June 2, 201412 yr As does the Boeing 747-400F. Only difference being in the case of the 777 and the 747-400, there exists both a passenger and a freighter variant. Don't assume that the C-17 doesn't carry passengers either, here's paratroopers. It also does movements of personnel between stations of deployment. [DISCLAIMER: I don't want PMDG to make a C-17 because I want airliners which are of use to us so don't get mad at me for stirring up the pot. Its all in good spirit!] Inactive
June 7, 201412 yr Actually I am pretty sure I could get hold of Qatar's C-17 data including sim access. It's a shame that the sim market is so small that most high end devs focus on the same old tubeliners. I would quite happily spend the rest of my simming day's flying a C5 Galaxy That tells you where the mass market is: Tubeliners. So much so that there is apparently room for all of them to make versions of 737s and still make money. I was totally underwhelmed by the news that Quality Wings new project was yet another 737. Anything other than airliners is a niche within a niche. Not that I'm complaining, as an airliner enthusiast. But unlike you I could never settle on one type and fly that forever. I enjoy variety and learning the differences between different types. A good C-17 or C-5 would interest me though.
June 7, 201411 yr The data you need to accurately model an aircraft isn't the trash (harsh word, but true) that you find online. You need more than all of those very basic max range, max speed and all of those values. We're talking performance tables (cruise, takeoff, landing) and other items. I guarantee you won't find any of that online. It not being classified doesn't mean that Boeing and the military will share it (more Boeing than the mil, because the mil might give in to a FOIA request, but even then, I highly doubt it). For reference, Boeing is extremely protective of its old MD data. The MD-11 from PMDG met some difficulty with the sim crowd because it was tough for anyone to make fuel planners and takeoff calculators without data, and Boeing wasn't going to hand it over. Add the fact that the C-17's customer is the US Mil, and I can nearly guarantee they won't budge on giving anyone data outside the mil realm. I'm not saying I wouldn't want it. I'm saying it's not going to happen in my opinion. well, i am prior navy, some stats are spot on, some are close, some are way off. wiki is abviously not the right place to look. but boeing is a good place to start. Michael Backes Windows 10 x64 | i7 8086k 5.0 GHz | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | 1250W PSU | GeForece RTX 2080 | ASUS TUF Z390 Plus Gaming | 2x ASUS 22" Monitors + 1 39" 4K SEIKI TV (mounted) | Intel PCIe 1.2TB SSD and 6TB Seagate HDD (1 for OS and 1 for P3D v4) | Corsiar H100i GTX Extreme Liquid Cooler |
June 9, 201411 yr If only I knew something about aircraft development, I have 1000 hours in the C-17A and the manuals, I'd have to dig them up though. I've been out of the Air Force a bit. There are many cool aspects that could be simulated. Yes it's just a "trash" hauler, but the ability to simulate the airdrop, air refueling, assault landings would be great in FS. Like RSR stated, it would be extremely complex to develop; I feel even more so than the airliners since the FMS system is unique to the airplane itself and the procedures generally are different than most aircraft. As far as thrust reverse in flight, I've had 10,000ft/min decent rate. It's an impressive aircraft. Cheers, Todd If only I knew something about aircraft development, I have 1000 hours in the C-17A and the manuals, I'd have to dig them up though. I've been out of the Air Force a bit. There are many cool aspects that could be simulated. Yes it's just a "trash" hauler, but the ability to simulate the airdrop, air refueling, assault landings would be great in FS. Like RSR stated, it would be extremely complex to develop; I feel even more so than the airliners since the FMS system is unique to the airplane itself and the procedures generally are different than most aircraft. As far as thrust reverse in flight, I've had 10,000ft/min decent rate. It's an impressive aircraft. Cheers, Todd ATP MEL Commercial SEL B-747, BE-300, BE-400, DHC8, ERJ 170/190, MU-300 C-17A Globemaster III
July 17, 201411 yr please consider doing the twin otter-400 chad duchman Aerosoft already did a Twin Otter, and it's actually very good. PMDG doesn't really take requests on future projects either. AJ Pongress
July 17, 201411 yr That is unfortunate as you guys do such excellent work. *hands you a tissue and gives you a cookie* ....... Joke aside, I really do feel your pain, I also was looking for a good c-17 and for an MD-11 vc graphics update but so far neither is going to happen :( Maybe one day thou, lets hope in truth Francisco Perez
Create an account or sign in to comment