So how goes the MD-11?

[golli 0]

"and then.. towards>the middle of 2005.. an MS representative throws you FSX>code.. or some of it.. and your team thinks.. "WOW.. we can>use that.. but.. we have to redesign again.. bugger.." now 6>months delay again.. 2008 is the target.."They got the code at the middle of 2005 ???Just last summer, when customers where asking developers about FSX development they said they did'nt have any FSX code, in the threads I saw?? I've asked developers this question myself, last year, an no FSX code.There are other developers who have promised an FS9 product for more than a year and then switched to FSX, at the last minute. And others have made the desicion to make no announcements of new development until FSX was in the retail shops and ready to rock (which it has not).Of course the developers get to choose what to code to. But the serious Add-On market does not include the average Joe/Jane, who are mostly satisfied with the generic Flight Simulator and renew only that product every two years.Golli.

[Guest]

Been almost a couple months since the last update, curious if anything has changed. We close to release? Any new tidbits of information you can divulge?

[craig_read 43]

Golli.. typo.. meant 2006.. Developers won't get the FSX code.. they'll get the software development kits.. or some documentation that shows how the software will work so you can design to it before it's actually completed.. It's common practice in software programmes..CheersCraig

[rgamurot 1]

>I can completely understand this situation but.. in my>experience of dealing with systems that employ evolvting>technologies.. with development cycles of 30 years or so.. the>problem is much more apparent.. and although PMDG is a much>smaller scale I understand the problems it poses.. But the>only way to beat it.. is to say.. at some point.. THAT IS IT..>this current platform is THE ONE for this product.. It doesn't>mean you can't upgrade in future.. but it provides a sensible>focus with which to move forward.. If you adpot this>strategy.. then that point.. where that decision is made.. is>perhaps an IDEAL time.. to announce the project..If they were to do that, what happens with everyone who does upgrade immidiately? PMDG would still have to deal with these people. Even if it is a year after, say FSX is released. Eventually, everyone will say, "Well, I guess it's time", either as soon or possible, or some time down the road. I for one, being in college, can't afforde a new computer for FSX and my current computer, although reliable and less than a year old, can't run FSX. Also, upgrading to Vista sounds more like a headache than getting a new computer all together.Given the current out look on FS9/FSX, it would be better to build the FSX verion, then reverse the code an make it compatable with FS9. Of course some of the features would be lost in FS9, but at least we aren't left out. Then when we do finally upgrade, we would have a good idea of what we're doing but still have the fun of playing with new gadgets.Then again, making everything FSX compatable is taking so long, we may all be caught up by then.>PS.. still think the 744 extras would be brilliant though :)This I agree on:)Just keep in mind that PMDG is trying their hardest. Everyone was expecting FSX to be semi compatable with FS9 items like FS9 was with FS2002. Then Microsoft had the great idea to change everything so much that it turn into a nightmare for just about everyone. I am glad however to see that MOST people in this thread have managed to remain very respectable; you included Craig. There was I think one post though that seemed a bit extreme by someone else.Ryan GamurotLucky to live Hawai'ihttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[craig_read 43]

Ryan,What you put in reply I think wasn't quite the point I was making.. I was saying the due to the state of flux of software like MSFS.. replacing every 2 years.. it is sensible some point in the proceedings to start developing a plane.. perhaps first gathering data.. photos.. drawing up some diagrams on how it'll work.. and then.. after.. making a decision about which platform you'll aim for.. so now.. A320.. sensible to start designing to FSX I think.. and perhaps an assumption the upgrade to FS11 will go more smoothly.. BUT.. once this decision is made.. and the product you're offering has a set.. concrete target platform for the first release.. it should then be announced to get rid of any confusion.. The MD-11.. has been on the cards so long without a definite platform now.. so it's in some cases perhaps struck a nerve and wallets at the thought of it being FSX only..**************************"Given the current out look on FS9/FSX, it would be better to build the FSX verion, then reverse the code an make it compatable with FS9. Of course some of the features would be lost in FS9, but at least we aren't left out. Then when we do finally upgrade, we would have a good idea of what we're doing but still have the fun of playing with new gadgets."****************************In some ways I agree.. in others I don't.. it's a tough call here.. if we were talking FS2002 and FS2004.. I would agree.. but FSX is so different reverse engineering might not be as easy.. In fact it might be easier to design again.. I don't know.. I don't know the details of either platforms.. It's a business at the end of the day.. but an FSX release not backed up by and FS9 release.. perhaps in the short term.. will impact sales..HOWEVER.. Some of that initially lost revenue.. well I say "lost" but it will come in as people upgrade to FSX eventually.. A few neat 747-400 updates like the ones mentioned here.. might improve cash flow..Am I hinting enough?CheersCraig

[rgamurot 1]

>Ryan,>>What you put in reply I think wasn't quite the point I was>making.. I was saying the due to the state of flux of software>like MSFS.. replacing every 2 years.. it is sensible some>point in the proceedings to start developing a plane.. perhaps>first gathering data.. photos.. drawing up some diagrams on>how it'll work.. and then.. after.. making a decision about>which platform you'll aim for.. so now.. A320.. sensible to>start designing to FSX I think.. and perhaps an assumption the>upgrade to FS11 will go more smoothly.. BUT.. once this>decision is made.. and the product you're offering has a set..>concrete target platform for the first release.. it should>then be announced to get rid of any confusion.. The MD-11..>has been on the cards so long without a definite platform>now.. so it's in some cases perhaps struck a nerve and wallets>at the thought of it being FSX only..I see. Yes, this is a good idea. Sorry for missunderstanding you the first time.>In some ways I agree.. in others I don't.. it's a tough call>here.. if we were talking FS2002 and FS2004.. I would agree..>but FSX is so different reverse engineering might not be as>easy.. In fact it might be easier to design again.. I don't>know.. I don't know the details of either platforms.. It's a>business at the end of the day.. but an FSX release not backed>up by and FS9 release.. perhaps in the short term.. will>impact sales..True. Actually, I believe that's what PMDG is doing with the 744. It was just an idea though. By the time they're done turning everything back into FS9 though, everyone will be on FSX anyway.>HOWEVER.. Some of that initially lost revenue.. well I say>"lost" but it will come in as people upgrade to FSX>eventually.. A few neat 747-400 updates like the ones>mentioned here.. might improve cash flow..Still agree. The truth about a fuel manager though, is that it would be useful but FSBuild or something similar is a better choice. I say this because it takes weather into account along each waypoint to give a very acurate fuel estimate. Then you just have to select that amount of fuel in the Load Manager or from the PMDG Menu. If their fuel planner were to take the winds into account, then it would be a good idea but I still say we should stick with our flight planners.As for updates, a 744ER(F) variant would be very nice. I always fly those insane long hual flights (like Honolulu to London NON-STOP and in real time). I always manage to just make it if I leave with a full tank and light load. Also panel and guage updates would be nice too. I wouldn't mind a way to have AS6 feed the winds into the FMC. I spent almost 40 minutes putting in the wind information for a trip from London to Hong Kong.A weather radar would be really helpful (since I always manage to find the bad weather! It's not like I try to either.) I know you fine people at PMDG said that you didn't like the way the weather was portrayed in FS9 but many people use AS6. It really improves the way the weather is made in FS. Could we at least have one in FSX?I think the best part about the extras for the aircraft(not updates to modify the aircraft), is that they are pretty much not FS dependant. eg.Fuel loader/planner.>Am I hinting enough?Good question. I wouldn't push too hard though.Ryan GamurotLucky to live Hawai'ihttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[Tabs 2,790]

>A weather radar would be really helpful (since I always manage>to find the bad weather! It's not like I try to either.) I>know you fine people at PMDG said that you didn't like the way>the weather was portrayed in FS9 but many people use AS6. It>really improves the way the weather is made in FS. Could we at>least have one in FSX?It has nothing to do with what specific method is generating the weather. AS6 is still using the FS weather system... That's where the problem is - as a gauge, all we can see is cloud density, not where actual precipitation is. Other products are making guesses as to where precipitation would be and generating their displays from it. This is not how a real radar works in the slightest and we aren't going to go there. If and when FS makes real precip data available to be read out, we'll revisit the idea of wx radar.

[rgamurot 1]

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realise what the exact problem was. So I take it we should be complaining to MS instead? (Just a joke to those who take things too seriously.) Or maybe someone out there want's to create a weather addon that fixes this problem. Or AS could take a crack at this. (This time I'm serious.)Ryan GamurotLucky to live Hawai'ihttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[BAW277 1]

>It has nothing to do with what specific method is generating>the weather. AS6 is still using the FS weather system... >That's where the problem is - as a gauge, all we can see is>cloud density, not where actual precipitation is. Other>products are making guesses as to where precipitation would>be and generating their displays from it. This is not how a>real radar works in the slightest and we aren't going to go>there. If and when FS makes real precip data available to be>read out, we'll revisit the idea of wx radar.I ever doubted the idea of weather radar in FS, now this explains to me finally in clear words why. We would never have to avoid a red cell since there is nothing in it to avoid, if i understand you correctly?all the best and keep it up!Holger

[Guest]

You can go straight into a big bad red cloud in FS and there is no consequence. Real WX radars don't see clouds, they see precip. The FS radars out right now simply look at the clouds and assume there is enough precip there that a radar could get a reflection of.

[Tabs 2,790]

Yeah, not saying that you won't see rain in those red areas with the radars that are out there, you very well might... but yeah that's the point, it's not picking up the actual precip. MS has to implement a real precip model and make it queryable via SimConnect for a correctly modeled radar to happen...

[brucewtb 246]

I think that drawing these distinctions between the way RW radar and FS radar works is is just a tad over the top and taking the quest for realism to an unnecessary degree. The main weather feature both RW and FS pilots should be trying to avoid is severe turbulence and neither can detect this directly. In the RW precipitation is seen and it is assumed that there will also be turbulence and in the FS world clouds are seen and it is assumed that turbulence will be there as well.That being said,if we really want to go the extra mile in the interests of realism, why can't metars that include precipitation be used as an input to FS radar so that the only time clouds showed on FS radar was when the current metar included precipitation?Bruceb

[xkoote 57]

Funny tidbit:In actual flying, most of the time you fly through precipitation (moderate to heavy rain in my experience) is actually where you get smoother skies! Strange but true. Turbulence you often get at cloud bases and edges and of course if you fly through a CB/TCU. That's due to vertical shear and if you do that, you're retarded.The More You Know ====* ( a la NBC)XanderF/O MD-82

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Ryan,this discussion has been brought to my attention and if you agree, I'd like to just give additional, and should I say more correct, information.First, you are assuming that the Reality XP Wx500 is working this way but in fact, this is partly true. We do use other sources of data and even though it is not accessible via simconnect (which would make it easier) there are some actual precipitation data within FS memory that we tap into in addition to actual 3D clouds.Also, the Wx500 is not a doppler type of radar. I'll let the reader find documentation about the difference between the two, and in this respect, the type of radar we model is working very nicely given I admit there is no risk of structural damage in FS flying in red areas and given the limited atmospheric simulation of FS.Is it perfect? certainly no. Does it make the job of getting the pilot accustomed to radar utilisation and radar picture interpretation? I believe yes.Hope this helps!(my name is my login)

[MarkRey 16]

Speaking as an armchair pilot I could care less about fs limits. There's a wonderful thing about us that makes this game what it is - imagination. Without that, sitting at a pc pretending to fly an airplane would be just that and nothing more.I say that to simply say this - personally I've no problem whatsoever extending my imagination envelope to include wxr on my ND, fully real half real, whatever. It's nice to see and helps the illusion handily.That's my humble 2c wish as a customer who is always willing to line up for PMDG products, wxr or no.regards,Mark