Great news having PMDG in X-Plane-world. "Having" might sound optimistic nevertheless far from unrealistic. PMDG is a very big player in the sim-market. FSX still exists but will be history in about five years. PMDG is planning their future,they simply want to stay in bizz, so the only future they have is X-Plane. When PMDG says "We see no future in developement for X-Plane" it means they say "We are out of this bizz shortly"

This would indeed be great news. If the big players of the 3rd party scene decided to come over to xplane, xp is sure to be flight simulator #1 a couple of years down the road. I would be absolutely ecstatic if I had my pmdg 737/747 in xpx. The default 747 in xp is good, but doesn't even remotely compare to the pmdg version. Same goes for the x737.

It is a shame however that all the talk is regarding XPX which is really still in a beta stage. Why ignore the existing XP9.7 userbase

1. One could consider X-plane v9.70 a stable product, now that there will be no more "updates".2. At the same time, a good test to see how "compatibility" truly works between X-plane v9 and v10.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by m_av

Fantastic!!! I only wish I was reading the same announcment from http://www.a2asimulations.com/.With the release of A2A Simulations Accu-sim P-40 Due out in hours,I couldn't help thinking to myself.......GREAT! The P-40 will be out soon.........Wouldn't it be Fabulous to Fly this Warbird in The Beauty and Outstanding performance of X-Plane?Thank You Alan for this uplifting and hopeful post.

Fantastic!!! I only wish I was reading the same announcment from http://www.a2asimulations.com/.

Think again. On the news of PMDG's confirmation that they were looking closely at X-Plane, John V (ORBX) hinted they had not completely ruled out X-Plane. So if the tendencies shown are a sign of things to come, we can hope that A2A will also investigate.The one thing that is absolutely clear to me, X-Plane offers a haven for developers, much like Microsoft's earlier attempts, in that there is no gimmick to deprive them of the revenues they deserve for their work. It's a safe bet they know this and is one of the reasons they are drawn to X-Plane.

Actually, in the distant past when JV (ORBX) was setting up his office in Melbourne I distinctly remember him saying they spent some time considering whether to begin on Xplane or MSFS. Obviously after the decision was made to go with MSFS they never gave Xplane another thought.

Based on general comments I've seen, Orbx seems generally pretty hostile towards X-Plane. PMDG strikes me as more open minded.

Yes I had noticed that. Strange! It could be an attitude they may later regret.

MM,http://forum.avsim.net/topic/359013-for-those-who-havent-see-this-yet-pmdg-chimes-in-on-flight/Look at post #10. That sounds like he's having another look.

Sure, but what should they do. They have to try it with one of their models. Hey have to learn where their biggest problems are and how to get around them.

Yes, absolutely. A proof-of-concept test project is exactly the right thing for them to do. It would be foolish to make a full-on commitment, then find that the difficulties are insurmountable (or too expensive to overcome). So no criticism expressed or implied. The only reason for my comment was to temper expectations - those who are expecting a quick move by PMDG into X-Plane are likely to be disappointed. At best, this will take a while.

Fantastic!!! I only wish I was reading the same announcment from http://www.a2asimulations.com/.

Couldn't agree more.A while ago, Scott posted this. A little later, he posted this. In other words, a move isn't ruled out, but it's not imminent.This question of new platforms has to be difficult for any developer that's built its product line and talent pool for FSX. There may in fact be a future tipping point where most users have gone over to a new platform. But until then, it's a matter of pulling resources away from the biggest cash-producing projects. Not everyone has the wherewithal to do that - see the comments by John V. of ORBX, linked above. Also, the "porting" process has got to be extremely difficult. Even with developers like PMDG or A2A, who offload most of the sim functions into their own modules, you've still got to get those modules to talk to the new program. That would mean "translating" the flight model, and also getting the in-depth systems to work with a program that handles them in its own new way. You can see why Prepar3D would be appealing on the face of it - less translating to do. But of course, there are all the questions there about Lockheed Martin's ability or willingness to support a consumer platform. It sounds as though PMDG and ORBX are having very different kinds of interaction with LM, which might just be the ins and outs of working with an extremely large organization where people and departments are on different pages.One thing is clear - to borrow from the ancient Chinese curse, we're living in interesting times.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Alan_A

Look at post #10. That sounds like he's having another look.

Hardly a big surprise. The problem with X-Plane is: They have to reinvent parts of their workflow, since X-Plane works totally different.Prepare3D would be a much easier step, but I am not sure if some of LMs Staff really expected how noisy the fans can be.They work in a different industry and it is certain: They won't risk a part of their business for the Flightsim community.Orbx is no problem. Some of their commercial customers might even be interested to use them in their own simulations.It won't be easy. While some parts of Lockheed Martin are certainly interested, these Managers have to take care that they are not silenced by other departments. I think some companies start to realize that this won't be a party.And in this situation you start to think if you might have to change tools. I don't even think that X-plane is a one way communication. We have our APIs, now live with it. If companies like PMDG have real problems Laminar will look into their own code, what they could do. It will be a learning experience.But no one should expect immediate results. With full dedication I wouldn't be surprised if they would need two to three years to really exchange their workflows to an x-plane compatible version.

...... since X-Plane works totally different.

Perhaps true. I am not experienced enough to speak about the intricacies of flight models and how they are applied in each sim's case, but wouldn't the easiest thing to do would be to re-create/adapt the "look table" approach from MSFS thru X-plane's plugin option, where I heard people say, FWIW, that X-plane's entire flight model can be replaced with one's own, if one so choses ?My 2 cents - somewhat inflated no doubt.

It doesn't work quite that easily.You're half right. We're still limited to certain parameters in some datarefs that pertain to the flight model.

First of all, all are business. That means they look how they profit to go to another platform and what the future is. PMDG look like is taking faster steps than the other. They still have 2-3 years at least getting money from FSX, so they are planning for beyond 2015. They all ready have a guy to work on porting one of their aircraft to XP. They want a sim with future, but on solid base to make their move. That's now is X-Plane.In the other hand ORBX has be engaged with P3D. May be that was not the best decision, but if you committed in something it's hard to change it overnight.The key player is Laminar. From PMDG they are happy with the support from Austin' team. That's good news. No transition will be easy, but it they get the support they want, then i see why not to port their products to X-Plane.