High Resolution MD-11 Preview

[magicaviation 105]

>Mr Alberto Curiese, the Panel looks identical to me.>>Regards,>MoDez>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/192661.jpg>Can you send me please a screen not edited?Look a blur brush, and a twinkle filter :( with Photoshopthanks

[mcbellette 145]

If you think Captain Sim is of higher quality than PMDG, then you really do have bad taste. Really bad taste! PMDG and Level-D are the two best groups making FS aircraft addons out there and I reckon that PMDG is slightly better than Level-D but not by much. Captain Sim doesn't come close to either of those groups - waaaaaaayyyyy down near the bottom of the list.Having said that - any chance of getting a look at shots that I requested in my previous post please? Perhaps different perspectives of the VC and some shots of the virtual passenger cabin (if modelled) would be great as I don't recall seeing any of those in particular yet.

[Guest ASchenk50]

Dont feed the trolls ;-) BTW: It is a bad style to compare shots from different perspectives. Furthermore, the last reference pic was edited...Of course, PMDG was never famous for its used and photoreal panel design - but for its system depth, perfiormance and overall quality. And that counts (at least in my opinion). Best regards,Jens

[cavaricooper 2,613]

I was able to upload the screen shots to Picasa- hope the quality is better now!http://picasaweb.google.com/cavaricooperBest-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png| XP Pro SP3 with FS-GS System Unification | 2 x APC UPS | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Asus P5E-Deluxe (X48) | e8500 @ 4gHz | Tuniq Tower 120 | EVGA 8800GT 512MB | Sony 40" Bravia XBR | 2 x 1 GB Corsair XMS2 | 500GB Seagate Barracuda 32MB SATA2 x2 (Acronis) | Corsair HX620W PS | CH Products Yoke-Pedals-Throttle Quadrant | Aerosoft 747MCP-EFIS-EICAS |

[Mac_Paint 35]

Alberto,Just posting a picture with the copyright info is not the only thing you must do. The following is an excerpt taken from the Airliners copyright notice;"The digital photos on this site are licensed to Airliners.net. They are equipped with a footer with copyright and license information and also carry an invisible watermark. If you receive permission from the photographer to use a particular photo, you may use a copy from Airliners.net as long as you inform us of the usage as to avoid misunderstandings (we do not appreciate and react strongly when finding our photos on other sites that use them without permission). We do however advise that you get a new copy of the photo directly from the photographer that does not carry our license and watermark"Since you did not include any info from the photographer or Airliners.net granting permission to use the photo, it was removed.

[Guest Callmecapt]

I won't feed the trolls but I will say this.If you don't like it, don't buy it!I'm sure PMDG will go on with 1 less customer.Goran

[magicaviation 105]

>I won't feed the trolls but I will say this.>If you don't like it, don't buy it!>I'm sure PMDG will go on with 1 less customer.>Goran>Troll? sorry, your comment is typically of a child...only expressed my opinion of this. And you don

[Jones 0]

>me motives for reply...Hi, I am only saying this to be funny, which I know it won't be, but that seemed to me like your a pirate or something?I did read the whole thing, it's just that part was kinda funny to me like a typing erre which I do a lot my self.Thank YouCapt. Eric Wade Joneswww.usairwaysva.orghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/1900driver.jpg

[Guest AV]

>I wish on the future PMDG products get better and more>realistI'm not going to comment on the visual artwork as that is far too subjective and varies among a person's individual tastes.Some people want clean-looking, functional panels (what PMDG has elected to go with for the MD-11). Some people want battered looking photorealistic panels. Having used a variety of payware products over the years, for me the visual model is purely secondary. Ultimately you are flying the plane and FS doesn't care what your visual model looks like. What it cares about are a good flight model and good gauges for the user to do what he wants the aircraft to do with the information he is presented with. What do you think took so long to make? The panel artwork? It's looked like that for years and that's how I want it to look. Anyone who knows and appreciates Bill Grabowski's artwork style knows what I am talking about. The visual model? Having created a few aircraft visual models myself, I can tell you that it's not that big of a deal. Most people end up looking at the aircraft once in awhile in cruising or they like to take lots of screenshots for the AVSIM screenshot forum. Still, a visual model with a poor flight model is long the bane of FS users and has caused much gnashing of teeth. What took so long was the vast amount of code to make the MD-11's systems behave as they should, to make the aircraft fly as it should. You have to take a few thousand pages worth of documentation and translate it into code FS will understand. How many man hours did it take Honeywell to program the MD-11's FMS? PMDG has pretty much had to replicate the entire thing. When it comes to realism on that level, you will not even approach more realism than the PMDG MD-11 without the aid of a multi-million dollar 3-axis simulator.So you're going to have to excuse me when I do not sympathize with folks who have some problems with how the artwork looks. I understand folks are going to be paying good money for this, but looks get old after awhile. In the end it's the system's overall functionality and the fastidious amount of real-world detail that users can accomodate with the PMDG MD-11 that will get them to fire up FS one more time to fly it.

[Mac_Paint 35]

As one of the Graphic Designers I like to think it's my liveries that sell all of our planes. That's what drives our customers to purchase our offerings, but really, visuals are just the icing on the cake. Without the work of Rob, Dr. Vangelis, Lefteris, Bill(Bob), Marc, Vin and Michael you guys wouldn't care what the planes look liked.I agree. It's the Meat and Potatoes, chaps, not the Bread Pudding that fills the belly ;-)

[Mac_Paint 35]

I knew I'd forget someone vital on the team. Armen, our genius sound engineer, sorry mate ;-) And of course the beta team, who are sweating the fine details.

[magicaviation 105]

Only speak about your progress reviews and articles here. Initially isn

[mcbellette 145]

I didn't understand a thing you just said...

[Krister 51]

Ferd, Ferd Berful? Is that you? Long time no see! Have you Ponderosa patched up by now?! But seriously Ferd, how can you say that the depth of the systems in the PMDG MD11 isn't as good as in other add-ons if you aren't a beta tester or on the dev team?We've only seen screenshots of the different subsystems and judging by that PMDG has everything covered. You have every right to like or not like the visual quality since they can be seen from the screenshots, but you really have no idea of the intricacies of this bird. Makes it hard to take you seriously really.

[craig_read 43]

Albeto Curieses (AKA Cury),Opinions are fine, but I am not totally sure what you're basing your assessment on the aircraft functionality on? As far as I am aware you're not on the beta team and as a result you won't have access to the aircraft to fly it at all.. Consequently I don't really understand how you can critique the systems, flight dynamics or functionality representation that the PMDG MD-11 offers.Having flow a number of aircraft from different vendors, including perhaps the most comprehensive (PS1.3a) in my opinion, I can tell you from experience that the PMDG name is most definitely well earned. Being a part of the Beta team myself, I can tell you without any doubt, that the MD-11 is a fantastic piece of work that anyone would be proud to be a part of.When asked to work on the Beta team I purchased the ITVV MD-11 DVD, which has 2 flights which went in detail through various systems, functionality aspects, flows and displays on the MD-11. The DVD also included failures within a full motion simulation and of course ITVV are extremely good at making sure the viewer gets a good view of all the flightdeck. From my experience of the MD-11 on the DVD, the setup, details on the displays, I can assure you without any doubt that the representation produced by PMDG is extremely accurate, and is easily up to the standard I have come to expect from them. These panels have a lot that sits behind them in order to make them work correctly and as close to the real things as possible. The VC has a truly 'used' feel to it, the systems respond as I would expect them to, the sound is fantastic, the choice and detail within the livery set is exceptional.As for the screenshot previously, it's not an edit, I can guarantee you with FSX running on a decent machine you can easily get visuals like that, and not just visuals, but functional visuals too. You can move around the flight deck and invoke switches, manipulate display brightness, and so much more..In terms of functionality I am not sure what you feel it is missing, without flying it yourself and seeing the detail how can you make a sensible judgement? But I am sure if you have a constructive comment that they could use to improve future aircraft they would be, and always have been very keen to hear it as they push to produce the best they can every time. A weather radar cannot be simulated within FSX or FS9 using the data it requires properly. Weather radars in other products for FSX are not true representations of weather radars, they are based on data which is manipulated and not intended for that purpose, consequently they do not produce accurate results and are not representative in any way, but are simply nice to look at. PMDG have always pushed forward the evelope when it comes to functionality, if a weather radar could be produced that worked and was representative and realistic it would have been done. What we have here is a simulation that's going to cost you quite a bit less than a full motion simulation at about