April 11, 201214 yr A380 - Too Ugly to be Developed :LMAO: Just because other aircrafts are covered by other companies doesn't mean we will not be doing them... 'tis all I can say :-) I'll give you some examples, the DC-6B has been covered by others, we are doing it. 777 has been covered, still we are doing it. 737NG, we still built ours.... and so on and on, need I say more? Its not as simple as your statement. There are so many parameters: RL aircraft is popular or not, quality of existing addons (for every single aspect: model, flight model, VC, 2d panels, systems, sounds), age of existing addons, customer demands, target audience, projected profit, viability to simulate some unique systems and overcome platform limitations, possible contracts with RL based aviation companies... I believe you are evaluating every of these parameters, and many more, and actively monitor the market, because no matter how much you love aviation, developing or whatever else, this is just a business for you. Simple as that. This is 156 topic about the future of PMDG, I really cannot see the point. Future of PMDG are NGX, 777, 747, DC-6 and maybe dash. [color=#a9a9a9][size=1][size=4][img]http://forum.avsim.net/public/style_images/flags/rs.png[/img][/size] Lj. Prodanovic[/size][/color]
April 11, 201214 yr It's less ugly on the inside than out,but it looks too short due to its height,it's nice being a passenger though :) Jude BradleyBeech Baron: Uh, Tower, verify you want me to taxi in front of the 747?ATC: Yeah, it's OK. He's not hungry. X-Plane 12 and MSFS2020 🙂 System specs: Windows 11 Pro 64-bit, Ubuntu Linux 20.04 i7-13700KF Gigabyte Z790 RTX-4060-Ti , 32GB RAM 1X 2TB M2 for X-Plane 12, 1x256GB SSD for OS. 1TB drive MSFS2020
April 11, 201214 yr Just because other aircrafts are covered by other companies doesn't mean we will not be doing them... 'tis all I can say :-) Well, apparently it did where the B757 was concerned, although that LDS one's arrival is more overdue than Glen Miller.... Al Alan Bradbury Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here
April 11, 201214 yr We're not doing an A380 - ugliest plane in the sky if you ask me personally. i cannot agree more with you. only a small part of me can be proud about my aunt who designed the cabin. Tebin Ulrich
April 11, 201214 yr Well, apparently it did where the B757 was concerned, although that LDS one's arrival is more overdue than Glen Miller.... Al If Flight Simming were more mainstream I'm sure we'd be comparing the LDS 757 to Duke Nukem Forever. As for the future threads, I'm sure PMDG has planned their future (as every business must). The development of new aircraft and allocation of resources for those aircraft has to be carefully laid out.We can speculate on what they are going to do, but do not think for one second that they wake up one morning and say, "Hey! Let's do a Sopwith Camel!" "That'd be ossum bro!". As for the A380, it may be visually unappealing to some who have posted here, but aren't all of us in this forum in it for system depth? I don't find the A380 ugly. Even if I did think that, if PMDG announced a A380 I know I'm buying it. Hypothetically, if we had say in what PMDG developed, we'd get nowhere because we all have different preferences. We have seen PMDG knows what they are doing. Request threads are like free market research for them. However, don't be put off if they go in a different direction. "I am the Master of the Fist!" -Akuma
April 11, 201214 yr We're not doing an A380 - ugliest plane in the sky if you ask me personally. Could not agree more with this statement. Seriously hideous.. If they ever do an airbus, (which, I personally hope they don't) I would want a 330. Dave Swanson
April 11, 201214 yr Commercial Member If Flight Simming were more mainstream I'm sure we'd be comparing the LDS 757 to Duke Nukem Forever. Agreed. I'm all for respect, but to not develop a very mainstream aircraft because a respected colleague is "developing" it... At some point, I'd be saying "hey, buddy, you know I respect you, but are you gonna finish that or can I finish that up for you?" The 75' is one of my favorite aircraft and I've got nothing to show for it. Don't you even think about mentioning CS... Kyle Rodgers
April 11, 201214 yr I'm curious if Airbus would even agree to assist a hobby simulation company.. My guess is they would not.
April 11, 201214 yr Agreed. I'm all for respect, but to not develop a very mainstream aircraft because a respected colleague is "developing" it... At some point, I'd be saying "hey, buddy, you know I respect you, but are you gonna finish that or can I finish that up for you?" The 75' is one of my favorite aircraft and I've got nothing to show for it. Don't you even think about mentioning CS... I believe (don't quote me on this, I just remember reading it somewhere on the PMDG forum, it might not have even been a PMDG staff member who said it) that PMDG have an agreement with LDS that PMDG will not develop a 757... Will Wilson
April 11, 201214 yr Not to make assumptions on the development process or anything, but I'd go out on a limb to say that the development of a high accuracy sim relies mostly on having a partner airline to work with them, as any maintenance engineer is as good as if not better than an official airbus document. And they'd be more willing to help if it was considered a hobby for them too, where as airbus employee's I'd say would consider it more related to work. Then, a small team of pilots to test the flight model would be needed, but there's enough on the forum to cover that base. With the airlines supplying FCOMs, FCTMs, Copies of Tech Logs, Maintance Manuals ect, I'd say the actual connection in Airbus Industries is fairly unimportant, nice to have, but unimportant..... Capt. Rónán O Cadhain. Rónán O Cadhain.
April 11, 201214 yr Commercial Member I believe (don't quote me on this, I just remember reading it somewhere on the PMDG forum, it might not have even been a PMDG staff member who said it) that PMDG have an agreement with LDS that PMDG will not develop a 757... Yes, that was the reason for, and the specific allusion made in my post. If we're referring to the same post, there was a mention of "out of respect for [the developer]" they won't be overlapping projects. ...which works, in theory, if there were an actual project to overlap... Kyle Rodgers
April 11, 201214 yr Guys, They're going to close the thread if we keep discussing the LDS 757 like that. Yes, we all have strong opinions about it, but it's not worth arguing over if it'll kill an otherwise interesting thread. That said, I kind of want PMDG to do a Cessna 172. Carenado did one, but it can't do IFR (Well, it can do /A, but I want GPS and Precision stuff). It should take them a week at best. :P Take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire. To make a small fortune in aviation you must start with a large fortune.There's nothing less important than the runway behind you and the altitude above you. It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
April 11, 201214 yr Commercial Member Take the default Cessna and put the RealAir FDE in it, or merge in an RXP GPS. Kyle Rodgers
April 11, 201214 yr Actually if you ever made anything very realistic I guess Airbus could take the developer to court, everything Airbus related has to be licensed, from a scap file to the information in the SIM, to an FMGS trainer. You can't get a partner airline without agreement from Airbus, as that airline has to sign an agreement with Airbus that they wont disclose information... even to get the information for a flight planning system
Create an account or sign in to comment