Sign in to follow this  
michal

What happened to the long haul?

Recommended Posts

What happened to the quality long haul add-ons for MFS? Their are NO large jets for FS2002 that feature the same realism as Dreamfleets 737, PMDG's 737/J41, or Captain Sims 727. Do you all think that their will be say a 777, 747 or MD-11 or other longhaul jet being developed in the future with the same realism as these other short haul add-ons.Not a complaint mind you, I am really looking forward to the 737NG by PMDG.cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The PIC 767 is considered by many as the best airliner add-on available (I don't have it, so I don't know. PSS also sells a good B747 and B777. I understand that the panels from these three can also be combined with POSKY models. Of these three, I have the B747 and I think it is well done. None of these are brand new, but they still work great and can hold their own.http://www.jktaylor.com/flightsim/jkvato1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I had PSS 747 and it was good for its time but it is not really the same as some of newer add-ons. I was really meaning somthing designed specifically for Fs2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the 3 mentioned have the market just about cornered, there is not enough demand to create something brand new.It just wouldn't sell enough to warrant the investment needed.Dreamfleet did research making an A340, but that one was cancelled because it was not deemed economically feasible. I doubt the situation will be different for other companies.Maybe with FS2004 we will see new longhaul addons, IF the current ones can no longer be upgraded (else we may see upgrades for sale, as well as upgraded versions of the originals).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me answer your thoughts about PIC 767. I first had the PSS 747-400 and the 777-200. Then I got the PIC 767. I heard all the pizaz about PIC and was really exciting, thinking it may actually be better than anything PSS put out, however, nope, it wasn't. It is just not the same quality. There are good and great things about it and I wouldn't not have the PIC. If I fly a 767 it will be the POSKY with the PIC panel. But, you can't really compare it to the PSS 747 or 777 and definatly not to the A320 from PSS. The PSS planes, all of them, are just more detailed.-----------Wilson HinesHEAVY LHC EditorAOL IM: dal276whBush Flying Unlimited: SIXUVI014 "Heavy"http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS2k4 is going to show a whole new ballgame for developers. I, of course, don't have any inside info, but just think about it for a second: 1. PSS 747 & 777, PIC 767 all originally were made for FS2000 and patched to FS2k2. 2. Scenery: there was SOOOOO much scenery made for FS2000 and patched up for 2k2.With those thoughts in mind, and from what a PSS insider has said, the community is ripe for some "fresh" inovation as soon as 2k4 comes out.-----------Wilson HinesHEAVY LHC EditorAOL IM: dal276whBush Flying Unlimited: SIXUVI014 "Heavy"http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too wana see a 747-400 as good as 767 PICMaybe 747 Pilot in Command *hint* *hint* to Wilco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIX,You've got to be kidding, right? 767PIC is MANY times better than the PSS panels. This isn't PSS bashing, but 767PIC is in a completely different class of its own. Its become a classic in its own right and a benchmark for other developers. PSS products tend to be for the casual simmer who wants to learn about the workings of an airliner but aren't necessarily serious or hardcore about it whereas 767PIC is for serious simmers who want absolute realism. I fly the PSS A320 myself and find it to be a decent simulation of the real A320 but you are dead wrong when you say that 767PIC doesn't measure up to PSS because thats just non-sense. PSS tends to develop products to satisfy market demand whereas 767PIC was in development for over a year and a half by a team of very dedicated people including a real-life 767 pilot. 767 PIC has systems modelling, failure simulation in addition to a top notch panel, all of which are non-existant in the PSS panels. If you think you're getting the real deal with PSS planes, think again. Their A320 is all right (after many months of tweaking) but their 747/777 is child's play compared to 767PIC. The 747/777 was good in its day but times have changed. Again this is not PSS bashing, but an objective and realistic opinion of different products with different target audiences and credit should be given where credit is due.Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Thomas about the PIC 767 being the definitive add-on for FS2K2. But I think the earlier poster was saying how much better the visual models of PSS were than Wilco's and I've got to agree. Granted I don't use anything but the PSS Airbus model and visuals, but the PSS 747/777 had to go and they were replaced by POSKY, and the same with PICs.Lobaeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You've got to be kidding, right? Thomas,I think SIX must be kidding or he wants to inject some humor. So far nothing has been designed with greater fidelity for the FS platform than the PIC. Case closed. Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIX,What???I have PSS744 and it's pretty good. But 767PIC is the state-of-the-art in its category. Everyone now uses the PIC with the POSKY external model, but the panel and flt dynamics are what makes the simulator great. If you spend most of your time looking at the airplanes from outside, then you may have a point: PSS744 looks better than the default PIC external model.Perhaps you were put off by the complexity of the panel, which is quite understandable. 767PIC is not for everyone.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a good FS2K2 tri-engine (DC-10, MD-11, L-1011 class) panel that you'd recommend. Ahlberg's panel is a bit dated.J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents...I have been waiting for someone to bring up this topic because I didn't want to sound like the bad guy, but I definitely think that if someone else came out with a PANEL, not a model, but a panel for the 747-400 that resembled the functionality of the PIC 767, it would sell like no tomorrow. I love the PSS 744 and it is what I fly primarily but I always crave more realism. I am on the verge of dropping FS2K2 all toghether and changing to Aerowinx 744 simulator and calling my sim. I am a 744 junkie and I want it to be as complex is can get!!!!! I am sure someone will crop up out of the blue that is hardcore for the 744 and make a new panel that will be absolutley awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but with the time it takes to make up a panel, I think we'll see FS2004 released before a panel the likes of PIC emerges. Not to say anything bad about PSS, I love their products (and the fact that you can download them, that's huge in my book)and will get the Dash 8 as soon as it comes out, but your right in saying it's just not as involved as PIC. I don't have DF737, my needs are met by the A320 in that category, but with Wilco's Airport 2002 including a 737 that should satisfy that (but I'm sure it won't be a very detailed plane). So, other than the PIC 767, and actually, Oleksiy's Dash 8 panel, which once I get all the bugs worked out of it, it's going to be awesome, PSS will have a hard act to follow that one, there doesn't seem to be any other panels out there that model systems as in-depth as the PIC 767. Lobaeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ahve to agree with you 100%, Thomas. PSS doesn't quite measure up to PIC's standard. And I HATE not being able to enter airways, and having to manually add all of the waypoints, speed and altitudes in the FMC. I don't see why PSS couldn't remedy that shortcoming..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one must keep in mind that there are numerous limitations that prevent panels such as these from achieving the maximum level of realism attained by such panels as PS1. Panel authors are limited by the performance and technical constraints of the simulator in addition to the programmatic interfaces FS provides. FSUIPC cracks alot of that open. Certainly, PIC and the PSS A320 achieve an astounding level of realism never thought possible in a civilian flight sim.But alas, until MS opens their architecture up fully (in much the way that TRI did in Fly! II - pity that flight sim went toes up to the daises :(, there will always be limitations as to what can be achieved from building on top of a simulator. Anyone looking for PS1-level realism will be waiting a very long time I'm afraid ;-)We're getting closer though.J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But alas, until MS opens their architecture up fully (in >much the way that TRI did in Fly! II - pity that flight sim >went toes up to the daises :(, there will always be >limitations as to what can be achieved from building on top >of a simulator. J,I do not know if you follow the news but if you read (and see some pics) what Flight1/Reality-XP announced regarding their combined effort on the upcoming Meridian project then you will realize that some are really deciphering the FS secret 'codes' and are about to blow wide open seals of the common myths of FS 'limitations'. To the degree not even possible in FLY ...Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I mean :-rotorThere is no point in creating new heavies for FS2002 now as the market is saturated with the Big 3.As those will most likely not be upgraded for FS2004 (a complete rebuild would almost certainly be needed and that's not commercially viable) there will be a clean sheet for companies to make new ones for FS2004.PSS will indeed likely be in the forefront of that. They have a reputation to loose after all for creating the best heavies out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were a really great product they'd have included a visual model good enough that there is no need to replace it with something else.Everyone says "PIC is great IF you replace the visual with POSKY".Guess what, to me that sounds like an incomplete product.Had they marketted it as a panel only, things might be different. But the package as a whole is lacking because the visuals are poorly done.You can say the panel is more important, and I'd have to agree to a degree, but if people have to replace the visuals with others to gain performance on highend machines in order to make it run (and in the process to have something decent to look at) that's not what I call a well-ballanced product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this