I voted no because -200LR is way to go for me, but I voted YES too for you who like 200ER. Btw, why would you made multiple choice available in this poll?

I voted no because -200LR is way to go for me, but I voted YES too for you who like 200ER. Btw, why would you made multiple choice available in this poll?

 

I made this poll because Rob said they'd only consider developing it if there was enough community interest. A few people clearly don't want and don't care for the 200/ER, I would love it. So I thought why not get a good idea on who actually wants and will fly it! I believe they said it will take a little bit as all the different engine types and I think they make them fly how they actually fly in real world with the different engines. Like the standard Non-ER 300 apparently is a pain to climb sometimes ha!

obsolutely no, if there had to be an extra cost for that variant

obsolutely no, if there had to be an extra cost for that variant

 

So you're just getting the 77L?? You do know every variant will cost something extra, why not pay? There will be an extra cost for 77W, 773, 772/ER and (if they develop it) 77F.

How can you expect to get it for free.....

Definitely the ER version!

I personally voted no. I am really only interested in the LR and the F. To me it is like someone offered me a choice of V8 GTO or a stock V6 Ford Mustang...or give me the V8, then for extra charge I can get the V6 too. The V8 is the more capable/performance one and suits my needs so I have no need for the V6.

 

However I can understand why folks would like a 200ER and fully support PMDG doing an expansion pack of it. I personally prefer the 747-400/F to the 800/F ;)

 

For instance I am glad A2A choose to do the P-40B/C variants instead of the later more capable models because I personally prefer the more streamlined looks of the early models.

 

I suppose if FSX were a combat sim or had an economic side to it where capabilities/performance mattered I probably would want the later more capable variants.

 

Cheers

TJ

I really want the 777-200ER too.

Of course I want the -200ER, as this is the most common one. I think, it should also be in the baseback in my opinion (and not the LR).

-200ER is history, why would anyone want -200ER when LR is much better in every aspect? Better range, better MTOW and MLW, better take off distance, more fuel.

 

Hope that PMDG decide not to go with 200ER and redirect money and time into something better.

-200ER is history, why would anyone want -200ER when LR is much better in every aspect? Better range, better MTOW and MLW, better take off distance, more fuel.

 

Hope that PMDG decide not to go with 200ER and redirect money and time into something better.

The -200/ER is one of the most ubiquitous 777 variants. Many, many airlines still fly the -200/ER (think UAL, KLM, BAW, SIA, AAL, DAL, AFR, ANA, JAL, CPA, KAL, etc.) The -200/ER has 516 total airframes both flying and ordered (according to wikipedia), whereas the -200LR itself has "only" 57 frames flying and ordered. The -300/ER has 661 frames total, so I understand the demand for that airframe.

 

I personally dislike the blended winglets on the -200LR/F and -300ER, and would be ecstatic to be able to fly the -200ER for my virtual airline.

Of course I want the -200ER, as this is the most common one. I think, it should also be in the baseback in my opinion (and not the LR).

 

Oh yeah I totally agree, but it makes business sense for the LR to be the base-pack.

 

The uptake for a 200LR expansion to a 200ER base-pack I believe, wouldn't be as large as a 200ER expansion to an 200LR base-pack.

 

Basically what I'm saying is, I believe the reason the 200LR is the base-pack aircraft is because they will be able to make more money going in this order. Can't mock them for it, but that is my personal opinion.

 

However, let's not forget that the 200ER has 3-different engine types whilst the 200LR has only one. This means it is quicker to produce over the 200ER, and a lengthened model for the 300ER would be much easier starting from the 200LR base.

 

-200ER is history, why would anyone want -200ER when LR is much better in every aspect? Better range, better MTOW and MLW, better take off distance, more fuel.

 

Hope that PMDG decide not to go with 200ER and redirect money and time into something better.

 

Wait let me get this straight. You would rather they leave the 200ER and focus on something else. Like what exactly?

 

The facts you stated matter only in the real world my friend. However the 200ER is the second most popular variant of the 777-family, and it makes more sense to make this model than it does a 200LR IMO. However I understand why they are going with the 200LR base.

In RL -200LR cost more and its not profitable enough for companies that do not fly extremely long routes, thats the reason why -200ER is more popular. In FS we can fly the best version of 777 anywhere, why would anyone in this world want to fly limited -200ER?

 

Every other aircraft is better to make than to double 777-200

I would LOVE the -200ER!

 

Regards

In RL -200LR cost more and its not profitable enough for companies that do not fly extremely long routes, thats the reason why -200ER is more popular. In FS we can fly the best version of 777 anywhere, why would anyone in this world want to fly limited -200ER?

 

Every other aircraft is better to make than to double 777-200

Realism of routes. The -LR isn't used on a "short" route like JFK-LAX, or even JFK-LHR. I like to mirror real aircraft on real routes, and the -200ER would do that. Judging by your past posts, you don't think it should even be an option, begging the question: with the 200LR and 300ER already planned and announced, why do you care if others want to wait longer for a -200ER?

Because its waste of money and time, and I do not want to wait them to make -200ER in order to continue on next project.