BBJ for the NGX

[NGXfanatic 85]

I couldn't care less if there is a virtual cabin, but I'm just wondering if they might reconsider this and possibly make an on/off option for this now that more people are getting 4+ GHz with i7s and sandy bridge is coming out. Again, I don't care one way or the other, but some people probably do. I certainly don't think this is a reason to delay release. Maybe in a service pack or something.

I wholly agree with this statement, I believe he hit the nail right on the head. With the release of much faster CPUs and GPUs recently, and also by giving the user the choice of toggling such a feature on or off, I wouldn't mind seeing a halfway decent looking cabin. It wouldn't be the end of the world if there is none or if the cabin is minimalist, as I seldom leave the VC cockpit inflight. But I do love to go to wingviews during boring cruises, and especially during replays with fsrecorder.To see a detailed cabin along the lines of that other 737 developer in a PMDG product would have been crazy in years past, but I believe with the advent of the I7 and the current and future Sandy Bridge, maybe it's time to rethink that stance. Much like AI aircraft models/paints were very mimimalist during the FS2002/2004 era, once hardware caught up the details and fidelity increased significantly once that hardware became the norm for the majority of users.Please don't delay release, but if possible allow for the display of a detailed cabin though a service pack or even an expansion module for those who really demand it.

[Guest 413X3]

Can we turn off the wings in the VC if we don't want the framerate hit too?

[ExNusquam 11]

It was an option on the Jetstream, so I imagine that it will be available on the NGX as well.

[muzammil 0]

Maybe PMDG can offer the BBJ as an external extension only, like the 747-8 or the Hong Kong Govt. Flying Service livery of the Jetstream 41?

[CaptMatt 0]

I think some of it would have to be internally modeled though- at least the fuel tanks / fuel system. From what I read the BBJ (much like the 737-700ER) has a significantly increased range due to additional fuel tanks.Some experts please correct me if I'm wrong!Thanks,Matt S.

[MrPlaneDriver 41]

I think some of it would have to be internally modeled though- at least the fuel tanks / fuel system. From what I read the BBJ (much like the 737-700ER) has a significantly increased range due to additional fuel tanks.Some experts please correct me if I'm wrong!Thanks,Matt S.

That's right. Boeing uses part of what would be the useless (for the BBJ) cargo compartment to put other fuel tanks. Up to 12 fuel tanks, giving 37,712kg of extra fuel can be fitted as a customer option. The 737 has 4 BBJ models: the BBJ, that is a 737-700; BBJ2, a 737-800; BBJ3, that uses the -900 plataform; and BBJC, based on a 737-700 cargo. This type offers a side cargo door. There are also the BBJ 747, BBJ 777 and now the BBJ 787. You can get more information at Boeing's website.Boeing Business JetsI hope PMDG develop a model only for the BBJ, with all (within FSX capabilities) features of this plane intead of what they made with 747-8, even if I have to pay for it. However I'm sure that PMDG won't delay the NGX release to create and implement a new model in the project, so, if it happen to be developed, they'll release it as an expansion pack.

[NGXfanatic 85]

I hope PMDG develop a model only for the BBJ, with all (within FSX capabilities) features of this plane intead of what they made with 747-8, even if I have to pay for it. However I'm sure that PMDG won't delay the NGX release to create and implement a new model in the project, so, if it happen to be developed, they'll release it as an expansion pack.

I agree, I can't speak for everyone else but I think it's safe to say the majority of users are going to replicate commercial flights with the 737-600/700/800/900, vs business traffic with the BBJ. If they haven't already done the additional coding for the BBJ, it would be better not to further delay release and instead offer the BBJ or any other unusual variants as an expansion pack.

[WilliamStroud 0]

I agree, I can't speak for everyone else but I think it's safe to say the majority of users are going to replicate commercial flights with the 737-600/700/800/900, vs business traffic with the BBJ. If they haven't already done the additional coding for the BBJ, it would be better not to further delay release and instead offer the BBJ or any other unusual variants as an expansion pack.

While this is true, companies such as PrivatAir do use the BBJ for regularly scheduled commercial operations in a low density layout.

[rgamurot 1]

...and BBJC, based on a 737-700 cargo. This type offers a side cargo door...

I'm just guessing but is the cargo door for changing the interior? Or even for say PrivateAir to switched between passenger and cargo?

[737freak 42]

Can we expect the following product Layout?Base Product: Boeing 737-600, 737-700 737-700ER, 737-800, 737-900, 737-900ERExpansion 1: Boeing BBJ1, BBJ2, BBJ3, BBJCExpansion 2: Boeing P-8 Poseidon, Boeing C-40A Clipper, Boeing 737 AEW&CI would love to see a Line-up like that.

[MrPlaneDriver 41]

Can we expect the following product Layout?Base Product: Boeing 737-600, 737-700 737-700ER, 737-800, 737-900, 737-900ERExpansion 1: Boeing BBJ1, BBJ2, BBJ3, BBJCExpansion 2: Boeing P-8 Poseidon, Boeing C-40A Clipper, Boeing 737 AEW&CI would love to see a Line-up like that.

+1This will give PMDG lots of work to do !

[Efussander 0]

Can we expect the following product Layout?Base Product: Boeing 737-600, 737-700 737-700ER, 737-800, 737-900, 737-900ERExpansion 1: Boeing BBJ1, BBJ2, BBJ3, BBJCExpansion 2: Boeing P-8 Poseidon, Boeing C-40A Clipper, Boeing 737 AEW&CI would love to see a Line-up like that.

I was under the impression that they wouldn't be doing the 900. I thought they were only doing the 900ER because the 900 was never popular and only manufacturered briefly. Please correct if wrong. :(

[MrPlaneDriver 41]

I was under the impression that they wouldn't be doing the 900. I thought they were only doing the 900ER because the 900 was never popular and only manufacturered briefly. Please correct if wrong. :(

That's right. The cost-benefit of a 737-900ER would make it a smarter choice, therefore the airlines didn't want the -900 and the ER replaced the -900 variant. You can look at Boeing's website, but you won't find anything regarding the 737-900 at all, only the 737-900ER.

[737freak 42]

KLM (Netherlands) has 5 737-900 (with Winglets), they don't have the -900ER. There are actually 168 regular -900's built.

[Roadburner426 19]

As of right now in Chapter PI (Performance Inflight section)in FCOM Volume 1 it has the performance tables for, 737-600/700/800/900/900ERW.. This tells me that there will in fact be a -900 included. So I do not think you guys need to worry about it. Cause there are A LOT of these charts that say -900 on them. They do not put fill material in their pubs either so take it for what you will. I would put pictures up but do not want to infring on PMDG's/Boeing's copyright.