Will there be a "next" project from the PIC team?

[BobP 56]

Hi!I was just wondering if there has been any discussion of a future product? The PIC team has consistently raised the bar deliverying features that others said were not possible in MSFS. Hoping to see the bar raised again.....Thanks...BobP :)

[Mike S KPDX 597]

I for one wish there would be. I would especially enjoy the SAAB 340 redone like they did the 767. Nobody to date has done a complete commuter turbo prop, at least not to the depth that we see with this groups work.

[Staffan 12]

Hi,Just after the PIC FS2k2 patch was released, there was some hints from the PIC team that they should shange the team name due to future projects. So I am quite sure that they are working on a "next project". And.....something tells me that it might be the MD-80....but who knows......?? :-cool Fly safe,Staffan Ahlberg - FFG:-spacecraft

[Guest bisinchi]

I read in a French sim magazine about a PIC 320, which would be a simulation of the Airbus A320, but it seems to be developed by a different group!!!If there is a new project from the PIC team, I agree, the SAAB 340 would be quite nice as well as the ATR 42/72. I would prefer the ATR though!!! A turboprop would be superb to have!!But it's the teams decision and whatever project they want to release, I'm buying!!!!Francois

[Guest KenG]

Whatever they choose to make, I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. The development time for PIC was ~2 years. The reason, they're all a bunch of perfectionists...and it shows. How could a plane that was released well over a year ago for a previous version of MSFS still be considered the standard for airliners? Answer: if you pay as much attention to details as the PIC team does, you get a product like no other. And the result from all this attention to detail is longer lag times between product releases. Their abilities make just about anything possible though. During the beta for the FS2002 patch, it was great to see them tackle each and every bug we sent them.However, I would suspect the guys will be able to cannibalize some of the gauges and code off PIC and shorten the development time. It still will take them a relatively long time. How long it will be until we see it depends on when they started the project. Another thing contributing to longer development times is the fact that they have real world jobs and just do this on the side.I'm sure whatever they make will be great. I'm also sure that they'll see really good sales from it.

[Guest]

I wish they would do the MD80. Eric's original MD80 was one of the best of its time and Paul Golding did some nice enhancements for FS2000, but no one has taken it to the limits now possible. Only the Lago Mad Dog had a functioning TRC but the rest of the panel was not as good as Eric's.There was a great turboprop for FS2000, the Fokker 50 by Espen Ojordsbakken, who I wish would upgrade it for FS2002 because it was a true gem.Rob Gordon

[Guest]

>I read in a French sim magazine about a PIC 320, which would >be a simulation of the Airbus A320, but it seems to be >developed by a different group!!! >>If there is a new project from the PIC team, I agree, the >SAAB 340 would be quite nice as well as the ATR 42/72. I >would prefer the ATR though!!! A turboprop would be superb >to have!! >>But it's the teams decision and whatever project they want >to release, I'm buying!!!! >>Francois If you are interested in the ATR, have a look at www.aerosoft.comThere

[Guest]

i think it would be nice if they did an Airbus 330 or 340 (or a320) ???? any one of them.I know dreamfleet is working on one and i'm sure it will be quite good, however the PIC 767 is the best simulator around just in terms of the way it behaves, flight characteristcs, AFDS panel, and especially loc/gs capture. I've never flown the real thing but i used to fly the 747-400 and it is quite similar in the basic logic.With that said that is why i wish there was an airbus simulator that was equivalent in standards to PIC's 767 sim. I have the PSS sim and it is ...okay....(i mean i could never create something like that myself, and i can't even imagine the work that goes into it) but i'm getting tired of stalling on 5 miles final and falling out of the sky for no reason when the speed gets a little low (happens now and then) and goes from 140kts to 20 kts in about 4 secs. I fly the airbus for work all the time so i think i know what i'm doing, well at least i thought i did. anyway, it would be nice to see PIC do an airbus because i know they could do a great job.

[marcom 139]

While I would LOVE to see a PIC airbus, the problem with it is that to do a simulation that realistic would take much longer than a 767 or 757.I am familiar with both the 767's and A320's systems and the 767 is just much simpler! Only a very few computerized systems and most of the things have to be done manually. The airbus is much more automatic in that regard, especially the autopilot and control system. Just to program the FBW with all the ELAC, SEC and FAC computers and their handlings, would require an extremely deep knowledge of the systems that probably not even the pilots know! You'd need an airbus expert like Ian is for the B744!You'd need the wiring schematics to see what system has priority over what so that it can be duplicated, and which flight mode is active in what situation (normal, alternate & direct law). If you just try to program it without a lot of commitment, you get the PSS simulation (sorry to say this, but this is my impression)As you said, the PIC team would definetely be able to pull it off, even if other developers say it is impossible to recreate the FBW system within FS2002, they would still succeed. Heck, if you can switch of the linkage between the flight controls and the yoke, like when you switch off the hydraulics in the 767, then you can intercept the signal and basically compute an elevator/aileron input matching the input level which is then passed on to the actual flight model. All PSS did was to check how far you move the yoke and the panel then simply trims the plane to that attitude, which isn't very precise to say the least.The 767, just like most Boeings, is pretty straightforward and the most difficult system on it is the FMS. Thats basically how far full computerized systems go on the 767. (I'm not saying there aren't any further computers, but no really complex ones)At least thats my impression after having gone through the 767 CBT program.Regards,Mark

[michal 44]

If you fly Airbuses for living you could perhaps comment on how well FBW is implemented in the PSS product. According to some article there are many obvious bugs (which they documented one-by-one) in this implementation - PSS' A320 does not behave like the real thing, loosing altitude, etc.On the subject of Airbuses I have mixed feelings. I am not sure I care for having a good simulation of one. The reason being the airplanes I fly in real life or I will ever hope to fly will never come close to fly-by-wire technology developed by Airbus. So at least when I fly PIC767 I feel I am enhancing my flying skills by flying aircraft that exhibit "normal" flight behaviour, where I have to worry about loosing altitude during turns, etc.Michael J.

[marcom 139]

Hi Michael,In my view, the way we all are flying, represents more an airbus than a Boeing. Look at your yoke, even if it is a fancy column or "just" a joystick, does it model feedback? (I'm not talking MS Forcefeedback, as that is just completely unrealistic) Does it ever get jammed? Does it move differently in different situations?NopeThe only thing that right now differentiates an Airbus from a Boeing is the manual trimming required, but I would not say that trimming the 767 would ehnance your real flying skills, as real trim inputs are different than the trim inputs you make while flying the 767. I doubt you can learn a lot from flying these planes manually, although it IS fun and you can learn a lot from the avionics and systems.The whole flight control system implementation of PSS A320 is incorrect.The real airbus won't trim the stabiliser to meet the current elevator deflection, as is modelled on the A320. Instead, the Sidestick is connected to the flight computer which then computes how much deflection is needed. The electric wires from the sidestick do not go directly to the control surfaces - they are intercepted by 5 flight computers.

[gosta 0]

Hi Rob,the Fokker panel does work in FS2002 now. Some weeks ago, a new FS2002 Fokker 50 came out (really nice model, look on flightsim.com), and Espen Ojordsbakken's panel was the one they suggested to use. The only 'problem' is, that the passenger signs don't work - but I'm sure you can live with that...Cheers,Gosta.

[Guest]

I am thinking(hoping) it will be a 737NG, There is not a quality one out there.

[Guest]

Hi Marcom,"In my view, the way we all are flying, represents more an airbus than a Boeing. Look at your yoke, even if it is a fancy column or "just" a joystick, does it model feedback? Does it ever get jammed? Does it move differently in different situations?"Well Marcom if you haven't noticed the FS aircraft (767) PIC included do model feedback. How? Through that little button called trim. If I want 767 PIC to fly leveled I pull back on the yoke to change pitch, ,then I trim the aircraft at the new pitch attitude while scanning the performancec instruments for IVSI=0. If IVSI is not zero the I re-trim and continue. If the airplane is climbing then I am pushing on the yoke but since the yoke is spring loaded it seems that the airplane is pushing on me (there is your feedback). An airbus is totally different. You push on the stick and the G and rate system changes the flight path. That's it. No FS aircraft flies like this. "The only thing that right now differentiates an Airbus from a Boeing is the manual trimming required, but I would not say that trimming the 767 would ehnance your real flying skills, as real trim inputs are different than the trim inputs you make while flying the 767. I doubt you can learn a lot from flying these planes manually"Marcom, you are obviously are not a pilot but believe me that 767 PIC flies like any real aircraftt that I have flown: 172,177,MU2, Navajo, Seneca, King Air, Metroliner,737. You may not realize but flying the 767 PIC is a real flying experience (of course turn off the damn AP and AT...) but enjoy it and use it to enhance your skills. You couldn't be anymore wrong, I am sorry to say...Pedro

[Guest]

Guys,If the article about PSS Airbus is the one I think you mean, it's pretty slating and if true, would suggest that PSS didn't get it right at all.Anyone who's not seen it, take a look at www.apollosoftware.com I would be very interested in this product, especially if they DO manage to get it released this month. I'm also curious to know how much it's going to cost...Best regards//Neil