737 NG for FSX?

[Flaps30 3]

Just wondering, but now that the 747 is available for FSX, will the 737 be available in the near future? I am a proud FS9 737 owner but will soon be changing over. Thanks. Tom

[downscc 1,327]

They (PMDG) are working on a 737NGX that is new from the rubber on the ramp up... I will buy it the day it's released but that's gonna be awhile. I think the MD-11 is next in que.It's a personal preference, I enjoy the short hops in the 737 and I still do all my sidstar editing with the FS9 version around for testing. The exciting news is 737NGX is gonna have a new FMC data format more like the real ARINC424 stuff. The procedures are really gonna get an overhaul.Just gotta wait, and wait.... etc.

[Flaps30 3]

Thanks Dan. Regards, Tom ;-)

[GerarDream 0]

Sorry for asking, but, is there an estimated presentation date?I'm a PMDG 737NG big fan, but I'm flying with FSX now and I miss my favorite plane.ThanksGerry RenveThe bad-english man :D

[PeteEHAM 3]

Hi,At this moment PMDG is very busy (I guess :-) ) with the MD-11, next plane to come out for FSX and FS9.As I recall from former posts at this forum work on the 737NGX will begin after the release of the MD11.Greetings,PeteAmsterdamEHAM

[Guest sunbear]

I personally think the MD-11 should go to the end of the 'que'and the NG for FSX should move to the front of the line. I think if this were the case in the very beginning, we wouldn't be waiting this long for an outdated a/c that many of us could very well do without. Of course, I'll purchase the MD-11 if and when it ever hit's the market, but, PMDG would have had my cash a long time ago if the NGX was on the front burner.Just my lowly 2 cents worth, and of course, ..my opinion only...No flames intended.Regards,jack

[Orlaam 306]

>I personally think the MD-11 should go to the end of the>'que'>and the NG for FSX should move to the front of the line. I>think if this were the case in the very beginning, we wouldn't>be waiting this long for an outdated a/c that many of us could>very well do without. >>Of course, I'll purchase the MD-11 if and when it ever hit's>the market, but, PMDG would have had my cash a long time ago>if the NGX was on the front burner.>>Just my lowly 2 cents worth, and of course, ..my opinion>only...No flames intended.>>Regards,>jackYes but some of us, myself included, have wanted an MD-11 since we got into complex flight simulation, and I can say I'm dying for the MD-11 to be released, it's my favorite plane, dated or not. The 737NG is also a favorite of mine, but we've been waiting for the MD-11 for ages now.

[mcbellette 145]

I'd be astonished if we saw the NGX this year for FSX, or even before June 2009, given how long the 747-400 took to develop for FS9.

[MPH568 0]

>Yes but some of us, myself included, have wanted an MD-11>since we got into complex flight simulation, and I can say I'm>dying for the MD-11 to be released, it's my favorite plane,>dated or not. The 737NG is also a favorite of mine, but we've>been waiting for the MD-11 for ages now.>hear hear

[TheDanger 182]

>I'd be astonished if we saw the NGX this year for FSX, or>even before June 2009, given how long the 747-400 took to>develop for FS9.Which makes you wonder why they bothered to announce an Airbus over 2yrs ago knowing it would be around 10yrs before it was releasedGraham

[GerarDream 0]

Thanks. I hope they can give us the 737 NG as fast as as possible.Gerry

[thepilot 562]

Sure, but when can we expect that?2010?

[ahuimanu 50]

When the add-on development cycle exceeds that of the base platform development cycle, it is surely a sign that something is amiss. Perhaps it is too hard to bring this fidelity to the base platform due to a need to shoehorn and kluge the good stuff into a base platform not really intended to confer the level of fidelity we have come to expect from PMDG. Furthermore, I don't think a single MSFS add-on development house can afford to make this their full-time gig. Imagine having to slug it out with MSFS and the "fanatics" after giving your body and soul to a full-time gig.I'd love to get the PMDG stuff in a timely manner, but the development cycles seem to have overwhelmed most shops. Given that they all (wisely) remain mostly mum, we are all left to speculate and ruminate. Think about it, all of the major dev houses are in this predicament. Furthermore, just from casual hobbyist experience, debugging any of these add-ons is a NIGHTMARE. PMDG got their start with add-on manuals and developing for Fly! I wonder if it is easer to produce add-ons for XPlane? Of course MSFS owns the market, but developing complex add-ons has clearly become a mess. The major development houses publicly stated their displeasure at the yo-yo ride of two SPs in 2007 - each of which broke things either for a previou SP or previous version.So, you combine immaturity in the tools (or at least inconsistency) and "gotchas" where the SDK tools just don't deviler and you have LOOOOOOOONG waits for the "good stuff."MSFS is so big that each of the major subsystems don't get updated commensurately with others. We have somewhat archaic access to things like flight models and yet very advanced techniques with texturing. When you couple these with a commitment to quality and a vast variety of operating environments ( FS2004 and FSX (RTM, SP1, SP) and/or XP (SP1, SP2, SP3) and Vista (RTM, SP1) ) and the depth of the nightmare comes into focus.I am as impatient as any of you and I am starting to lose interest in FSX for doing complex airline flying. FSX is a boon for those who like it low and slow, but the heavy iron guys are left out. I can count on 1 hand the number of airliner aircraft that are really workable (frame rates, features, etc.) in FSX. This is 18 months after RTM, 1 year after SP1 and 6-9 months after Accel/SP2.I'd love to see the NG, but we've waited 6+ months for a SP for the 747x and it is based on the FS9 model/code base. The MD11 remains enigmatic and any other products are not worth discussing as they are "intention-ware" at the moment.Funny thing is, when I recently re-installed FS9, I couldn't take the reduction in visuals - so saying "visuals don't matter as much" is inaccurate. Once you get a taste, you don't want to settle for less flavor.Oh well, for now, other than a certain McDonnel-Douglas addon, the small-to-mid-range add-on market remains soft.Jeff

[VH_JLC 1]

// "stands an applauds to Jeff"Josh