I'm also itching to dust off my 747 in the hanger, where she has been sitting since the 'clicks' started driving me mad.I wish PMDG had an op-in and op-out email distribution list where we could enter our contact detials so we can be timeously contacted as soon as important events happen, instead of having to keep popping in like this all the time.This would be great for:- Building an email database for future marketing of PMDG products.- Allerting loyal followers of updates and new versions comming up for FSX.Anthony ReesCape TownSouth Africa

Thanks for the info Ryan. Can't wait to try them out. :)

Fantastic news!

Captains-Back in 1972, a group of sailors out of Hyannis decided to race their sailboats to Nantucket to mark the official start of the summer sailing season. As lore has it, the fog was so horrendously thick that navigation became a bit problematic, prompting a number of skippers to question (in a thick Cape Code Accent) "Where the ____ are we?"This race has remained as tradition- and is now formally known as the "FIGAWI." (Picture a cape codder- and read again slowly...ahh... now you get it....)What follows- is my FIGAWI update to help all of you navigate through the fog of transition as we steer our way from FS9 to FSX.As the development of FSX has wound down, we have used the information available to us (and yes- our information is better than yours...LOL) to make some decisions about how we approach FSX and product compatibility for current products and for future products. Many of the expectations we have had for tooling/SDK information have been met by the great group of guys/gals on the ACES team- and this has helped us significantly to get some projects on the right track. Unfortunately- as their workload spiked, some of the tools that we needed were not delivered- so we aren't quite where we thought we'd be on the eve of FSX release.I've read some really quite amusing conspiracy theories from some users trying to explain why we haven't been updating you on progress- but suffice it to say that our hands were tied in telling you practically anything- and while some outfits might want to play "we're insiders" games and brag about their roles- PMDG has absolute respect for any NDA that we sign- and in the case of information that we had available to us- we were not privileged to share it with you- hence the lack of updates. ;-)So here is a current rundown of where we are. Please understand that we have changed direction in a few areas already- and there is always a chance as the FSX release unfolds that we MIGHT change direction on a few items again in order to suit the business needs of PMDG.So- from the top:PMDG 747-400/400F Universal Sound Update:=========================================A few last minute legal items to tie up- and once Legal has signed off on this product release, it will be out the door to you. This is a very significant update and will be optional (but STRONGLY recommended) for all 747 owners. The download will be approximately 40MB in size- and will please your ears to no end!PMDG 747-400/400F for FSX:==========================The process of updating the 747 series products to make them compatible with FSX is into it's fifth month of work, and I anticipate that we still have a few weeks ahead of us, at least, not making any allowances yet for testing/validation and fixing. When originally presented with an overview of FSX- we anticipated that it would be a relatively easy process to update the existing 747 product line to make it compatible with FSX. Once FSX arrived in our hands we found that this was not going to be the case, and in fact an entirely new version of the 747 product series would be required in order to implement FSX compatibility for this very popular addon.During the past four months, we have been working intensively to bring this new version to market readiness, and we are finding that it is taking significantly longer than anticipated because of the vast changes that took place between FS9.1 and FSX. All of this work will result in a great simulation for you however, as we are currently succeeding in using FSX's strengths to the advantage of the 747 product line in terms of efficiency and capability.A significant amount of time has already been invested toward reworking the code base so that it can gain efficiency by taking advantage of many behind-the-scenes features of FSX that are not present or possible within FS9. Additionally, an extraordinary amount of work is going into changing the code base to make it compatible with FSX's new data structures.In the end, there are many changes in FSX that are requiring a VAST amount of code re-write in order to ensure that the 747 performs as realistically in FSX as the FS9 version did with FS9. Quite a bit of work has been done- but there is still VERY much left to do.We do not currently have an ETA for the PMDG 747-400/400F for FSX. Once we have one, I'll let you know.We are currently starting to examine distribution and pricing for this version, but no decisions have been made as of yet. Once we make a decision, I'll let you know- but suffice it to say that we are interested in looking after our existing customers, so please don't let the usual forum "Chicken Littles" create any hysteria... PMDG MD11:==========This project continues to slide further and further behind schedule- not due to lack of effort on the team's part- but primarily because of the attention to detail going into the accurate simulation of the MD11 aircraft and it's operation. The team is comprised primarily of intellect in the form of Michael and Bill- and the output these two have compiled during our alpha testing has impressed even me! As I've mentioned before, Bill arranged for me to spend 8hrs in the MD11 simulator in order to whet my appetite for this airplane, and I am continually astounded by the quality level that is being achieved here. The PMDG MD11 will be THE product to set the standard for future generations of PMDG products- and you will not want to miss out on this when release day comes- so I'll try to get you some release information as soon as I can in order that you can plan your vacation time wisely. :-)That being said, we have reached a design crossroad with the MD11 that has us hanging on the availability of tools for FSX in order that we can determine if/how we can generate both an FS9 version and an FSX version. Currently our plan is to provide the product in both versions for your easy of use- but this may change due to factors that we really do not control. One lesson we learned during the transition between FS2002/FS2004 and our 737-600/700 was that working in two versions of FSX can become problematic because you have to withhold features from the lower version and/or inhibit exciting new features from the upper version- so we are approaching the conclusion of this development process with some caution on the FS9 side. No decisions have been made yet- or will be made immediately- as it largely depends on the arrival of some tools and documentation that we had hoped to have about 2 months ago.... I'll keep you posted. As always- I'm going to refrain from giving you an ETA because these things move- and the forum "Chicken Littles" start running around in circles screaming something about the sky... (We certainly want to avoid that drama, don't we?)When released, the MD11 will be available at our eCommerce site- and within approximately 3 months thereafter on DVD via our publisher, Aerosoft.PMDG 737 NGX and PMDG A320 for FSX:===================================As always in the development cycle, we don't like to give you too much information on progress and timelines because it has a tendency to set unrealistic expectations for release timelines... Both products are due for release in close proximity to one another- so you'll have a veritable choice of narrow body PMDG experience to fly your favorite short haul routes!Both products will be available by download, and then by DVD via Aerosoft. Both of these products will be FSX only!This concludes the update for tonight- I'm sure many of you have questions that we'd love to answer, but please understand that in some cases we simply CAN'T answer- and in other cases we choose not to answer simply because we havent' made a decision on our own. As more information comes available- I'll post it right here in the PMDG forum...

Sounds should be out today at some point guys - finally!

:-jumpy :-jumpy :-jumpy

The sounds are released now by the way for those of you who didn't see the other posts in the forum... just go to the PMDG website downloads section.

Hi all, just a lurker here but I gotta sound my disappointment over the possibility of no FS9 version for the MD-11. I for one find the framerates around FSX airports and cities abismal and unflyable. In the air its not so bad but it begs the question, how do we taxi, takeoff and land at 10 frames or less a second? I've heard all the arguments about DX10 and Vista, but I need to remind everyone that it's not here. There is no hardware to support it yet and if I'm not mistaken, even ACES has said they don't know what difference a DX10 part will make because they don't have one. Yes, now they pipe in get Vista, but as MS has already stated to their partners, games are going to run 5-10% slower on Vista then on XP...So is Vista the magic bullet? Or just a story to pacify the fanbase who are not too happy with what they have right now? We're having to tweak all kinds of things just to get decent framerates on the stock planes. How much more are we going to have to get rid of to get something as powerful as a PMDG plane to run smoothly? I envision a very "BARE" world to get those flyable frames. Sad but true. FS9 is here, everyone here probably has it and hardware is at the point we can run it with actual scenery without killing the flying experience. So why give up on a proven item? Just for the extra bells and whistles FSX might someday be able to provide at decent frames? I for one will not be upgrading to Vista on the whim that DX10 "might" give me a few frames a second. Yes, we will all take the Vista plunge at some point, but look how long it's taken hardware to catch up to FS2004. So lets put it down on paper.FSX flies great as long as you keep the scenery turned down to almost nothing. Or hack the #### out of everything having to do with scenery.FS9 Flies great NOW.FSX "MAY" go faster if you spend $2000+ on a new Vista PC. Add probably another $600 for a New DX10 videocard. As for DX10, I don't remember alot of games making a magic "jump" in framerates when DX9 came out. Yes, we got more effects, nicer textures etc. But framerates pretty much stayed the same. The only thing that really made a difference was CPU's and videocards. I'm no expert but as Nvidia is already trying a form of dual core (7950GS) I gotta wonder if they haven't hit the same clock wall as the CPU's did. We have fans on them that sound like leaf blowers, how much hotter can they go? As for the actual power of the DX10 cards themselves, anything I or anyone else could say is total conjecture, but from what I read, DX10 is going to make a lot of use of shaders, so how will this help autogen which seems to be FSX's problem? CPUs have already gone this dual core route, unfortunately, for whatever reason, FSX makes very little use of it. In my opinion, this was a major mistake as having an extra core on board doing very little is a major waste of power that could have been used elseware. I'm not here to flame FSX. I own it :) I fly it :) albiet in VERY rural areas (read bush flying). I like it alot, and when I can afford to buy that new $600+ DX10 video card, $300 Vista and Quad Core CPU (if FSX can use any of those extra cores) to get it to run right, I'll like it even more :) Then I might turn in my FS9 wings. I also own FS9. I can fly it with almost everything maxed and still achieve 25+ frames a second at any airport flying any of the PMDG planes I own ( I own them all:) ). With Traffic 2005, World Airports 2, UT, FE, GE Pro all turned on in all there glory :) My only concern here is that the MD-11 will not be flyable in an FSX world on average hardware most of us use. You know, a world with trees and buildings, LOL. If it's not flyable, we'll get the usual "I can't fly it" "It's broke" "Sloppy code" blah blah blah...that we're hereing about FSX now. This would be sad and do a diservice to what I'm sure will be another awesome add on from PMDG. I only ask that you weigh this up before making a solid decision in abandoning the MD-11 for FS9. FS9 is here now, it works and we are all still flying it, why retire it before it's time. I'm sure both an MD11 for FSX and FS9 can coexist in this world? I'd pay for both, but I'd only pay for the FSX version when I knew I can fly it the way it should be flown, at 20+ frames a second? :)No flames here, just spouting an opinion :) and hopefully swaying some minds in the great MD-11 for FS9 debate :)LarryAMD 4600+ w/Zalman coolerDFI NF 4 SLI Ultra Lan PartyEVGA 7950GT2 GB Samsung DDR1x Western Digital 36 GB Raptor2x Seagate 80 GB Barracudas Raid 01x Seagate 200 GB BarracudaX-FI Xtreme GamerAntec Truepower 550 watt P/SWindows XP SP2CH, Saitek, Track IR, etc... :)

All that I can say to the last post is thank you. I feel exactly the same way as you do. Just as many others I'm sure have been eagerly sitting on their hands waiting for the MD-11 to come out so have I. It will be the best Tri-Jet out besides DF's 727. I think that PMDG can make both versions and still make $. All of the developers seem to be jumping the FS9 ship with the arrival of FSX. In my opinion I'd finish the last project for what it was intended for, in this case the project (MD-11) was intended for FS9. I do not disagree with an FSX version of the aircraft, at all, I'm simply trying to say I wholeheartedly agree with the above post. I'm not bashing just saying my piece. Thanks for listening, and someday this will all be resolved. Who knows, PMDG never has stated their will not be an FS9 version, although the post leans that way, we won't know till they release it. Just hope and pray if you want that it comes out for both. Would make my day for sure! Thanks. -Mike

I absolutely agree.Many of us won't be making the change to FS10 for a good while, for all sorts of reasons.If indeed the MD11 was a FS9 project I think it would be fairer to make it available for FS9 and then for FS10 if it were technically viable to do so. The extra sales (vFS9 and vFS10) would help to defray some of the development cost too.After having seen on various forums the wailing and gnashing of teeth from people with high-end rigs trying to get a decent balance between eye-candy and fps on FS10, I wonder if it isn't a bit premature for developers to abandon FS9.

What about the B1900 series? Did I miss the news of them being updated for FSX?SD

Robert,I'm curious, as a software developer myself who is particularly interested in your MD-11 but not so much in FSX yet, as to the percentage of difference in the coding between FSX and FS9. I understand that this is probably proprietary info, but perhaps you'd be willing to give a verbal description (extreme, significant, PITA, negligible, etc). I can't imagine MS changing things to the point where there would be so much of a difference you'd have to maintain two entirely different codebases (of course, that's a logical expression of thought and we ARE dealing with MS!).Thanks for the update.

>Robert,>I'm curious, as a software developer myself who is>particularly interested in your MD-11 but not so much in FSX>yet, as to the percentage of difference in the coding between>FSX and FS9. I understand that this is probably proprietary>info, but perhaps you'd be willing to give a verbal>description (extreme, significant, PITA, negligible, etc). I>can't imagine MS changing things to the point where there>would be so much of a difference you'd have to maintain two>entirely different codebases (of course, that's a logical>expression of thought and we ARE dealing with MS!).>>Thanks for the update.I know FS9 guage files do not work at all in FSX so I would imagine they have to keep two seperate databases for the versions if they did it that way. I think the biggest concern they have from reading the post is if they make it for both paltforms having to leave out much of the new and exciting things FSX provides.

Randy,I got that... similar to the differences between FS9 and 2K2 functionality, I'm sure. Given their resources (and I don't know what those are): If feasible, it would make sense to make both versions. As I said above, I'm not particularly interested in FSX as yet. I have neither the hardware nor the money to upgrade simply for this new version of FS. I've been looking forward to this MD-11 since I heard about the project and would be willing to pay the price for an FS9 version despite it's limitations in capability compared to the FSX version. The key phrase here, obviously, is "if feasible." I understand the hesitation there: the desire to cater to as many customers as possible (I know several who are not really looking at upgrading to FSX for at least a year, or at least that's what they're telling me now! I guess we'll wait and see about that). On the other hand, the developer side of me sees their unwillingness to not implement the "new, cool things" they could do with the functionality of FSX...Hence the question.

>Randy,>I got that... similar to the differences between FS9 and 2K2>functionality, I'm sure. Given their resources (and I don't>know what those are): If feasible, it would make sense to>make both versions. As I said above, I'm not particularly>interested in FSX as yet. I have neither the hardware nor the>money to upgrade simply for this new version of FS. I've been>looking forward to this MD-11 since I heard about the project>and would be willing to pay the price for an FS9 version>despite it's limitations in capability compared to the FSX>version. The key phrase here, obviously, is "if feasible." >I understand the hesitation there: the desire to cater to as>many customers as possible (I know several who are not really>looking at upgrading to FSX for at least a year, or at least>that's what they're telling me now! I guess we'll wait and>see about that). On the other hand, the developer side of me>sees their unwillingness to not implement the "new, cool>things" they could do with the functionality of FSX...>>Hence the question.Oh I know what youre saying believe me. I have FSX but wont use it much for quite sometime Im sure. Ive got a FX57 2GB RAM and 7800GTX Im not interested in getting rid of until several generations of the new stuff is out and tweaked. Ill fly FS9 for awhile simply because it has all my planes, airports blah blah blah and FSX wont give me that for a while. On the other hand FSX has some great sutff I miss in FS9 after playing with it for a bit so its tough. When do you say enough is enough with the old its time to start working on the new platform? I dunno I know that I dont envy them in the decision theyll be damned if they do and damned if they dont. If they make both versions the FSX only crowd will hang them for not having *Insert uber cool whatcha doo hicky* and if they only do FSX and no FS9 all #### will break loose.