Simflight.com recently did an extensive Review of the PMDG MD-11 X. The author depicts some imperfections on the exterior model. PMDG emphasizes that they have access to original Boeing material, so I assume they have modelled the MD-11 according to real world dimensions. Apart from the obvious bugs like the free floating slats panel(s), is the author right if he says that the exterior model of the sim plane doesn't match its real world counterpart exactly? After all, he compares using photographs and not blueprints...P.S.: I hope we can expect a "final patch" some time in the future where those imperfections will be pretty much corrected. It would be a real shame if that wonderful piece of software would stay "only" 97% perfect...

Considering it was a FS2004 MD-11 being reviewed - obviously the author has no idea of limitations of the sim and pmdg did the best they could with it.As for wrong dimensions.... well, I'm sure he has a different tape measure lolJohn Ellison

That guy is a tool.

Almost everything he faults the external model for was done because so many people complained about performance with the 400X product that immediately preceded the MD-11. We erred on the side of better performance with the MD-11 product completely intentionally. When the MD-11 was released no one had overclocked i7s and Fermi GPUs to make FSX run well. (I don't think FSX SP2 had even been released yet either) He could have asked us before he jumped to conclusions about it - the insinuation that we'd never have told him why we did it is particularly off-putting to me.Basically we couldn't possibly win on this stuff. Had we gone with a hyper detailed model at the time, we'd have been reviewed as a framerate hog. By considering performance, we get reviewed as a sub par model/textures. Having good performance was the lesser of two evils here.

I think the MD-11 is fab. It's my fav fs aircraft.

As an instructor, people review my classes at the end of every class - I get reviewed all the time, personally. There are certain times in which you just can't win. Often, the one who needs the most help (and you give them the most help) ends up rating you the worst. I'm not sure why, though I have my ideas.All that is to say, some people just have their minds made up from the very start that this is going to be miserable. They will nit pick the worthless details and ignore the important parts because that's just how they are and what they intend to be.

Boeing designed the MD-11? Who knew.... ;)For the life of me, I neer understand reviews that stress external model. Sure, if you're buying an AI traffic add-on that's one thing, but an add-on aircraft? You fly that from the cockpit. I used to say that the MD-11 was my favorite becuase it ran the smoothest, but with improvements on my system adn with -8 extension on the Queen, and now the FS2 on the J41, its kind of hard to pick a favorite. They're all so different...

For the life of me, I neer understand reviews that stress external model. Sure, if you're buying an AI traffic add-on that's one thing, but an add-on aircraft? You fly that from the cockpit.

+ 1The MD is still my best aircraft.

Almost everything he faults the external model for was done because so many people complained about performance with the 400X product that immediately preceded the MD-11. We erred on the side of better performance with the MD-11 product completely intentionally. When the MD-11 was released no one had overclocked i7s and Fermi GPUs to make FSX run well. (I don't think FSX SP2 had even been released yet either) He could have asked us before he jumped to conclusions about it - the insinuation that we'd never have told him why we did it is particularly off-putting to me.Basically we couldn't possibly win on this stuff. Had we gone with a hyper detailed model at the time, we'd have been reviewed as a framerate hog. By considering performance, we get reviewed as a sub par model/textures. Having good performance was the lesser of two evils here.

One thing he didn't understand is that nobody or nothing's perfect. I think it was nit picking. Whats next? "why cant I see the tiny hole in the static ports?" For a framerate friendly aircraft like this I dont think it could be done better.Thanks. Still my favorite too :)