How would you all react if boeing did actually purchase a controlling share in PMDG?

I think it would be bad for flightsimming in general. JS41 is not a Boeing, Dash-8 is not a Boeing etc

But a 777 and a 74-8 are.. be sure to see those coming soon!

Hi,If Boeing was to become a controlling partner within PMDG, it would be a terrible loss to the non-professional flight sim community. Boeing would not waste their time/effort/capital as well as PMDG's talent on Microsoft aircraft, their focus would be on multi-million dollar simulators and/or other projects. PMDG's ability to develop aircraft for "ANY" non-professional flight sim product would not exist and we would lose a top-notch developer.

Well, we would know for sure that all new aircraft are delivered (too) late.

did you check the boeing website for news

Ya I feel it would be a bad thing aswell. I cant imagine how much they would force to be changed for "liability" we would go back to Ctrl+E to start engines.

Look on the bright side, we would get a free Alteon shirt and Type Rating with every purchase.........and for those of you complaining about PMDG prices, wait to you see Alteon's :)

How would you all react if boeing did actually purchase a controlling share in PMDG?

I think it would be bad for flightsimming in general. JS41 is not a Boeing, Dash-8 is not a Boeing etc

Hi,If Boeing was to become a controlling partner within PMDG, it would be a terrible loss to the non-professional flight sim community. Boeing would not waste their time/effort/capital as well as PMDG's talent on Microsoft aircraft, their focus would be on multi-million dollar simulators and/or other projects. PMDG's ability to develop aircraft for "ANY" non-professional flight sim product would not exist and we would lose a top-notch developer.

First, you all really need to read things before posting.Here's the quote from Robert's post:

Six weeks ago, Boeing purchased a controlling share in PMDG.

So your commentary that's supposed conjecture about what would happen is moot, because it already happened. Note the tense in the quote.Second, it's a controlling share, not a complete buyout, so there is some autonomy left in the company's decision-making process. Beyond that, the JS-4100 was manufactured by a now defunct company, and the Dash 8 isn't exactly a direct competitor to Boeing, so I wouldn't say the part ownership would cause any harm. In fact, I think we should all embrace the news, in that we can now expect these aircraft to perform as expected and right on the mark, because there is no more "Tested by a type-rated pilot!!!" It's now essentially the real thing. If the company who makes the aircraft is giving guidance and providing numbers to the developer, there's no more reason to tout that you're close because someone who flies the real thing, thinks that it flies like the real thing.Why would Boeing task PMDG with creating simulators when they already have someone to do that? That makes no sense at all really. Plus, their expertise is more in the computing software realm, not in hardware, so the thought that they'd be tasked with something outside their experience is again somewhat off (not saying that they are incapable, however).

Ya I feel it would be a bad thing aswell. I cant imagine how much they would force to be changed for "liability" we would go back to Ctrl+E to start engines.

The liability is only slightly higher than before, really, because this time it seems Boeing's participation has increased with the NGX, in terms of information provided. The idea that PMDG would be forced to change to meet Boeing's liability issues is somewhat off, as Boeing only has a controlling share, and not complete ownership. From a liability standpoint (as far as I know, and I didn't not pass the Bar in any of the 50 United States), PMDG makes its own decisions as an autonomous company, so Boeing, despite its controlling share is not directly liable for those actions by PMDG, especially if there is some legalese added to the relevant documents.Robert, mentioned the EULA in his post, and that would be a major player in creating some separation on the point of liability between PMDG and Boeing. Some lawyers will convene, draft something up, and essentially set it up so that PMDG is the responsible party, and despite Boeing's position in the development of the product, they cannot be held responsible for any issues stemming from the use of the product. Not to be used for flight training, not to be used for crew familiarity, not to be used for...etc. If anything, using the legal expertise of Boeing's legal team, combined with that of PMDG's advisors, their legal documents may become even stronger to the point that they can push the boundary further in terms of realism.Think of it this way:Boeing owns Jeppessen (not sure if some of you know that). If I go flying around and end up messing up on an approach with a Jepp chart, and end up destroying myself in the process, if my family decides to go after Jepp, you can be sure Boeing has set up the situation such that they cannot be held liable for the actions of Jepp, despite their ownership. In America, not doing so is a good way to get yourself in a lot of legal trouble.Would you rather add-ons continue to be developed off of pure conjecture with light guidance from the manufacturer the developer is trying to emulate?Take your doom and gloom and give that expertise to the next person writing a documentary about the environment, or 2012, or Nostradamus' predictions.Lighten up a bit guys. This is good news!

First, you all really need to read things before posting.Lighten up a bit guys. This is good news!

So do you.....It's April 1st

Hi Kyle,HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, I think someone needs to "RE-READ" what they believe is true and get the "ENTIRE STORY" before telling others to read things before posting. Amazing how fast people are ready to jump down others throats when in fact they have no idea what they are talking about.Your comments are even funnier than the "April Fools" post that was posted earlier by PMDG's Robert RandazzoYou fell for Robert's April Fools Joke "HOOK, LINE AND SINKER", Now that's FUNNY! :( Just in case this is still "NOT" clear enough for you, here is a link to the April Fools joke: http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/notams.htmlThanks Kyle, that was priceless!

First, you all really need to read things before posting.Here's the quote from Robert's post:So your commentary that's supposed conjecture about what would happen is moot, because it already happened. Note the tense in the quote.Second, it's a controlling share, not a complete buyout, so there is some autonomy left in the company's decision-making process. Beyond that, the JS-4100 was manufactured by a now defunct company, and the Dash 8 isn't exactly a direct competitor to Boeing, so I wouldn't say the part ownership would cause any harm. In fact, I think we should all embrace the news, in that we can now expect these aircraft to perform as expected and right on the mark, because there is no more "Tested by a type-rated pilot!!!" It's now essentially the real thing. If the company who makes the aircraft is giving guidance and providing numbers to the developer, there's no more reason to tout that you're close because someone who flies the real thing, thinks that it flies like the real thing.Why would Boeing task PMDG with creating simulators when they already have someone to do that? That makes no sense at all really. Plus, their expertise is more in the computing software realm, not in hardware, so the thought that they'd be tasked with something outside their experience is again somewhat off (not saying that they are incapable, however).The liability is only slightly higher than before, really, because this time it seems Boeing's participation has increased with the NGX, in terms of information provided. The idea that PMDG would be forced to change to meet Boeing's liability issues is somewhat off, as Boeing only has a controlling share, and not complete ownership. From a liability standpoint (as far as I know, and I didn't not pass the Bar in any of the 50 United States), PMDG makes its own decisions as an autonomous company, so Boeing, despite its controlling share is not directly liable for those actions by PMDG, especially if there is some legalese added to the relevant documents.Robert, mentioned the EULA in his post, and that would be a major player in creating some separation on the point of liability between PMDG and Boeing. Some lawyers will convene, draft something up, and essentially set it up so that PMDG is the responsible party, and despite Boeing's position in the development of the product, they cannot be held responsible for any issues stemming from the use of the product. Not to be used for flight training, not to be used for crew familiarity, not to be used for...etc. If anything, using the legal expertise of Boeing's legal team, combined with that of PMDG's advisors, their legal documents may become even stronger to the point that they can push the boundary further in terms of realism.Think of it this way:Boeing owns Jeppessen (not sure if some of you know that). If I go flying around and end up messing up on an approach with a Jepp chart, and end up destroying myself in the process, if my family decides to go after Jepp, you can be sure Boeing has set up the situation such that they cannot be held liable for the actions of Jepp, despite their ownership. In America, not doing so is a good way to get yourself in a lot of legal trouble.Would you rather add-ons continue to be developed off of pure conjecture with light guidance from the manufacturer the developer is trying to emulate?Take your doom and gloom and give that expertise to the next person writing a documentary about the environment, or 2012, or Nostradamus' predictions.Lighten up a bit guys. This is good news!

So wait, you're giving me a hard time for commenting on your post, which you posted because you also initially fell for the joke...My point is still valid: even if it were to happen, the doom and gloom posted here would not likely be an issue.

I cant believe people are believing what Randozza said lol, like seriously come'on, the only ppl on here tjat should be believing Randozza is the 4-10 yr old on this forum.

Hi,You can go back to my first post and see I didn't believe a word of it. Don't feel bad, your not the only one Robert got today.You talk about me giving you a hard time, didn't you give me a hard time about reading post before writing a comment?.I quote: "First, you all really need to read things before posting."and here is my first response (3:11am) to Robert's post:QUOTEHi,Here's one aspect of this new development/situation. "IF" and this is a tremendously huge "IF" Boeing has a controlling share in PMDG and this is not some April fools joke, they may keep the 737NGX for themselves and disallow any release to us simmers. :( B) This agreement (between Boeing & PMDG) may also remove PMDG from the flight sim market all together. :( :LMAO:Personally I don't buy it, Its an April fools joke. :( I just can't see Boeing (a multi-billion dollar company) getting involved with an extremely small company such as PMDG and/or Microsoft Flight Simulation. END QUOTELast but certainly not least, if you believe a giant in the aviation industry such as Boeing is going to purchase PMDG in the first place and then use them to create aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulation, I can see how you fell for today's April Fools joke.

So wait, you're giving me a hard time for commenting on your post, which you posted because you also initially fell for the joke...My point is still valid: even if it were to happen, the doom and gloom posted here would not likely be an issue.

Hi Ron,Not only that he wrote it, but he wrote it on APRIL 1st. How much more of a hint does one need to see its a joke. Maybe April fools day is not such a big thing out side of the United States.Who knows

I cant believe people are believing what Randozza said lol, like seriously come'on, the only ppl on here tjat should be believing Randozza is the 4-10 yr old on this forum.