737ng-800 in FSX

[Flyza787 2]

Merry Christmas everyone,I searched this forum and couldn't find anything conclusive on whether or not the PMDG 737 (for FS 2004) can be installed in FSX. If it can, please advise on any tips to make the install easy. I can't wait until the NEW 737 for FSX is released; a definate must have for FSX. Thanks in advance for the replies...Tom

[Mats_J 2]

Tom,There is no port supported by the devs. I have heard through the grape vine that some people have tried to manually install the NG but do not know of the outcome. Maybe some users can share any of their secrets with you.Hope it helps,

[Guest dirkvanderlaan]

It's not too difficult to install: just use the installer and put the aircraft in the fsx directory (as if it were your fs9 directory) and move the aircraft folder (which fsx doesn't use) to your simobjects/airplanes folder. If I remember well I have moved the gauges to the fsx gauges folder and the effects tot the fsx effects folder (this is just because fsx has a different location of the same files). You can find some information on the net about using fs9 aircraft in fsx. You will get a lot of warnings when first opening up the aircraft, but just answer yes on all warnings will get you through.Don't expect too much though. I first opened fsx and thought everything was OK, but after a couple of runs went back to fs9. There were just too many things that didn't work properly (fe TOGA mode at takeoff doesn't give the right indications, I got a lot of Crashes To Desktop (CTD), sounds weren't always right etc etc)I must say I have wondered if for the PMDG designers it shouldn't be easy to upgrade it to fsx, since many, many, many things do work (at first I couldn't even see the difference and mistakenly thought I was flying fs9 when I was flying the fsx version). I guess that would be fair to all those users who paid for an airplane that gradually will become obsolete, while the whole technology and ideas behind it is still the same.I must say that I sometimes get the impression that backward compatibility should be improved, even at the expense of revenues.

[Qavion 19]

"I must say that I sometimes get the impression that backward compatibility should be improved, even at the expense of revenues."So do PMDG, Dirk. Haven't you read the forum recently regarding the MD11? However, this is now. 6 months ago, there were seemingly insurmountable problems preventing dual platform simulators, so a judgement had to be made on that basis.I'm not sure whether you're saying the process of converting the NG to FSX was easy or not (You said there were too many things which didn't work properly, but then you said there were many, many, many things which did). PMDG and the beta testers would be the best people to judge this because they had to programme and test it. If it was easy, the 744X would have been out 6 months earlier and the MD11 might have been in Christmas stockings this year.Enuf' said?Cheers.Q> イアン

[G7USL 117]

Guys, patience is a virtue. The NGX will be well worth waiting for and will be a smashing success.It's what we are ALL waiting for but hey, give the guys a chance eh? Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Guest dirkvanderlaan]

>I'm not sure whether you're saying the process of converting>the NG to FSX was easy or not (You said there were too many>things which didn't work properly, but then you said there>were many, many, many things which did). At first when I installed it, I thought, 'WHY A NEW 737NG? THIS ONE IS PERFECT'. Then I started flying, I came across many small issues (I don't remember which ones exactly, but there were things like no TOGA indications on the PFD) and I had to conclude that the 737 wouldn't fly in FSX without modifications. The bottom line?Microsoft cashes double (Vista and applications like FSX) because there is little backward compatibility. And every user/programmer including PMDG will be forced to go with them.I have had a mac and worked with MAC OS8/9/X for more then 10 years now and seldomly had these backward compatibility issues. And when they did came up (fe with OSX) Apple made a dual bootable machine. I think that's the way it should be.

[Tabs 2,790]

1. The NG is in no way, shape or form compatible with FSX. We are making a totally new NG 2.0 that will work with it. (not a patch, a from the ground up new aircraft)2. Backwards compatibility with older versions of FS is one of the primary reasons for FSX's relatively low performance. ACES has already announced they're very likely cutting this off for FS11, and we are thrilled. Not because of any financial reason, but because it means that we may actually get performance on par with other modern PC games with it. Look at what happened with Apple's MacOS when they ended backwards compatibility and made OSX from the ground up - it was much much better and has been a huge hit.Vista has LOADS of backwards compatibility with legacy apps and hardware and again, it's a primary reason it's not blazing fast compared to XP and has relatively few truly new features. I very much hope Vista's successor breaks compatibility and goes for something truly new as well.

[Guest dirkvanderlaan]

>1. The NG is in no way, shape or form compatible with FSX. It doesn't look like that when I installed the 736/7 in my FSX directory. There were minor (but irritating) differences. So what do you mean by 'shape or form'?>2. Vista has LOADS of backwards compatibility with legacy apps>and hardware and again, it's a primary reason it's not blazing>fast compared to XP and has relatively few truly new features.> I very much hope Vista's successor breaks compatibility and>goes for something truly new as well.I agree, but then make it dual bootable, like Apple did when they introduced OSX. Don't FORCE customers into something new, give them a choice.

[Tabs 2,790]

OSX doesn't dual boot, it has an emulation engine called Rosetta that lets you run older apps within OSX.We're going to have to accept the loss of older addons (and believe me I own a ton of purchased addons too, I'm a simmer just like everyone else despite working for an addon maker) in exchange for making the sim run like it should - that's just the reality of it. The core engine has been around since like FS2000, maybe even 98 - that is ancient history in computer gaming.

[mcbellette 145]

Makes sense what you're saying, Ryan. Perhaps an acceptable analogy would be saying that you don't want to buy a brand-new Chevy and find a 70's era Chevy engine under the hood!

[Guest dirkvanderlaan]

>OSX doesn't dual boot, it has an emulation engine called>Rosetta that lets you run older apps within OSX.>But it did, at first. When OS9 was replaced by OSX it was dual bootable. Now that has been abandoned because gradually everyone switched to the new and better system.