Possible new/different project for PMDG in the future???

[mcbellette 145]

Hi all,I was just looking through the Cessna website and came across the Cessna Citation X (http://citationx.cessna.com). According to the website, it has a ceiling of 51,000ft (FL510), a cruise speed of Mach .92 and has a range of over 3,000nm. Sounds like quite an aircraft to me!I think this would be an interesting project for PMDG eventually - a bizjet instead of commercial airliners that have only been done so far. I wonder what anyone else (particularly Robert Randazzo) thinks about PMDG venturing into this territory in the future?Kind regards,

[Guest MauiHawk]

Yeah, I agree on the biz jet idea. I posted a suggestion for the Eclipse 500 a few weeks back. I think its a market in which FS that could use a little more attention and think it would be great for PMDG's "Express" brand if the ever plan on releasing another such product-- I'd like to see PMDG quality applied to a biz jet, but at the same time I don't think they would need to take it to nearly the same level detail-wise as their commercial aircraft.OTOH, I'd rather PMDG first clear their plate a bit before bogging themselves down with yet another project. I think my dream scenario for PMDG would be: release 747, release MD-11, announce A320 project cancelled, announce bizjet "Express" product, release 737 NGX, announce 787 project (FS11?).Steve Kurth

[rgamurot 1]

There are already two CJXs out. One by Wilco (which I have and don't recommend), and another by Eaglesoft which I hear is very good. They also have a new version coming out which should be even better.Although I too wouldn't mind seeing a really nice biz jet, I think the fact of the matter is that a very good majority of the FS community flies commercial aircraft. At my VA, only about 30% of the daily flights aren't commercial and only 10% aren't in commercial aircraft. I know this isn't good reference as not everyone is in a VA let alone mine, but the joy about it is that you have a schedule to stick to; basically something to do. Get to your destination on time. There are still many commercial aircraft in demand. The 777 is probably the one aircraft that's popped up in this forum the most. I am also anxiously awaiting the A320 which many others are still waiting for. I also still want to see a 717-200 and eventually, as you said, the 787 which will probably be in high demand soon as well.For now, yes, we should let PMDG clear their plate. But after that, I think that if they decide on a biz jet, it should come as second priority. There are just too many Commercial Airliners we are still waiting for PMDG to hopefully do.Ryan GamurotLucky to live Hawai'ihttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa296.png

[mcbellette 145]

I'd also like to see the Boeing 787, but I can't see Boeing being too forthcoming in giving much detailed information to software developers to make an accurate rendition of it in MSFS. Maybe after at least 5 or 6 years of being in operation, but it's just too new now - not even flown yet.

[Guest MauiHawk]

>I'd also like to see the Boeing 787, but I can't see Boeing>being too forthcoming in giving much detailed information to>software developers to make an accurate rendition of it in>MSFS. Maybe after at least 5 or 6 years of being in operation,>but it's just too new now - not even flown yet.Well, I certainly agree that its probably impossible to start on the 787 now... Even with the specs for the model, I think PMDG probably requires access to a real-world pilot which will be a rare breed for the forceable future.But I wasn't thinking now... assuming they stick with the projects they've announced (747, MD11, 737NGX, A320), I think they probably have enough to keep themselves busy for 2 years give-or-take. I know nothing to lend my thoughts on this any credibility, but I wonder if Boeing would really be that reluctant to give PMDG the data to build a model in a years time or so. Once it has been delivered, there is certainly no information in the model data that Airbus won't have. Plus, I think FS development serves as a way to promote their aircraft. I suspect its access to a pilot in order to build an accurate flight model that could be trickier. But, then again, I imagine that piece of the product is one that can wait until late in development to be tuned.Steve Kurth

[mcbellette 145]

I agree, but just for the sake of argument, I think Boeing would rather keep alot of information about the 787 close to their chests. It is supposed to be an aircraft that will take alot of the market from Airbus and they (Boeing) would probably be understandably touchy about Airbus gaining any information that could help them become more competitive. At least for the time being. Look how much info is out there now about the 747-400 and you'll see what I mean.I also agree on the point about finishing currently announced projects first. No point in announcing too much if they may not get finished or even started. As Ryan said - I think that a 777 after current projects are finished would be good, but by then the 787 will probably be the most common aircraft in alot of airline fleets and the 777 will be starting to show its age like the 747. I think the 787 could even replace the 767 and 777 perhaps? That's just my opinion. I may, of course, be wrong as I am not employed in the aviation sector.

[Guest MauiHawk]

>I agree, but just for the sake of argument, I think Boeing>would rather keep alot of information about the 787 close to>their chests. It is supposed to be an aircraft that will take>alot of the market from Airbus and they (Boeing) would>probably be understandably touchy about Airbus gaining any>information that could help them become more competitive. At>least for the time being. Look how much info is out there now>about the 747-400 and you'll see what I mean.Maybe. Like I said, I know little about how PMDG would go about getting the data they need and wouldn't know where to start to look up data on the 747. Still, as far as the data for the 3d model, I'm sure Airbus would be easily be able to find some alone time with a 787 to get the measurments if the data wasn't already out there. I guess I doubt the 3D model data would be too sensitive. Start taking avionics/flight control system data that PMDG may need and I think you have a very good argument.>I think the 787 could even replace the>767 and 777 perhaps? That's just my opinion.Quoting wikipedia (for convenience, not vouching credibility), it looks like 787 is to completely replace the 767 line, and also a piece of both the 757s and 777s. I would imagine 777 will still have a significant role to fill the gap between the 787 and the 747.- 787-3... is designed to replace Boeing 757-300, Boeing 767-200 and 300.- Boeing is targeting the 787-8 to replace the 767-200ER and 767-300ER- Boeing is targeting the 787-9 ... to replace 767-400ER- The (proposed) 787-10 would supersede the 777-200ERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787Steve Kurth

[mcbellette 145]

How about we mount a hostile takeover of PMDG, Steve? Build the 777 instead of waiting! (hahaha) Just kidding. Would be nice to see it though.

[Guest MauiHawk]

>How about we mount a hostile takeover of PMDG, Steve? Build>the 777 instead of waiting! (hahaha) Just kidding. Would be>nice to see it though.Haha... well, seeing as I'm almost as far behind on my work as PMDG is, that might be a trade I'd be willing to take. Speaking of...Steve Kurth

[mcbellette 145]

Which VA are you a member of, Ryan?

[rgamurot 1]

>Which VA are you a member of, Ryan?I currently fly for the Virtual Pilot's Association. http://www.virtualpilots.org I really like them. You can fly for any airline or just any aircraft like Concorde from Seattle to Hawaii. It just has to be realistic. So if you wanted to land a B744 on a 3000' runway or fly a C172 from New York to London non-stop, your PIREP will probably get rejected unless you had a really good excuse. You also get a ton of statistics about your flying like which aircraft you fly the most or everyone's favourite, what your PIREP accuracy is. We also have a number of awards you can work towards for IVAO and VATSIM or just the VPA alone.Ryan GamurotLucky to live Hawai'ihttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa296.png

[michal 44]

>and another by Eaglesoft which I hear is>very good. They also have a new version coming out which>should be even better.This will be interesting to watch how they do with this new Citation. For Eaglesoft I think it will be the first aircraft with FMS, better AP/FD, etc. I wish them luck but to this point no one managed to carry over PMDG's fidelity in corporate aircraft simulation. I would love to have a biz jet with PMDG-like quality.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg