B777 and BAe 146 would be good decisions.

"SWDT"Sign your real name. It helps us know that you are in fact real. thanks.Peter Osborn

Sorry about that, just added it to my sig.Thanks.

The 777, for some reason no one wants to tackle her for FSX. Seems like a lot of simmers want one, are willing to pay good money for one, yet no one wants to make it. Kinda weird. A 747 and a 777 are nothing alike in any way, unless you are .09 or something. Not trying to get in the middle, just scratching the right one while wondering aloud.I like idea of the regionals, and the J41 and the Dash are great planes. PMDG always seems to gives us want we want or something that they know we will like. But quit mucking about and give us a 777, we all know you are going to do it. As far a Airbus goes, not a fan of the their systems in general, but a promise is a promise.

From a business standpoint, a PMDG 777 would be a sound decision. In terms of sales, it would make a killing. Every major airline around the globe operates the triple, so PMDG could expect high volume sales globally due to familiarity and poplularity of the airplane. Of equal importance, there is no competition in the market. (The PSS 777 is terrible, so it doesn't count.) Ryan Maziarz has stated that the 777 cockpit systems are similar to the 747-400, so they could save money on product development but still charge $60-70 USD.

Boeing 777-300ER or Boeing 777-200LR.............my heart is pounding~ :(

My Father is moving to the 777 with Qatar airways for the last five years of his career as he has to retire at 65 and they have a better package then his currrent airline, so no more flying the queen :( However I fear he will be long retired before we get our hands on a top quality 777. To say the 777 and 747 is alike is laughable, I have been studying his training documents and videos and the philosophy is the same but there is still a lot to learnRob

And back to topic: My biggest wish right now would be that PMDG decides to release the 737NG for FS9 as well. That would be amazing news for me.

Prepare to be amazed :http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1612611Gary

Prepare to be amazed :http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1612611Gary

Ahh, the fixation on FS9 - sorta like static cling when you take pants out of the dryer.I suppose the FS9 afficionados also have an Edsel in the garage?Think of it is this way, Airsimmer is giving FS9 first and PMDG is giving FSX first, so we're even I suppose.

Boeing this, Boeing that, bottom line, are PMDG making an Airbus or not, that is the whole point of my thread. Some dont like Airbus some dont like Boeing, i personally like both, all aircraft. :( .Some think its not worthwhile for PMDG to do a bus but what i would like to know is what do PMDG have to say about this???????Chris

.Some think its not worthwhile for PMDG to do a bus but what i would like to know is what do PMDG have to say about this???????

I think...if you haven't gotten an answer by now (xx posts into this thread) it is not too likely you will get your answer from them at the present time.I mean, to me it is kind of like me knowing what car I am going to be driving in 10 years. How would I be able to know this? It kind of depends upon outside events. Same with the Airbus, whether or not PMDG does one, kind of depends on outside events in the FS world. At least that's my take on why you may not get any definitive answer...

Ahh, the fixation on FS9 - sorta like static cling when you take pants out of the dryer.I suppose the FS9 afficionados also have an Edsel in the garage?Think of it is this way, Airsimmer is giving FS9 first and PMDG is giving FSX first, so we're even I suppose.

Well, let's see. I can run FS9 on my system at full blast. All sliders pegged, Active Sky, full AI traffic, UT, PMDG aircraft, FlyTampa airports, all locked at 24fps.OR.....I can fork over $2,000 USD for new hardware to run FSX at 24 FPS. Easy call if I have that kind of $$ to spend. But I don't, so I guess I'll have to wear my static-cling pants!Off topic. Sorry for the digression. Somehow I felt a compulsion to reply! :( Asus P5N-E SLI, E6850 @ 3.6ghz, 4GB ddr2-800, 8800GT 512MB, XP Home 32 bit

Well, let's see. I can run FS9 on my system at full blast. All sliders pegged, Active Sky, full AI traffic, UT, PMDG aircraft, FlyTampa airports, all locked at 24fps.OR.....I can fork over $2,000 USD for new hardware to run FSX at 24 FPS. Easy call if I have that kind of $$ to spend. But I don't, so I guess I'll have to wear my static-cling pants!

Are you trolling? Or do you live outside the US? I know computer hardware is much more expensive overseas.Nowhere near $2K is needed. I run FSX, sliders all the way (NOT including AI Traffic, and who cares anyway since I only fly on VATSIM), and get 30-40 FPS steady at 1680 x 1050, with anti aliasing. My hardware is not much different than yours. The main differences being an E8400 overclocked to 3.8 GHz, a 1GB GTX 260 video card, and Win 7 64 Bit. And that's barely $300 worth of upgrades.Even if we were starting from scratch, not even $600-700 would be needed for the hardware necessary to run FSX spectacularly.Anyway, I'd rather PMDG take their know-how of the MD-11's systems to make a MD-95/717 before they make an Airbus.

Well, let's see. I can run FS9 on my system at full blast. All sliders pegged, Active Sky, full AI traffic, UT, PMDG aircraft, FlyTampa airports, all locked at 24fps.OR.....I can fork over $2,000 USD for new hardware to run FSX at 24 FPS. Easy call if I have that kind of $$ to spend. But I don't, so I guess I'll have to wear my static-cling pants!Off topic. Sorry for the digression. Somehow I felt a compulsion to reply! :( Asus P5N-E SLI, E6850 @ 3.6ghz, 4GB ddr2-800, 8800GT 512MB, XP Home 32 bit

I have allmost the same set up. except I have the e8500 @3.6 and Im locked at 28fps with sliders at about 85% runs fsx awsomee8500 cpu is around 260-280$cdn (ncix)

I believe that if you are thinking to do an Airbus like you did the MD11, you will probably become as rich as Gates... However, the best thing to do our days it's a complete panel, 3D too. I have got some products of other producers, like Wilco (airbus 1st series) or Flight One (the MD80, the old one), and then this fantastic MD11 (i'm mad for him !!). There are no words to say how is ridiculus the Wilco's Airbus. It was a fantastic idea in the MD11 to let the pax or cargo cabin just sufficiently empty, so computers not so much new have no difficults to mantain 20FPS always. If someone fly a PMDG products, it's not just a "player" (flying is not a game, even in FS, I think), so who fly PMDG fly IN the cockpit, and not out. I think cabin is not essential. Best things will probably have amazing wing views I think, sometimes seeing replays it's nice to have some of them ;)Just, alll above is just a my opinion... :(

Are you trolling? Or do you live outside the US? I know computer hardware is much more expensive overseas.Nowhere near $2K is needed. I run FSX, sliders all the way (NOT including AI Traffic, and who cares anyway since I only fly on VATSIM), and get 30-40 FPS steady at 1680 x 1050, with anti aliasing. My hardware is not much different than yours. The main differences being an E8400 overclocked to 3.8 GHz, a 1GB GTX 260 video card, and Win 7 64 Bit. And that's barely $300 worth of upgrades.Even if we were starting from scratch, not even $600-700 would be needed for the hardware necessary to run FSX spectacularly.Anyway, I'd rather PMDG take their know-how of the MD-11's systems to make a MD-95/717 before they make an Airbus.

I have no idea what "trolling" means.I live in the US, and a bad-&@($* new system with a high-end Core i7, GTX 285, 6 GB DDR3, and everything you need to start from the ground up is going to run damn near $2000. Don't forget, I will have to buy new addons for FSX too!!! The PMDG stuff ain't cheap and neither is the massive collection of add-on scenery I have.Also, your claim that you get 30-40 fps is meaningless if you don't tell me what software you run. Remember, I run PMDG aircraft, Active Sky, UT, etc. And I forgot to mention that I run FSGlobal mesh. Now, if you guys are saying that I can run FSX with what I have (i.e my hardware and ALL the FSX addons) at the same frame rate, then that's a different story. But it's not comparable if you guys don't run all the addons.Off topic again, but what the hell. It's a forum for learning!

I suppose the FS9 afficionados also have an Edsel in the garage?

Lol...true. I still run FS9, and I've got a '78 Lincoln Mark V parked up front. Sure she is a beauty. :( cheers,delcom