Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
rgamurot

01SEP07: So What Happens Next? (Repost)

Recommended Posts

>747!!!!!!>Where are you??!>Two days left...>>Nick :-wave Two days left ?For what ?Ooooohhh....you're referring to THAT statement ?"I would expect the 400/400F for FSX to arrive within the month. (standard disclaimer applies: if we find something wrong- we


Best Regards

 

Thomas Lejeune

Share this post


Link to post

Humm. No prospects of a short haul 737 anytime soon and no mention at all of the A320. Both were announced just about a year(!) ago with great anticipation and we probably won't see any of the most popular short-haul jetliners in our virtual hangars until FSX reaches its anticipated shelf half-life. *shrug* Oh well. I guess for FSX we have to get used to the stock 737. Long haul doesn't interest me at all, because I have a real life and don't have time or patience to watch a 747 follow a magenta line for 8+ hours.Just a little disappointment here.Pat

Share this post


Link to post

>Just a little disappointment here.>>PatJust out of curiosity, exactly how long do you think it takes to produce one of these planes?

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously too long. We have waited months for SP1, a year for SP2/DX10 and 1.5 years before the first FSX/PMDG addon hits the street.Somehow other developers managed to pull it off: LevelD, FeelThere, Carenado, Eaglesoft, just to name a few.It just doesn't make sense, if the development cycle exceeds the usability of the product. This is an add-on product that will eventually become obsolete or legacy the very same day when a new release of FS hits the streets. If I do the math and MS adheres to a median release cycle of 2 years in between FS releases, then the end-user will be able to fly any 737 or A320 for a few months at best. Not criticizing, but saying how it is.I am not impatient. PMDG can take all their time, but as time progresses, I am less and less likely to purchase. The only answer that I can offer is either to hire more people to speed up the process and increasing the price tag while lowering expectations and not releasing any information until things are 80% ready. I don't know what else to say. I would perfectly happy with a ported FS9 737NG.Pat

Share this post


Link to post

>Somehow other developers managed to pull it off: LevelD,>FeelThere, Carenado, Eaglesoft, just to name a few.LDS, how's that 757 of their's coming along? Is it out yet? No you say? Guess they aren't doing any better. ;) Yes, I realize they do have a 767 out.FT, Carenado, and Eaglesoft I won't even put in the same sentence as the other two. You're comparing apples and oranges there in my opinion.I'm not sure why you are expecting them to release 4 different planes, at such a high quality in less than 2 years. All of which I believe are being built from the ground up. This isn't a full time job for most, if not all of the PMDG team.As for your, 1.5 year comment before the first FSX/PMDG addon hits, I'm just guessing here, but I have a feeling the 747 will be out long before April.

Share this post


Link to post

I have yet to hear any overly negative comments about Carenado and Eaglesoft. Wilco is another class, I give you that.I am not expecting anything, because PMDG sits in the same boat as LevelD with their 757. I am not expecting a revamped version, not even a v2.0, I expect a version that I can actually fly with in FSX and it doesn't seem to be the case for any 737, which just happens to be probably THE best and, judging from previous reviews and forum activity, most popular addon for FS9.LevelD? 767 is out. Carenado? Entire catalog. Eaglesoft? At least 2-3 FSX planes. Ported or not, it doesn't matter to me. I want to use it. If I had a choice of a 737NG that I can fly for 1-2 years and a 737NGX that I can fly for 1-2 months, I choose the former.Sorry to be the only one who seems to be slightly disappointed. I am not trying to be a party pooper here, because I understand the issues that the developers are facing. However, other developers seem to have been a lot more active. I made my point. Hadn't PMDG released any information about their roadmap, I'd probably quiet, but they didn't, and I just don't do too well with pre-sales hype, especially when it stretches out over a period of years. *shrug*------FSX has turned into an unpleasant and unanticipated waiting game for everyone. First we waited for Vista, then we waited for SP1, we wait now for SP2/DX10, developers waited for both and thus in return we all wait for any addons. Eventually the addons will hit the streets, then maybe within a few weeks 1-2 service packs to make it really enjoyable, then fly we get to actually FLY them for a few months, get the FS11 announcement and wait for FS11.All this means that developers will eventually HAVE to speed up their development process by cooperation, merging, even tapping into resources of other developers, sharing components -or- face losing revenue, which might even force them to close up shop or just disappear, because the process might be too overwhelming and anticipations are set too high. I am being drastic here, but probably in the end that could be the logical consequence.For example, imagine PMDG helping out with the Airsimmer team to speed up the A320, share information, solve roadblocks, even share code or components, etc. A lot of the code does not "have" to be written from the ground up and, quite frankly, noone needs two A320s that are 'so-so' and most people rather have one edition that is excellent. A lot of excellent code is already there and can be either licensed or revenue-shared. Grab some code, gauges, switches from the LevelD 767 and re-use it for a PMDG 737, etc. Let's get them to talk to each other rather than competing against each other. Sure, it is a business, but something needs to be done, because code gets only more complex and the data streams will never get smaller.I might be overly blonde, naive and idealistic here, but why not?Cheers,Pat

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Pat,i think you bring up some interesting thoughts there butyou might want to add the following points into your thinking process:first of all i can't remember any plane that wasn't working or made compatible over the lifespan of at least 2 FS publishes.Now you're going to tell me:"But Thomas, the 747, MD-11 and NG 2.0 will all be FSX and FS9 compatible, so that makes 2 editions of FS"True...but then who can tell already how compatible or incompatible FSXI will be compared to FSX ?...i don't see MS totally revamp the engine again, but we will see.And if they do, we know what will happen: the same thing that happens now and that has always happened with any major change of engine in FS: the community is going to stick to the current versionbecause they either can't afford a new rig or don't want to drop their perfectly running current version they have put a lot of money for planes and addons in.This is btw also one of the reasons why this has become a lengthy process: i guess the decision that PMDG took to adjust to the market situation and react to the uproar in the community by making those products FS9 compatible didn't really lighten the workload coming with their roadmap.In any case it must be really tricky to work in such an unreliable environment and as no one out there has found the shop yet that sells magic crystal balls, it seems logic to me that at one point you have to make a decision about which path you want to take:You can either take the path where you put all your workforce into new products and taking advantage of all the nice things a new engine can offer and end up being one of the first with a new and improved product line or you can assign part of your workforce to recode an old product of yours to make it compatible and thereby lose precious time and workforce for new products and therefore probably end up being one of the "last" releasing a new product line.Other than that, as you're mentioning developers going out of business: do you think investing part of your small workforce into making old products compatible is going to improve your business, because correct me if i'm wrong but if i'm not mistaken the number of people out there willing to pay the full price for a plane that offers nothing new is probably rather small and it's more that everyone out there already owning the product expects the patch to be free or to receive at least a heavy discount. If you ask me, not really the bringer businesswise, when you think that you could have invested time and workforce into a completely new product line that you can sell for the full price.And to end this up: you're mentioning that PMDG's 737 is probably THE best and most popular addon for FS9 out there. Why do you think it is like that ?Yes...because PMDG is one of the not so many companies out there who tries to model a plane as accurately as the current FS engine permits, as real as it gets...and that takes of course a lot of time.And do you know what they are doing right now ?They are programming a NEW 737 which is going to be even more accurate and therefore probably even better than the already great 737 you own. Isn't that exciting ?So to sum it up: in my opinion we will end up flying PMDG's planes longer than most of the other new planes that will be released by other companies in the next couple of years. Not only because of the high quality of their products, but because PMDG decided to invest all of their time into the new engine and therefore got now a deeper understanding of its workings than most of the companies out there probably do by now and that is in my eyes an advantage that will probably also improve development time.So the way i see it: if i want to fly their great 737NG, it's there, i just need to fire up my FS9 and go fly, and while i do that PMDG is programming an even better and newer version for me to use in FSX...so to me it's a win-win situation.I might wake up one day and FSX1 will be out ? So what ? Is anyone forcing me to drop the old version as soon as the new one is out ?So far i got the most joy out of my hobby by being able to fly planes that are as accurately modeled as possible and not so much because of the world evolving around it.And i can very well understand that, probably like in real life, a deeply modeled MD-11, 737NG or 747 takes longer to develop and produce than a Cessna for example.But then that is just me...Best RegardsThomas


Best Regards

 

Thomas Lejeune

Share this post


Link to post
Guest AJ

I would add one further point, just to keep "a firm grasp on reality." I think it is extremely short-sighted to see look at the lifespan of FS9 as ending with the release of FSX, or, respectively, the lifespan of FSX as ending with the release of FS11.MS has clearly decided to adopt take an ambitious, forward-looking business strategy with FSX. Even a year after release, most users are still not in a position harware-wise to effectively exploit it. Yes, previous iteratioons of FS have also followed this scheme, but not to this degree. You will note that FS9 had a three-year active cycle rather than the traditional two-year cycle. Judging by the slow adaptation of FSX, the next version will likely not come for even longer (I am guessing four years).In any case, I think we should see MSFS more like we see Windows. Most PC users around the world did not run out and switch to Vista the day it came out, and I dare say that XP will be very commonly found on many machines for at least another year or two. Similarly, there are still a lot of people out there using FS9 as their primary flightsim platform, even if they own FSX. Obviusly, PMDG recognizes that, and is dedicated to supporting these customers.My point? Stop acting like the 747 and 737NG for FS9 are dead. They still work just as well as they always did. I still fly the 747 at lest once a week, and I suspect it will take some time for my VA to switch over to FSX once the 744X is out (and that's assuming that I can even get decent performance with in on my antiquated machine. Enjoy them until the dust settles with FSX.Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Guest samrec

And I will add something a little further. You said you do not like long hauls, well too bad. But to each their own. But might I remind you that those that waited for the FS9 QoS (Queen of the Skies) also waited for about two years for it, and close to the release of the QoS their MD-11 was already on the line, so they don't move as fast as other publishers, but then again there are some 737s out there for FSX. So why you are waiting for the PMDG one? I know why, cause their quality work and realism is unsurpassed and that my fiend "is all there is to it".Good things take time to create, and PMDG might take longer to do theirs but when it is out, man do you enjoy every single penny you put into it cause you know you gonna love that bird.cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Guest sunbear

>Humm. No prospects of a short haul 737 anytime soon and no>mention at all of the A320. Both were announced just about a>year(!) ago with great anticipation and we probably won't see>any of the most popular short-haul jetliners in our virtual>hangars until FSX reaches its anticipated shelf half-life.>*shrug* Oh well. I guess for FSX we have to get used to the>stock 737. Long haul doesn't interest me at all, because I>have a real life and don't have time or patience to watch a>747 follow a magenta line for 8+ hours.>>Just a little disappointment here.>>PatPat,I too share the disappointment. The NG panel and systems far outshine the 47's and will as I have said many times before be with us for the next 30+ years. It's ashame that this wasn't a priority before the 747's. I'll reluctantly purchase the 47 but my heart is with the 37's as I too don't have the time to waste chasing a magenta trail.Regards & frustrated,jack

Share this post


Link to post
Guest AJ

I fail to follow the logic of those that are uninterested in the 747, simply because they don't wish to fly long hauls. 1. Unlike a real 747, this simulation is yours to fly as you wish, when you wish, and where you wish. If you want to do short flights in it, no one will stop you from doing so.2. Real 747s handle short flights quite well, and are used in that capacity more often than you might think. Thus, it is NOT unrealistic to perform such flights in the sim. Yes, it does use a lot more juice than the NG, but it also carries a lot more pax or cargo. In any case, PMDG has taken a highly progressive stance in this industry by opting NOT to charge its customers for virtual Jet A. (Wouldn't it be a hoot if they did?) 3. For those times when you do wish to take a long flight, MSFS has a feature that allows you to speed up time. As long as you wait until reaching cruisng altitude, it works very well with the 744. Just remember to check in as necessary to manage the crossfeeds.If you simply prefer flying a smaller and more maneuverable airplane, by all means fly the NG. But if that is the case, then why not just say so? If avoiding long haul flights is your only concern, then please don't ignore this wonderful bird just for that. It really is quite silly.Andrew

Share this post


Link to post

Atually I also feel reluctant to using the 747 on the max 2-3 hour flights I usually do on Vatsim. Instead I usually pick the PMDG737 or sometimes the LVD767. But I realized that flying the 747F allows me to relistically fly also short hops with the occassional 747PAX hop over the pond. It only takes a peek at flightaware to see 747F flights between eg KLAX-KSFO.


Krister Lindén
EFMA, Finland
------------------
 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest glider pilot

Hi!What about pricing? I have both, the FS 2004 and the FS X and I'd like to use the 747 in both versions. I have not yet the FS 2004 version of the 747.Do I have to pay both versions at full price? Is there a free downgrade from the 747X? Or do I have to buy the 747 for FS 2004 and can upgrade for a cheaper price then?Thanks for answers,Niklas

Share this post


Link to post

>>"I would expect the 400/400F for FSX to arrive within the>month. (standard disclaimer applies: if we find something>wrong- we

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    45%
    $11,475.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...