Dear PMDG,I've been looking at your site recently and I notice with great excitement that you're planning a 777 for sometime next year. I know you have the highest standards of expectations in terms of the aircraft's performance and systems being close to the real thing, and I'm not posting this to ask for particular systems etc, however I wonder if you'd consider the following.Some video of the development process to give us more of an idea of what goes into the product. including real pilots testing the product near completion, and perhaps an interview or two with them so we can see what they think?An additional panel addon like A2A simulations have for their stratocrusier, which adds neuances to the aircraft systems and relies on excellent pilot skills to monitor and react to random failiures. as in the accu sim package addon.rather than a failure generation engine, this keeps you on your toes as it introduces consiquences to your actions or inations. perhaps another series of check rides, as I have found the 747 versions really useful, even though I've not completed them all yet.I realise this may be a tall order, but I think it would really put a world class 777 sim way beyond anything that is out there already. I feel there's a danger that once you're off the runway and have engaged the autopilot that you can walk away from the PC for a couple of hours, and if you've ever used the stratocruiser, there's no way you can do that, there's to much potential to over heat, under oil, freeze etc etc, My landings have considerably improved from using the checkride tutorials, and although not perfect, 100% better than before.Many thanks PMDG, lovin your work.RegardsIan Kelly

I suggested the same thing the other month, and a few people agreed. Maybe if enough people wantvto see this pmdg will simulate it, hopefully. All I want is for the 300ER AND 200LR to be made so I can ultra long haul fly!!! There my fav planes!!

I suggested the same thing the other month, and a few people agreed. Maybe if enough people wantvto see this pmdg will simulate it, hopefully. All I want is for the 300ER AND 200LR to be made so I can ultra long haul fly!!! There my fav planes!!

Mine too. Cant wait to fly a PMDG 777.

The NGX's failure system is significantly improved over what was in previous products. Aside from that, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for, I'm not familiar with the A2A plane you're talking about.

I do not think what A2A does would be practical for PMDG to do. PMDG simulates commercial aircraft, and to my knowledge real commercial pilots do not go out to the aircraft and check oil levels, hyd levels, etc. All that stuff would be done by ground crew doing the turnaround at the terminal. I think the failure system on the MD-11 is more than adequete (when you set random failures that is, get a few nice suprises). The MD-11X has creeks and squeeks, and I have had many failures in my times flying it. While it would be cool to delve deeper and be able to service our jets oil, hyd systems, etc. I just do not think that is correctly putting youself in the seat as Captain F/O of a passenger jet which is what I feel PMDG aims to do. Granted that is just my opinion. About the only thing I think that would be better is to have some type of dispatcher panel that reports you A/C condition, and other stuff that they get for you. But then again that is why I have the Aivlasoft Electronic Flight Bag.

Thanks all,Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that you check the oil levels etc, just that actions have consiquences, and that engines need to be monitored, I take your point about the MD11, although I haven't used it, a random failiures generator would be great. A2A is something you should look at, if for no other reason than for interest in complex aircraft, albeit from another era. A2A simulations Stratocruiser. I think what I'm really asking for is the requirement of the simulation to treat it with respect, and the need to monitor all your systems so you can't be complacent, and if you do something wrong, it turns round an bites you realistically of course. this is a whishlist really, and my opinion of course.The main thing I'd like to see is REAL pilots of that particular plane taking about how they find the experience of flying the simulation. without being too cinical, anyone can write, "Tested by real pilots" on their web site with no method of actually proving it, or requirement to. I'm not in any way suggesting that's what PMDG do, at all, but its a possibility and having videos etc would be interesting.Thanks allIan Kelly

Yeah the MD-11 has a random failure generator. If you are not fast enough on your feet when something goes wrong it can quickly escalate and start affecting other systems in the aircraft. I don't know about the 747 as I just have the MD-11X & J-41. Set enough random failures to occur and you definately have your hands full. The difference I like with Accu-sim is that you never know when a failure will occur since you have no way of setting them up. That is about the only difference. When I set out with Accu-sim I never know what might happen. With the MD-11X I know something will happen, just don't know what or when on that particular flight (if I chose to set up random failures), or if I don't set the random failures for that flight then I know nothing will happen. Still is good practice to watch the gauges though. So I can see you point about actions have consequences. Can't wait to see this system NGX has in place, but good things come in due time.

would it be possible to simulate engine wear ETC and a maintenece add-on to send this sim rocketing!!! this would make a complex aircraft err even more complex!!!

I also think it would be nice to have a video of the people who test the software and the process. It would lend the product a huge amount of extra credibility to have a real pilot giving his/her opinion on the actual handling of the sim, as well as some advice by PMDG about setting up CH yoke and FSUIPC for best effect.Thanks ALLIan

I also think it would be nice to have a video of the people who test the software and the process. It would lend the product a huge amount of extra credibility to have a real pilot giving his/her opinion on the actual handling of the sim, as well as some advice by PMDG about setting up CH yoke and FSUIPC for best effect.Thanks ALLIan

I think the real pilots would tell you that fighting boredom on long flights is their hardest challenge in a modern jet like the 777....and that the planes are so reliable that they tend to get failures in the simulators, not on the line. And as a frequent passenger, that's just fine with me.

Well they sort of already have that for the j41...I don't know about the md-11 & 747 however. See when you do stupid things with the j41--it breaks i.e. when you don't start the engines right, when icing becomes a problem, when you overrun the engines...etc.

You know, you can always tell when a developer already has a system/feature worked out or not. In this case, Ryan saying "The NGX's failure system is significantly improved..." rather than "will be significantly improved" hints at the idea that the system is completely, or almost completely, finished. Not sure they'll go back and add new features to the failure system at this point.Although, honestly, that's all just baseless speculation. :( Ken Smith

I'm glad they have a feature like that on the J41, I don't have it, or the MD 11 yet, I've been pracitcing the manual landings in the 747 which is keeping me busy. I'm not suggesting they go and change everything around, I wouldn't expect that, as with any project, software or otherwise is subject to planning and design and will have certain constraints in terms of time frame and features, and every project can suffer from "scope creep" if you don't keep a tight reign on your milestones. I take the point about reliable airplanes etc, and the downside to the stratocruiser I have, although one of the most wonderful simulations, is a real chore to fly, you need to plan and run through all the checks etc and its technically a four man job and you have to do all of them. I would like an eye on the development process, just to see how the test pilots find the flight dynamics etc, a video of the testing process would be interesting. its a real drag only having one person flying these things as you know when it gets to the busy bits, unless you have radar contact, there's too much fiddling around dealing with FSX's ATC, which appears to have absolutely no idea how to space traffic out. I only had the slider on 55% and there was 6 planes all cleared to land, but we were all way too close to one another, and go arounds are such an arse with FSX, Fs2crew and the PMDG, i'd like to see some level of integration with all these little bits, to stop the messing around with the mouse and actually be able to control the plane. (sorry, slightly off topic.)ian

I'm glad they have a feature like that on the J41, I don't have it, or the MD 11 yet, I've been pracitcing the manual landings in the 747 which is keeping me busy. I'm not suggesting they go and change everything around, I wouldn't expect that, as with any project, software or otherwise is subject to planning and design and will have certain constraints in terms of time frame and features, and every project can suffer from "scope creep" if you don't keep a tight reign on your milestones. I take the point about reliable airplanes etc, and the downside to the stratocruiser I have, although one of the most wonderful simulations, is a real chore to fly, you need to plan and run through all the checks etc and its technically a four man job and you have to do all of them. I would like an eye on the development process, just to see how the test pilots find the flight dynamics etc, a video of the testing process would be interesting. its a real drag only having one person flying these things as you know when it gets to the busy bits, unless you have radar contact, there's too much fiddling around dealing with FSX's ATC, which appears to have absolutely no idea how to space traffic out. I only had the slider on 55% and there was 6 planes all cleared to land, but we were all way too close to one another, and go arounds are such an arse with FSX, Fs2crew and the PMDG, i'd like to see some level of integration with all these little bits, to stop the messing around with the mouse and actually be able to control the plane. (sorry, slightly off topic.)ian

Do you fly on VATSIM?

Do you fly on VATSIM?

No, I've looked into it, mainly its a time thing really, I can't let simming take over my life, it would be too easy to do. I also have tried VA's but didn't get that much out of it. I think it would be nice to have an "AD HOC" virtual airline where you didn't have to keep up the numbers or in order to not get kicked off the servers, sometimes you just don't have time, or want to make time and it ceases to be fun anymore. my hand flying is still a little unpredictable and i'm not so familiar with the procedures of VASTIM. I do know you don't have to be in a VA to use VATSIM. I tend to do unrealistic flights, short haul in long haul airplanes 747 is the only FSX addon I have which is long haul and of any calibre (i don't count the feelthere airbus vol 2 cause its crap), as I like the prep, taking off and landing, but the bit in the middle bores me most of the time as nothing can go wrong.regardsIan