We NEED an Airbus

[JC75 22]

Hi allI've watched many of the posts about what aircraft we need or want next, and have often agreed that a 777 wasnt really the next must have, like Ryan said it is very similar in many ways to the 747. However I've been playing around with Air Hauler the last couple of weeks, and its been a joy to be flying around in small stuff etc, I've been installing various add-ons for me to use with it as a Cargo Flyer. So I was looking at the 747F that i've never used since I've owned the PMDG 747. I dont fly the 747 anymore as I use quite a lot of Hardware add-ons so mainly use the gorgeous LevelD 767 which intergrates brilliantly with my Opencockpits MCP/EFIS/FMC and other controls. I find however gorgeous all the graphics maybe on many add-ons coming out(CS etc), that flying using a mouse is just unrealistic especially using Virtual Cockpits which I use all the time, across 3 22 inch monitors with Track IR. However I loaded the 747 up just to remind me of the fun I had in it, and was quite horrified to see just how outdated the VC cockpit now looks compared to that of other sims available, i thought the LevelD VC was aging(especially the overhead) cartoon style square big buttons etc, but the PMDG 747 really is outof date. and of course not very good at interfacing with hardware(even the few drivers that were around at ridiculous prices some of those cant be brought anymore) So as its unlikley that PMDG will do a new version of the 747 or even release an SDK to help it interface with hardware. A 777 seems now quite a good plan. We dont have one in the market, and it would give PMDG the chance to put in all they have learnt with the development of the JS41 VC, and the upcoming NGX into the 777 but with an SDK so that they can trully bring their excellent aircraft uptodate with where the simming community is going. After all, with no FS11 likley to be seen for at least 4-5 years if at all and quite some time before Aerosoft get something out thats likley to make people move over to it from FS. There is little development that can be made in FS, Hardware is really the only option left now for enhancement of the experience, and almost monthly now we are seeing new hardware products coming out with prices falling.So I dont feel the Airbus should be considered as an option for PMDG, Airsimmers looks good. If PMDG were knocking add-ons out every couple of months, then yeah might be worth considering, but with the present output rate and the already committed products I feel it be totally pointless, by the time they got round to it, Airsimmer would be onto the next version of it, with far more experience on it.Im looking forward to the JS41, as its different from the Big-Iron, and thats coming from someone who enjoys long haul in my LevelD767. Im really looking forward to the NGX as this really is the perfect aircraft for all. I'd quite like to see the Dash8-Q400, a biz jet of some sorts, then the 777. What would be great is if they considered also realeasing an SDK for the 747/MD11/JS41 also so that those of us who have moved on from frantic mouse clicking can re-enjoy their aircaft again. Because when the LevelD 757 and airsimmer A320 come out, it be unlikely that although I may own them, i wont be flying any PMDG aircraft that I cant use with my hardware. and be spending my time between the 767/757/A320 and my little stuff to use on Air Hauler.What would be good is if PMDG could drag in some more support, and get their great products out that little bit quicker, I understand that perfection may not come overnight, but more hands might make it come just that bit sooner. With the ACES nail in the coffin, its important that the 3rd party developers keep FS alive by making it an interesting an dynamic experience. Waiting years for it, isnt doing the community much good.RegardsJames

[737BBJ 0]

James, thank you for a thoughtful, well reasoned post. Your comment hit the nail on the head, although I personally feel that the 777 should be #1 on the list for reasons I've stated earlier in this thread. I hope that the folks at PMDG will take your comments to heart. There is no way everyone will ever be pleased, but I think this thread (and others in the PMDG forum) make it clear that we have a consensus in favor of a 777 from PMDG.Unfortunately, I have seen too many posts from Ryan that indicate the attitude at PMDG is, "we will make what we want and don't care what you think." Great for some, too bad for most.Again, great post, James.Fidel

[Guest mhedbi]

My guess is that by the time the FSX version of that airsimmer plane is released, PMDG could have made a whole fleet of airbii... :( A PMDG A310 would be great!

Or a PMDG A380!

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

...I think this thread (and others in the PMDG forum) make it clear that we have a consensus in favor of a 777 from PMDG.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I don't see how a few threads with the same posters commenting in each shows a "consensus"? Consensus means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". While the 777 is certainly a popular choice, it is by no means a consensus. Quite frequently - and this is not limited to internet forums or PMDG - a vocal minority assumes that it speaks for everyone, when in fact, it does not. Obviously, there are quite a few very vocal supporters of a PMDG 777, which is fine. But the absence of strong opposition doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority actually want a 777. It could very well be that the majority of people would prefer something other than a 777, but don't participate on this forum...how are we to know?Just sayin'.Nick

[aentwis 61]

James, thank you for a thoughtful, well reasoned post. Your comment hit the nail on the head, although I personally feel that the 777 should be #1 on the list for reasons I've stated earlier in this thread. I hope that the folks at PMDG will take your comments to heart. There is no way everyone will ever be pleased, but I think this thread (and others in the PMDG forum) make it clear that we have a consensus in favor of a 777 from PMDG.Unfortunately, I have seen too many posts from Ryan that indicate the attitude at PMDG is, "we will make what we want and don't care what you think." Great for some, too bad for most.Again, great post, James.Fidel

Fidel, with all due respect, the representatives of PMDG are going to decide what they do, it is their outfit, and they have to be able to get the necessary documents and data in order to create a simulation of whatever they end up doing to the best level of detail. Of course, the potential user base and current customer base may make suggestions or comments, but any consensus of a forum thread is unlikely to have much effect on the business...We as customers have proved again and again that we buy whatever the renowned developers release, regardless of the type in question. This is something that developers with the best reputations can do. I am all for the diversity in the simulation. We have seen some amazing releases in the past few months, fighter and trainer jets, warbirds, general aviation... commercial aviation is slowly appearing as well with time.The wider the diversity, the richer the environment. Before I started more seriously with FS, I didn't know of any where near as many types and marks of aircraft, although I was a regular at airshows as a child. Not only does one get to see a lot of variety in FS, you even get the chance to "sit up front" and take control...Roll on the Jetstream, the NGX, and whatever else the team has up its sleeves for us :(AndrewPS James, others have said it already, but I can only echo their comments, nice post!

[Guest 413X3]

James, are you mad? pmdg 747 cockpit aging? no way, you must not have a high end graphics card then and sliders maxed. in fsx it is a work of art

[737BBJ 0]

Fidel, with all due respect, the representatives of PMDG are going to decide what they do, it is their outfit, and they have to be able to get the necessary documents and data in order to create a simulation of whatever they end up doing to the best level of detail. Of course, the potential user base and current customer base may make suggestions or comments, but any consensus of a forum thread is unlikely to have much effect on the business...

Andrew, one of the points I have made is that Robert Randazzo was involved in the development of a 777 in the mid-90's (when the real one was first produced). I know that Randazzo has "necessary documents and data in order to create a [777] simulation" because he has done it. (I still have the technical documents he included with his 777 in my pile of FS-related papers.)I feel strongly that PMDG has every reason in the world to make a 777 from a business standpoint. However, there are other reasons unrelated to the business side that go into decision making at PMDG; most obviously their own tastes. That is something I can't argue with.

[Guest AV]

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.

Well, that's the problem, thinking you need an i7, GTX 285, and 6GB DDR3 to run FSX smoothly. You don't. CPU speed is the 800lb gorilla when it comes to FSX. And the easiest way to get that is with the $167 E8400 CPU with a decent heatsink and RAM. Cheap stuff that'll get you to 4GHz. That whole quad core stuff that floats in the air is useless to FSX.

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.

I currently run FSX at 1680 x 1050 with 8x AF, 4X AA, (when in the US) UTX, GEX, REX 2.0, and ASX, FSGenesis North American terrain, Scenerytech landclass with maxed out scenery sliders. I only fly on VATSIM, so AI is not a concern for me. On the PMDG MD-11 I'll get around 25-28 FPS most of the time in the VC view on the ground, dipping into the low 20's (I've gone down as low as 15 on KEWR 4L) in busy areas like the Metro NY area. LVL-D is about 4-5 frames better. Obviously in the air the FPS are better.

[MistyBlue 8]

I, too, have been craving a top-notch 777 ever since I got to fly an instrument sim of one at the United training facility in Denver. I agree, a good portion of the systems are very similar to those of the 747-400. Then again, most Boeing aircraft these days are purposely designed to be similar for a good reason. To save time learning new aircraft and make it easier to transition.But while each plane is comfortably similar, they all have their quite unique qualities. The 777 overall was a huge achievement in the aviation world, and to me is a different-enough aircraft and challenge from any other aircraft in the Boeing inventory that I still think she deserves due attention. Of course there are tons of other choices out there, but I'd much prefer to see PMDG do a 777 because I think 1) PMDG already know how Boeing systems work and have already replicated the 737/747 with incredible detail 2) the quality of the finished product will be way above anything else that has been made to date 3) the 777 has a long life ahead of it and is heavily used around the world so it should appeal to a wide audience and sell well, especially given PMDG's reputation.In any case, whatever they choose next, I'm sure I'll be happy with it. Till then, I'll keep my fingers crossed.Tony W.

[737BBJ 0]

Well, that's the problem, thinking you need an i7, GTX 285, and 6GB DDR3 to run FSX smoothly. You don't. CPU speed is the 800lb gorilla when it comes to FSX. And the easiest way to get that is with the $167 E8400 CPU with a decent heatsink and RAM. Cheap stuff that'll get you to 4GHz. That whole quad core stuff that floats in the air is useless to FSX.I currently run FSX at 1680 x 1050 with 8x AF, 4X AA, (when in the US) UTX, GEX, REX 2.0, and ASX, FSGenesis North American terrain, Scenerytech landclass with maxed out scenery sliders. I only fly on VATSIM, so AI is not a concern for me. On the PMDG MD-11 I'll get around 25-28 FPS most of the time in the VC view on the ground, dipping into the low 20's (I've gone down as low as 15 on KEWR 4L) in busy areas like the Metro NY area. LVL-D is about 4-5 frames better. Obviously in the air the FPS are better.

Impressive. I could definitely live with that. I still have the issue of several hundred $$ for hardware and several hundred more to get the FSX add-ons. But it's nice to know that it won't require the hardware upgrades I thought I would need to be happy with FSX.BTW, you still haven't told me what "trolling" is! :(

[Mace 1,955]

Impressive. I could definitely live with that. I still have the issue of several hundred $$ for hardware and several hundred more to get the FSX add-ons. But it's nice to know that it won't require the hardware upgrades I thought I would need to be happy with FSX.BTW, you still haven't told me what "trolling" is! :(

Trolling is posting on a 'net forum trying to start something.By the way, you should be signing your posts with your real name, it's a rule here at AVSIM, and that's not trolling, that's simply being the messenger. If you go into your User Control Panel you can change your signature in a few minutes time.

[Fallap 4]

I just want a 777, why do you all hate me? :(

[Guest tebinu]

what we really need is one of the following aircrafts in high quality:RJ85, A306, B777 and no Airbus 320...

[BlakeWilliams 6]

Bottom line is: PMDG is going to produce the planes they find interesting to produce - wouldn't you? Face it, we'll all buy anything thing they roll out. A 777 is just another 747 with two less engines (I know, I know - they're really not, but when you flying in FS, it really makes no difference). I love the fact that they're making a quality turbo prop. Next, I would love to see them make a great CRJ. My belief is they should make planes that are completely different to fly. I remember reading some where that someone really wanted them to make a 757 AND a 767!! Why?If you guys really, really need a 777, then go get a copy of Fly! and they're original 777. I was one of the first customers to buy it, and it was a fantastic product. I'm probably going to get yelled at, but it's OK - I have the volume on my speakers off. Blake Williams

[Barthandelus 1]

I would sell my granny for an A380 !!!!!!!!