Congratulation on originality :( . You could probably fill a small discotheque with all those who came through these forums proclaiming the "great suggestion" of 787 in the last couple of years or so...

Well, to be honest, i dont recall seeing any of those forums!

That's not correct. I'm looking at a copy of the 787 FCTM, QRH and performance charts right now :wink:The 777 and 787 share a huge amount of systems (and actually large portions of the FCTM as well) so it might not be that bad an idea for PMDG to knock one out after the 777. That being said, I'd probably rather see something like a 737 classic or an RJ of some description. Especially since Qualitywings will be releasing what is sure to be a good 787, which should be somewhat more system rich than the 757.

http://www.digital-aviation.de/site/ is making the NG CRJ, aerosoft is doing the modeling while DA handles the systems. Good combo if you ask me, as this will not be a lite version like the aerosofts airbus was.

Well, to be honest, i dont recall seeing any of those forums!

Ive lurked here for years, theres been quite a few. Its quite obvious at least to me, givin' the colaboration with boeing and PMDG that the 787 will be done in due course. My guess is that it could be a MS flight add-on.

I would love to see a PMDG 717. I love that aircraft. The MD 80s would also be cool

Man I would go nuts if PMDG would make a MD-81/82/83. I have always wanted one of those for FSX but have passed on the Leonardo Maddog as well as the CoolSky version. The CLS version graphically looks like what I want, but the system are "lite" as they call it.

Extremely unlikely we'd ever do an MD-80 - Leonardo's is very good systems wise.

Either a 787 or an A380. I love these jets because of how modern and sophisticated they are, and their cockpits are simply breathtakingly awesome, and that is an understatement. I've always loved to see the 380 but the wilco version is so annoying, especially the version 2 which as far as I'm concerned, was version 1 renamed. They didn't even bother to get the cockpit right. They just put a regular airbus cockpit in there. Some other developer (can't remember the name) thought it was a race of who would be first to produce the 787, so they hurriedly produced a fictitious airplane with 'large' windows, and slapped on the name "BOEING 787 DREAMLINER' on it. They didn't even so much as look at the pics on the web, and 2 of the most distinguishing physical features of this wonderful bird namely the 'crown' shape of the back of the engine and the shape of the nose (window and nose) were so unimportant to them, they were disregarded. And I was thinking, that at least, since more and more media have been made available on the web, they would make a version 2 or something, addressing these features, but no. They still shamelessly parade, and even have the guts to sell this product.. I wouldn't get it if it was freeware, I wouldn't get it if it was the kind of payware where I'm the one who gets paid to download it.. That piece of crap, I regard it as an insult to not just the Dreamliner, but also to my Hard drive. I'd rather have an addon take ages to produce, and to be spot on (at least in the physical shape, even if the avionics and stuff are "lite" than have someone wake up one morning and check his wallet, "Oh my gosh! I'm outta cash! What can I do for quick cash? Hmmm! let me think..... Aha! I got it!" Let me make a quick addon to FSX (15 mins later ) "This looks good. Now what can I name it to make it sell quickly? ... " The latest jet being made is the Dreamliner so let's call it the dreamliner. (he quickly browses boeing.com) "Oh no! the windows are supposed to be bigger!" (and he paints on car windows to it), "Beeeaaauuutiful!' Now lets sell it for 29.95." Hey George (I made the name up), do you mind reviewing this product? You don't really have to review it. Just put 5 stars and I'll give you a free copy, or we can work something out." (And George writes a number of reviews, with different names of course, and slaps 5 stars but can't even explain why he thinks it's a good product because he hasn't even seen it.). This might not be what really happened, but that's the impression I got after looking at this product. Aerosoft's Airbus X is at least beautiful to behold even though it's lite, and I could get it just for the physical appearance.

A380 is being made by NLS.

A380 is being made by NLS.

Just a hunch but I think I'm past the point of believing that unproven first-time developers are actually going to make a good study-sim level Airbus until proven otherwise. I wish them luck, but no one has come anywhere close yet.

Just a hunch but I think I'm past the point of believing that unproven first-time developers are actually going to make a good study-sim level Airbus until proven otherwise. I wish them luck, but no one has come anywhere close yet.

i actually agree ryan, 1 failed Airbus and a A380 thats been "in the works" for around 3-4 years, and a few external shots, and old cockpit shots released. of course i wish them luck, but i think that the NLS A380 could take a while to come.

Just a hunch but I think I'm past the point of believing that unproven first-time developers are actually going to make a good study-sim level Airbus until proven otherwise. I wish them luck, but no one has come anywhere close yet.

Well I have a little more faith in the a380 project than the others...an a320 we all know about because they apparently did work on the a300-200 that was released last year (given it has a lot of bugs).

Just a hunch but I think I'm past the point of believing that unproven first-time developers are actually going to make a good study-sim level Airbus until proven otherwise. I wish them luck, but no one has come anywhere close yet.

What about FSLabs? They done a fairly decent job on their concorde. Although, it probably wouldn't compare if you guys were to create an airbus. But whatever you guys have in the pipeline it'll be great I'm sure.

Well I would like to see PMDG develop the woodpidgeon that many users talk about in this forum ??/Leif B.