Check the news, these folks are on a roll! http://forum.qwsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2180

I'm just wondering, how are they going to simulate a plane that havent even been released? How are they going to get accurate numbers. Or are they planning on making a fantasy plane that looks like a 787?

I'm just wondering, how are they going to simulate a plane that havent even been released? How are they going to get accurate numbers. Or are they planning on making a fantasy plane that looks like a 787?

We're not training tomorrows pilots sir lol.We are in the business of trying to create a entertaining product that will look, feel, sound and most importantly act just like the real thing within our design scope. We have an abundance of information about the 787 series now, and also more coming that will enable us to do so. And just like the real airplane (and all airplanes), things evolve over time.

Looking real good! hope this is ok with Corey. :( like Corey mentioned it is for entertainment I'm sure the QW team will do the best possible over time as the project develops.

I'm just wondering, how are they going to simulate a plane that havent even been released? How are they going to get accurate numbers. Or are they planning on making a fantasy plane that looks like a 787?

It is not going to be released until late 2011. I'm sure there will be plenty of information by then.

I'm just wondering, how are they going to simulate a plane that havent even been released? How are they going to get accurate numbers. Or are they planning on making a fantasy plane that looks like a 787?

I hope you enjoy the PMDG 747-8i :( or this funny looking cargo plane on the same basis.So why not go for a medium depth representation of an upcoming aircraft where only some data might be available? The two examples above are based on no data at all (except some optics) while nobody questions their existence. So is there a reason for questioning the QW approach then?I also can't imagine the 787 data to suddenly become public in detail if the commercial service starts.Again, an PMDG example: Their MD11 still lacks of some "confidential" performance data.So we should applaud QW for this very nice looking picture and wish the best for a good simulated plane. In my eyes, no need to have doubts about the realization.

So we should applaud QW for this very nice looking picture and wish the best for a good simulated plane.

I don't think everybody's realised that's just a modified photo

Never mind, some of use fly modified optics only and think it's somehow real. Nice picture there.

I'm sure a lot of people will like it for what it is, as they put it "the 787 will most be "Medium with Lite features". I dont own any of their stuff but I take it to mean its geared more as a "lite" product vs. a full blown procedural airliner addon like LDS/PMDG stuff.

I hope you enjoy the PMDG 747-8i :( or this funny looking cargo plane on the same basis....

I'm not a fan of the 747 and I own no versions of it. I prefer shorter haul planes like the MD80

Again, an PMDG example: Their MD11 still lacks of some "confidential" performance data.

Just so you understand the situation - that performance data *is* in the MD-11's FMC and flight model - we just weren't allowed to *publish* said data in our user manual. It's not like the aircraft's performance itself is missing that data.

lol come on guys its a just a sim yes the 787 is still being tested on. the photo just gives you in idea what is going to look like, there's a shot of the actual model http://forum.qwsim.com/download/file.php?id=753&mode=view its still being worked on, I don't own the pmdg 747 but I think it was cool of them adding the 747-8 model.

Very nice QW, even if it isn't for 'real' sim pilots. :(

lol come on guys its a just a sim yes the 787 is still being tested on. the photo just gives you in idea what is going to look like, there's a shot of the actual model http://forum.qwsim.c...d=753&mode=view its still being worked on, I don't own the pmdg 747 but I think it was cool of them adding the 747-8 model.

I agree, in fact it is the only version I fly now. As for the 787 I would buy it if it were a reasonably complex systems & model. I purchased the AirbusX and I am fairly happy with it. I really lament not being able to program runways but other than that it is a decent plane.

Very nice QW, even if it isn't for 'real' sim pilots. :(

Seems like this "real" usually is a self made award of some kind (and some people around). As shown, your maybe favorite dev offers at least two planes with completely wrong data based on another model, one with the lack of tables (which, on other devs, usually causes a big outcry) and another one with features in the manual (and no mark like "not simulated) but no function in the sim.Talking about the 747 variants, the MD11 and the J41 here.So before starting to get "real" in your meaning, we should agree that this is a simulator and that some companies just build software for it without hyping the somehow real element all the time and making some people think that they are better than others because they are using this hyped stuff (which of course offers some quality).So while you click in your cockpit, looking at your flatscreen and maybe searching for some real-alike items on it, be reminded that some of that realness was implemented by marketing guys only and you seem to be a strong believer of those elements.As seen in the examples above, people around here sometimes seem to question all other devs on their "real" approaches while some names are out of discussion without obvious reasons.I own the mentioned titles too and like them but I wouldn't dare to call my sim experience to be more real or (which often is the intention of using this "real" word it seems) in any way better or classy than other's.So lets get this childish "I am more real than you" stuff out of the line as it has no basis. Much appreciated.