My first transatlantic flight was as a kid, in a PanAmerican DC6-B, Clipper "John Alden".London-Shannon-Montreal-Detroit. Overnight in a berth, shared with my Dad... wow - memories..

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by Bert Pieke

From what I have seen it looks fantastic, although I don't fly the old stuff I am sure that there are a lot of people that would like it. Reading what has been said about it, it sounds like it has not taken much (if any) development time away from the 777........

That's right, here's what RSR said (I didn't add the capitals) :

As I described in my post- this project was/is conceived to keep the developers productive during their various down cycles BETWEEN THE NGX AND THE 777. Some of us on the team won't ever get near this one because our work on the NGX rolled immedaitely to the 777, for example. But other members of the NGX dev team were finished in March of last year- and weren't needed on the 777 until this month. So rather than having them sitting around twiddling thumbs- they produced this.

Nice way to make planes IMO! :(

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by Tatave

PMDG have said that if people looked at how the 777 was coming along, they would be suprised because of how far along it actully is. Going on the NGX track.... I'm guessing if their first preview of the T7 will be Late March... It will be released somtime Aug/SEP... IM GUESSING... seeing as PMDG had their first preview of the NGX at roughly the same time.... but like i said,IM GUESSING :(

PMDG released the first screenshot of the NGX about 20 months before they released the plane. Your estimate seems to be exceptionally optimistic. Personally I'm estimating the 777 release to be somewhere around christmas 2013. So just under two years away.I must say that I am a lot more excited about this DC-6 than the 777! I like modern airliners, but I'm not much of a long hauler. Sitting at cruise for 10 hours straight, looking out the windshield while the automatics takes care of everything is not really my idea of having fun. The DC-6 on the other hand looks like it requires constant attention, and it probably wouldnt even be able to fly for 10 hours straight anyways. Looks like a great new challenge

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by Sekstifire

I like modern airliners, but I'm not much of a long hauler. Sitting at cruise for 10 hours straight, looking out the windshield while the automatics takes care of everything is not really my idea of having fun.

Then you really should try A2A's B-377. Constant tinkering with just about everything required.Cheers,- jahman.

PMDG released the first screenshot of the NGX about 20 months before they released the plane. Your estimate seems to be exceptionally optimistic. Personally I'm estimating the 777 release to be somewhere around christmas 2013. So just under two years away.I must say that I am a lot more excited about this DC-6 than the 777! I like modern airliners, but I'm not much of a long hauler. Sitting at cruise for 10 hours straight, looking out the windshield while the automatics takes care of everything is not really my idea of having fun. The DC-6 on the other hand looks like it requires constant attention, and it probably wouldnt even be able to fly for 10 hours straight anyways. Looks like a great new challenge

Well,i am an Optomist :)Anyway, i actully thought it was only a few months before (Note to self: read year, not just date) ...But also, considering the annoucment of the T7 was done in '09, that would mean it would take4 years... Now the NGX was done in 3(?) and that was COMPLETELY ground-up... whereas the 777 can Take little bits off the NGX, so its not completely GUso i doubt it will be released later than this year....and dont forgetITS JUST A GUESS OF MINE! :(

Ha, I am in the same boat.. upgrading upcomming week, so its perfectly on time. Will try FSX again then.The DC6 is just perfect! :(

They´ll do it for you, don´t they? :(

Then you really should try A2A's B-377. Constant tinkering with just about everything required.

+2 Actually I am surprised that A2A has not released another Wings of Siliver Aircraft (Civilian) since the B377. The DC6 would have been a nice build for them but am totally jacked that PMDG will build it.

+2 Actually I am surprised that A2A has not released another Wings of Siliver Aircraft (Civilian) since the B377. The DC6 would have been a nice build for them but am totally jacked that PMDG will build it.

Agreed, it would be a far better product if A2A made it with accusim. I'm sure it will be an excellent aircraft graphically and with a great sound pack as well but I don't see the point of managing manifold pressures and such like if you can firewall the throttles with no adverse effects.Lets be honest it's not really the complete package without some kind of failure model such as engine fires like the J41.Bryan.

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by bsmfinegan

I personally have no need for failures. I launch FS to go flying, not to blow an engine and spend the 90 minutes of free time I have trying to figure out what I did wrong so I can attempt to not do it again. I can understand modeling systems so that switches and dials do things more in depth than just make a clicking sound, but failures I've never understood.

I like failures that are caused by pilot error, like the bricked engines on the JS41 or the Leo Maddog, but I'm not a huge fan of time based failures (which almost always happens far, far too often compared to real life) where stuff just fails without the pilot doing anything wrong. Its extremely rare that stuff fails in real life. Incredibly rare

I have flown quite a lot with my PMDG 737NGX and never had any failure so far. But I like the idea that someday that might change and I'll have to react quick and find out what's the problem

I personally have no need for failures. I launch FS to go flying, not to blow an engine and spend the 90 minutes of free time I have trying to figure out what I did wrong so I can attempt to not do it again. I can understand modeling systems so that switches and dials do things more in depth than just make a clicking sound, but failures I've never understood.

The main reason professional simulators exist is to model failures that are far too dangerous to practice in a real aircraft. Even subtle failures (like the loss of pitot pressure) can doom an aircraft. To me, practicing an engine failure just before and just after V1 is a lot of fun. Practicing partial panel failures during ILS is also fun. And it's also fun getting an odd failure announced on the EICAS that you need to scoot over to the POH to find the correct procedure for that failure, just as in the RW.Failures are part of flying. Just ask Icarus.

I like failures that are caused by pilot error, like the bricked engines on the JS41 or the Leo Maddog, but I'm not a huge fan of time based failures (which almost always happens far, far too often compared to real life) where stuff just fails without the pilot doing anything wrong. Its extremely rare that stuff fails in real life. Incredibly rare

While in-sim failure modes do seem to occur too frequently, a B-377 had to ditch in the Pacific midway while returning to the mainland from Hawaii because of the failure of not one engine but two. The big large-bore multi-cylinder radials of yesterday (and their 70 inch propeller blades and hubs) where nowhere as reliable as the modern jetfans of today. Another B-377 crashed in the Amazon jungle (took the rescue team three weeks to get there!) because the an engine tore loose from the mount (after losing a propeller blade) and broke the wing spar.Video of Pan Am Flight 6 B-377 ditching

, account here. Note this is a publicity video designed to allay the public's fear of flying.No, flying of yesteryear was not nearly as safe as flying today...Cheers,- jahman.

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by jahman

No, flying of yesteryear was not nearly as safe as flying today...

And almost one fourth (13 of 56) of the Boeing 377s built were destroyed in accidents.

And almost one fourth (13 of 56) of the Boeing 377s built were destroyed in accidents.

Yup! Pretty scary actually. I mean when they start stuffing hollow prop blades with rubber so they won't crack, you better travel by ship.Cheers,- jahman.

Failures are part of flying. Just ask Icarus.

While that may be true, I'm still more interested in the "flight" part of flight simulator. I'm not interested in the 600 ways I may screw up a plane if I were actually sitting behind the controls of the real thing. I want to simulate to a level that creates immersion and allows me to enjoy the feeling of flight without the frustration of requiring an engineering degree just to get the bird in the air. I understand some may disagree, but that simply how I approach FS. Making recovery from mechanical failure a mainstay in the simulation simply to stay in the air takes the fun out of it for me.