answer from PMDG in regards to the question; it is rather proprietary info. I'd merely hoped to get an idea of just how much is common between the two... an idea of how likely it is to expect an FS9 version of the MD-11.

[simondix 0]

>What about the B1900 series? Did I miss the news of them>being updated for FSX?>>SDI managed to load it into the demo last night. Worked OK except I could not get anything except the main view on 2d. Did not try to sort it out or have time for others eg 3D. Gauges and others worked.Had to install manuallySimonS

[Tabs 2,790]

Give us a chance to figure out the correct procedure for getting the 1900's working in FSX - there's no technical reason they shouldn't like there is with the NG or 744.To the person asking about the FSX vs. FS9 code base differences, it is quite substantial because of the new SimConnect architecture and moving away from reliance on FSUIPC. Our aircraft have never been "by the book" according to the SDK anyways (most of what we do isn't even touched upon in it), so it takes more above and beyond just making the changes prescribed by the SDK to transition from one version to the next. We definitely aren't kidding when Lefteris says on his blog that it's been months of work changing the code.

[Guest rabbitcancer]

Well pardon me for poo-pooing the almighty majesty of FSX, but I think PMDG's notion that FS9 might not be supported is ludricrous.As we here more and more about FSX - it is clear to see that a lot of people (even beta testers) are VERY disappointed in the performance of this product. While I accept that this may be because FSX is still waiting for the arrival of its new O.S. and DirectX, if PMDG thinks that the Flightsim market en masse are going to make this enormous technology leap, perhaps you had better sit down and reflect a little.As the voice of the silent majority, most conversations I've had indicate that the market is happy with FS9. Why? -because it runs well on a variety of systems, it's stable, it didn't need a megahorse PC to run it when it debuted (unlike FSX now) giving it great market penetration and while it may not be the 'new standard' - it's a #### pretty sim to work with.As far as complications of supporting two sims - yeah, I appreciate that, but you can't compare the issues with the 737-6/9 series to the MD-11 as far as sales/success and I'll tell you why...In the case of 737, it's entry into the FS2002 market (which is still very active btw) was limited because there was nothing unique about the product compared to other procedural sims available on the market. The PIC767 was already well known and superior to the initial version of the 737-6...and so it met with limited success among FS2002 users. This isn't to say that the 737-6 was a 'bad product', it just wasn't the best Boeing twin-engine product on the market.With FS9 and FSX, if you brought out another (for example) 777 product, it would also be met with limited success because there is a PMDG 737-8 and a Level D 767-3 to contend with...who would care about yet another Boeing twin-engine aircraft?...but the MD-11 is special for a number of reasons. A) There is no (in my opinion) high-spec procedural sims for McDonnell-Douglas aircraft available for FS9...:( There is no credible procedural tri-star sim (MD, Lockheed and Boeing combined) for FS9 either...C) I am yet to be aware of a tri-star product with the rare blending of old and modern avionics technology featured in the MD-11 that has ever been realised for any FS version to date (to the level that we have come to expect from PMDG)D) This sim is the talk of the town - both FS9 and FSX users.So while I understand the relative challenges of supporting two sims - I emplore PMDG to continue its plans to release for FS9 not only because it is personally important to me (as I will not be upgrading to FSX at all - I will wait for FSXI) but because I also firmly believe and expect that a large chunk of the flightsim market will continue to use FS9 and will be lured to purchase the FS9 version of the PMDG MD-11.If I ever do upgrade to FSX - I would definitely purchase the MD-11 again as I do not support the notion that add-ons need always be compatible with future versions (it destroys the residual sales cycle for developers) which means that some companies could go bankrupt waiting for another opportunity to update a product they are expects in (such as the PMDG 737-NG) - and I would think that the MD-11 is much closer to release for FS9 than it is for FSX, it would be a crying shame if PMDG did not 'split' the development and cap it off for the respective versions.For one thing - it would be a PR disaster for PMDG and it would eliminate at least 30-40% of the flightsim market from purchasing this long-anticipated product.So feel free to listen to the no-kids, no-mortgage, no-burden advice of some here who think FSX is (A-ok) - but let me assure you that it is not A-ok...and as a gent smack-dab in the middle of the high-purchase demographic (I am 32, married, kids, etc...) who will not bother upgrading until Intel, Microsoft, AMD, Nvidia and ATI can bang their collective heads together to figure out WHAT architecture to settle on (with specific reference to dual-core support...or lack thereof...)I offer part-plea/part-warning - please release the MD-11 for FS9. We have waited long and hard - and I will take PMDG's abandon as a marked failure to fulfill a promise to their customers. I am not trying to be nasty - just give an impression of what myself and many, many other simmers would be feeling.Support FS9 - ignore the baseless hype and release MD-11 for A century of Flight...I assure you that you won't be sorry you did...Cheers to the team at PMDG.Regards,Devon.

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Nameless-(Please sign your posts in this forum in accordance with our guidelines, thank you!)When we transitioned from FS2002 to FS2004 there were some changes required in the code base. To take advantage of the FS2004 features- we eventually cut FS2002 support from the code- and this allowed us to make faster progress and more stable simulations for FS2004.With the transition to FSX- the change is best described as massive. The more we evaluate the information we are getting in the IV Drip from Redmond- the more we are able to evaluate the code differences that will be required- and right now they are staggering.Essentially we are evaluating at what point the desire to maintain FS9 compatibility begins to limit the capabilities of the MD11 under FSX. Since the MD11 will operate in the FSX environment for much longer than it will under FS9- we obviously need to carefully evaluate the market shift data we retrieved during the FS2002/FS2004 transition.At that time- we were surprised by how quickly the market migrated- and while some folks are stating their preference for FS9 over FSX- this is a traditional comment we've seen during most all previous FS transitions.At the end of the day- its too early to say what we will do- however I can tell you that it is primarily an economic decision that involves other matrix items like sustainability and future use...As for "how different are the code bases?" Well....The 400 was in intensive code writing for about 15 months.The 400/400F for FSX has been in intensive re-code for FSX for 5 months.... So i think that we are seeing a significant divergence in code base similarity- and I should also point out- in techniques used to optimize performance under each platform...

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Devon-Thank you for the effort that went into your post.We have a significant amount of information at our fingertips when we make decisions- and while much of what you suggest in your post seems to be "conventional wisdom" it has been our experience that the reality of what happens is always quite different.When we make a decision on whether to support any platform- it must be made in a considered and factually based manner- so we use our knowledge and data carefully.Also- it really is not a simple matter to support a developing product on two platforms. I keep reading in this thread how easy it is- so I guess we have plenty of consultant experts we should hire- because those of us who run PMDG have a different opinion based upon experience. :-)You guys should all be careful to read my comments in this thread- don't start mourning the death of a patient who is being treated for a cold... We haven't pulled the plug out yet. ;-)

[xkoote 57]

Ah man ! I've been staring at the PMDG MD-11 page for 1 year, 9 months and one week......nothing. If the MD-11 came out for FSX, I won't be buying it for some time. Just went to the Dell shop for a quote. It's going to be about $3,000 for a brand new box which can hold the likes of an IFR approach into Frankfurt (add-on) in an MD-11 (PMDG) in FSX (nuff said). Can't afford this until well into next year. And I'm one of the lucky ones who's computer had been updated almost two years ago.Regards,Xander (ATP)

[Guest 777jockey]

Robert,Thanks for getting back on that. I was by no means suggesting that it was easy to develop for two platforms (again, I'm a software developer and am familiar with some of the ins and outs that go with such things).As I stated above somewhere, I had merely hoped to get an idea of how close the two code bases were. I think you've answered that as best as you can, given the nature of the question. Thanks. Good luck to you all in this decision!I apologize for my oversight in earlier posts in regards to signing the posts. Matt

[Guest rabbitcancer]

Thank you for your post, Robert - it is good to hear that you are still keeping FS9 on the table.While I agree with you that supporting two platforms is not *easy* - it does alarm me that only one *may* be supported...and for me, the wrong one.I appreciate your experience in the past - and fair enough, any talk in this forum is only worth 30% truth and 70% hot air (it's true) - but while I can't speak for anyone else, I will speak for myself.If you release this MD-11 for FS9, you will have my money on the day of release upwards of $50 (it is worth that much to me)I have invested heavily into FS9 - and while the culmination of my add-ons and FS9 directory don't beat FS9 in certain areas, it beats it clean out (default product) on others and most importantly - runs well on my system. As an IT professional (and a former developer) I completely appreciate the challenges you are facing - and as a former sales manager of 8 years, I also appreciate the marketing considerations you are facing.I still think you have a win with an FS9 version of the MD-11.Charge the same price for a seperate version compatible with FSX...People can't have their cake and eat it too - if you are able to deploy for both - make profit on both in their own individual right.I would not criticise that - I would applaud it.>Devon->>Thank you for the effort that went into your post.>>We have a significant amount of information at our fingertips>when we make decisions- and while much of what you suggest in>your post seems to be "conventional wisdom" it has been our>experience that the reality of what happens is always quite>different.>>When we make a decision on whether to support any platform- it>must be made in a considered and factually based manner- so we>use our knowledge and data carefully.>>Also- it really is not a simple matter to support a developing>product on two platforms. I keep reading in this thread how>easy it is- so I guess we have plenty of consultant experts we>should hire- because those of us who run PMDG have a different>opinion based upon experience. :-)>>You guys should all be careful to read my comments in this>thread- don't start mourning the death of a patient who is>being treated for a cold... We haven't pulled the plug out>yet. ;-)>>>

[Guest andi_edds]

>I still think you have a win with an FS9 version of the>MD-11.>Charge the same price for a seperate version compatible with>FSX...>>People can't have their cake and eat it too - if you are able>to deploy for both - make profit on both in their own>individual right.>>I would not criticise that - I would applaud it.I fully agree with that. I would immediately buy the FS9, without hesitation. And in one year's time, when the time for FSX and new hardware has come, i would pay the extra bucks again for the MD11 version.

[Guest sharky701]

I have been using PMDG products since Fly and you all have done excellent work since then. My 2 cents is in agreement with most of the people here. I will not be upgrading (for the first time since FS version 3.0) until this time next year when I hope the dust will settle on both FSX and Vista. I have spent too much money on FS9 to start over with too many unknowns and to start chasing the hardware curve. With that said, I wish you would finish the FS9 version (why waste the time you guys have spent on development) especially if you have to start from scratch. I think you would have a lot of customers purchase the product.Keep up the great work. IMO you guys are the best.William Campbell

[Guest ceemosp]

I can't agree more.You can call me a hardcore simmer (Go-flight airliner, Aces3.....) but I am NOT going to jump the bandwagon and buy FSX at the present time.I am very much active in other forums as well and we had extensive comparism of FS9 and the actual FSX. Unless there are a number of major patches coming, it is in certain parts even inferior to FS9 - think about MIPS or to be exact - the fixed mipmap rate.Some people who have contributed to this thread should dare to look beyond their garden fence and see what many people think and how the situation IRL is. People don't have the tendency to spend large amounts of cash when the economical situation is not "blooming" and regrettibly this is the case in many countries. Just to stash out 3 grand for hardware that - in this very moment - won't promise anything but a big maybe (maybe the hardware is 100% vista compatible, maybe dx10 is fully implemented, maybe it's an advantage over XP) is not a viable option. I don't mention the amounts of $$$ buried in addons. Give me the FS9 version of the MD11 and you'll get my money. Btw, many developers that have earlyer announced versions for FSX actually backed out and released their FS9 version now, as MS seems still a little hesitant to release all info's about the fsx sdk's (or they don't know themselves ;) )Regards Carsten