Hey Robert... Any chance you guys might consider continuing development on a failure module for the J41 as originally planned? I for one would pay for this considering the development time?I really enjoy the J41, but after startup and shutdown the complexity ends. The J41 seems incomplete (to late PMDG standards) without possibility of abnormal procedures. Please consider... And for those of you who would like a failure module, please let PMDG know by posting here.JB

I guess I am the only one here who is missing a failure module.JB

I guess I am the only one here who is missing a failure module.

Well, I would like it too, but they have already said that it is out of scope for this product.The most exciting failure is probably an engine failure close to V1 - maybe we can get a button so we can fail an engine manually?

No, I think the vast majority of us miss it, but we also know PMDG better than to think they are actually going to strat developing something simply because a bunch of people asked for it.The J41 is such an awesome plane it's a shame to even complain about anything but this is definately one of them. I dont expect PMDG to start developing a failure module for this, however, I would like to submit my own personal feeelings about PMDG.The reason I buy PMDG is because I want the most realistic and best aircraft simulation money can buy. I would gladly pay hundreds of dollars for a PMDG plane that was done up to the standards we expect (and that they ALWAYS raise the bar for).I look at it this way. I spend HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS(eventually) of hours enjoying the products that PMDG releases. If you look at what a normal computer game costs (40-50) and how much time the average persons spends playing the average computer game ( 2-4 weeks maybe?) then it's clear that if PMDG charged based on how much we spend using their products, a plane would cost thousands. I've said many times in the past that I would pay anything for any product PMDG releases because I know that it would be the best plane that money can buy for FSX. Now, however, I find myself leaning away from that simply because of the lower-price-for-less-features business policy. Now I almost feel I have to wait til after a product is released to see what was actually included. Now I understand that PMDG wants to market towards all simmers so they can make as much money as they can. That's totally understandable. Not all simmers are like me and take a "money isnt a factor" mindset when it comes to PMDG products. So i seccond what someone above me said. If this is something they want to do, they should charge a base price for just the plane, then charge a secondary fee for the things like this. and yes, after the release of the J41 I was remembering what Robert said about the failure module many months ago and thinking, 'well maybe they just didnt finish it in time and it will be released with the service pack.'

The vast majority of our customers never touch failures - trust me on that. The vast majority are also not willing to spend money on adding it. This is just one of the things that isn't going to be in this series of airplanes - otherwise you'd be looking at an $80 addon. Rest assured, the NG2 will have all this stuff, it's just this series of products that the J41 is part of that won't.

The vast majority of our customers never touch failures - trust me on that. The vast majority are also not willing to spend money on adding it. This is just one of the things that isn't going to be in this series of airplanes - otherwise you'd be looking at an $80 addon. Rest assured, the NG2 will have all this stuff, it's just this series of products that the J41 is part of that won't.

It's good that the team takes into account what the customers want. However, if something is beyond the scope of the budget of developing such a model, then leave it.The aircraft has already been released and paying for a supplemental improvement/addon wouldn't be the best idea, in my opinion. Not once have I seen having to pay more than what you already payed for an addon.PMDG, keep doing your thing, the J41 had an extraordinary lauch, no doubt, and the future aircraft you release will be nothing short of great.

Ryan-I totally agree with you- I never touch failures on PMDG planes because I never liked the way it was implemented.I was hoping to see something more along the lines of how the LDS 767 did it where you could set a failure rate much more rare than 1 failure/10 hours. Robert had hinted that the J41 failure module would be different than what you guys have done previously and this is what I was hoping he meant.I'd like to see it where I could keep on flying my flights and maybe see a failure once every 10 or 20 flights. That way it's always in the back of your mind that there COULD be some kind of failure. That way you're still good about monitoring your instruments and following the checklists. I really do love how the engines work in the J41. It's awesome knowing that mistreating the engines will lead to a failure.Out of curiosity, how difficult would it be to implement something like that in a future plane, but even more advanced? For example, maybe you are always flying...let's say a 737-800...with the engines at redline. Perhaps the plane could keep track of this and provide a higher percentage of powerplant failures than someone who flies more conservatively. Or maybe someone who over uses the brakes may see a higher rate of brake failures etc.This would have to be an optional thing of course.

The vast majority of our customers never touch failures - trust me on that. The vast majority are also not willing to spend money on adding it. This is just one of the things that isn't going to be in this series of airplanes - otherwise you'd be looking at an $80 addon. Rest assured, the NG2 will have all this stuff, it's just this series of products that the J41 is part of that won't.

This all doesn't change the fact that initial statements made by Robert indicated it WOULD be a feature of the J41, maybe not at release, but sometime after. A few months back I asked a few times on the forum about how the module was progressing, I never got an answer. Considering that when Robert made the statement (durring the heart of development) about the "New Failure Mod" at that point he felt a failure mod was appropriate for this line of product, why all of a sudden after his statement was it considered inapropriate? Why didn't anyone answer my questions on the forum about it? Where they afraid it might hurt sales if customers knew it wasn't gonna be a part of the J41?Somewhere in a post here a PMDG Dev made the statement that in just 2 weeks the J41 has already outsold the FS9 version of the MD11. With that marketing knowledge, why is it that PMDG doesn't have faith that a failure mod for the J41 would make ends meat for the company?Whats the limitation in making the mod as planned? Is it, not enough Devs, or that development costs will be too high, or that with the FSX turboprop model, that completing all the systems to implement a failure mod would be impossible? How about asking the community what it's worth to them? I will state once more... I would pay again to have the complete systems and a failure mod for the J41.My honest opinions on the J41....... When I heard the details of the J41 durring development I was really excited to finally get a complex short haul turboprop. One that simulated the systems in depth with the possibility of having to routinely execute abnormals due to failure generator. I was excited to have this without having to fly hours on the computer with the big tubeliners because the J41 was gonna be a simulation of a regional aircraft. Unfortunately, I only got half of a PMDG simulation from what I was told to expect... But FORTUNATELY PMDG did half of the simulation extremely well and from that I am happy with just half of what I expected. I urge PMDG to consider following up with what the original intent of the J41 product was when it was intruduced to all of the PMDG customers. If it means charging for sucha option, then I will be the first to pay for it, whatever the cost.One last thing... Being that Robert, the CEO of PMDG, worked on the flight deck of ACA's J41's, I really expected this bird to follow damn close to the features and functions of the other PMDG airliners. Atleast thats the impression I got when reading the threads about the "Upcoming J41 from PMDG".JB

The vast majority of our customers never touch failures - trust me on that. The vast majority are also not willing to spend money on adding it. This is just one of the things that isn't going to be in this series of airplanes - otherwise you'd be looking at an $80 addon. Rest assured, the NG2 will have all this stuff, it's just this series of products that the J41 is part of that won't.

I've started tinkering with the failure stuff a little, but it dawned on me that I don't have the faintest idea what is reasonable. Has there been a thread on what settings for the 744 or the MD-11 are most realistic for a reasonably well run airline or cargo op (i.e., Fed Ex and UPS).

I've started tinkering with the failure stuff a little, but it dawned on me that I don't have the faintest idea what is reasonable. Has there been a thread on what settings for the 744 or the MD-11 are most realistic for a reasonably well run airline or cargo op (i.e., Fed Ex and UPS).

For electronics/avionics roughly one failure per couple hundred hours...Regarding engines/airframe/flight surfaces/mechanical and hydraulic systems... it's roughly in the one per 1000 hours..Even though the rates in comparison are very low and some of you may say, "Why even have simulated failures if the rate is so low", then you need to remember this is a simulator and the primary goal of simulating flight is to safely and economically throw abnormal conditions at the flight crews.JB

I've started tinkering with the failure stuff a little, but it dawned on me that I don't have the faintest idea what is reasonable. Has there been a thread on what settings for the 744 or the MD-11 are most realistic for a reasonably well run airline or cargo op (i.e., Fed Ex and UPS).

You probably don't want realistic failure rates - failures do not occur often enough to make it interesting in the sim. I think the default for random failures in the MD-11 is once every 10 hours or so - maybe start with that and then adjust based on how busy you like to be :(

You probably don't want realistic failure rates - failures do not occur often enough to make it interesting in the sim. I think the default for random failures in the MD-11 is once every 10 hours or so - maybe start with that and then adjust based on how busy you like to be :(

I think the failure rate of the MD11 is a fantastic way to have loads of fun in FSX. It's sure a lot better keeping busy than walking away from the comp to come back when the big biatch has arived at the TOD. I wish the J41 had a similar system. It would be perfect on flights ranging from 1-2 hours. Think about how much fun it would be if we got failures realted to hydraulics or engines at 16000 in a thick icing layer with the freezing point below ground... Now thats what I call simming.. :)JB

Captains.You are aware of MSFX's failure menu? There's a lot to arm there, and most of it will work quite well with the J41.

Captains.You are aware of MSFX's failure menu? There's a lot to arm there, and most of it will work quite well with the J41.

Oh yeah... But doesn't that take the fun outa it when you have pre programmed the types and rates of the failures? Plus, I doubt many of the FSX generated failures on the J41 will follow the systems logic outlined in the AOM. Never the less, I will give those failures a try and see if the abnormals apropriate to the JS41 will clear or secure any of the systems that go down after FSX starts generating some failures.... Thanks for the tipJB

Loaded up The J41 and taxied to the blast pad to do some runnups testing the FSX failure engine with the J41 and the first couple tests don't look so good...Test #1. Fail #2 generator in one minute durring Ground idle power .......... Nothing happened when failure triggered, genny remained online even after a reset.2. Fail #1 generator in one minute durring Ground idle power .......... Nothing happened when failure triggered, genny remained online even after a reset.3. Fail #1&2 generator in one minute durring Flight Power ................. Nothing happened when failure triggered, genny remained online even after a reset.4. Fail #1&2 Hydraulic pump after 1 minute of Flight power................Low Pressure anucation on hydraulic panel, no decreased effect of flight surfaces and brake system, although I'm not sure if there is a redundant Hydraulic system backing up the main pumps, will check the AOM...Will continue tests a bit later... after some responsible stuff to do.. :)JB