I wonder how it is to be other developers, and the second your product is released, no matter how different it is, or even if it is a freaking helicopter, it gets compared to PMDG, and they called crap if it doesn't meet or beat it.

 

Nobody gets more pressure from PMDG than PMDG. Can you imagine what will be said if the 777 doesn't "meet or beat" the 737NG?

Nobody gets more pressure from PMDG than PMDG. Can you imagine what will be said if the 777 doesn't "meet or beat" the 737NG?

 

Since the first time in Microsoft's FS-Series the flight simulator was the limiting technology. Now, the technology evolved further and the customers KNOW there is a possibility to get a realism like found in the real aircraft.

 

There are 2 group's of pilots: the ones, which loves to fly instantly without programming the systems. Maybe just right after work. These has a family and maybe other hobby's. And there's another group. The ones, who are really interested in simulation. These ones, which are able to spend hours for flightsimming. This group just knows what is possible and requests at least the same level of system simulation as the 737NG has. If PMDG would release a budget Version, they will anounce it so. But the 777 will be as real as it get's and a successor to the 737NG. So it is fair and correct to expect at least the same level.

 

I'm in the last group spending 2 evenings a week in front of a computer (most times fsx) and 5 day's a week with family.

So it is fair and correct to expect at least the same level.

Not all addons can have big team with several extremely skilled developers behind them like PMDG has, it's not fair to expect same level of quality from work of one or just a couple of guys.

 

Anyway, now Majestic Software is soon going to release a Dash8-Q400 that goes way beyond PMDG in realism by using its own external engine to calculate much more realistic flight dynamics than FSX engine ever can give. I wonder if people are going to expect now also PMDG to make all of their planes to use this kind of external system just because it's possible, completely forgetting how huge amount of work and resources creating one takes.

It all just boils down to demand. People will always no matter what demand more.

 

 

Sent from my "thanks for reading my TapaTalk signature" iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey is there a way to make the yoke disappear as I do all of my flying from the VC and yokes just get in my way.

Anyway, now Majestic Software is soon going to release a Dash8-Q400 that goes way beyond PMDG in realism by using its own external engine to calculate much more realistic flight dynamics than FSX engine ever can give. I wonder if people are going to expect now also PMDG to make all of their planes to use this kind of external system just because it's possible, completely forgetting how huge amount of work and resources creating one takes.

 

I wouldn't wonder, I would expect that eventually. The practice has been going on for some time and is gaining momentum. If FSX were to remain the platform, someday it will become the new normal just as virtual cockpits became the rule, not the exception. If the 2019 PMDG 787 doesn't make proper use of whatever standards are in place then it will suffer. Otherwise we would all still be flying Sublogic Flight Simulator around Meigs. :biggrin:

Hey is there a way to make the yoke disappear as I do all of my flying from the VC and yokes just get in my way.

No, but honestly the yoke is short and non-intrusive.

I wouldn't wonder, I would expect that eventually. The practice has been going on for some time and is gaining momentum. If FSX were to remain the platform, someday it will become the new normal just as virtual cockpits became the rule, not the exception. If the 2019 PMDG 787 doesn't make proper use of whatever standards are in place then it will suffer for it. Otherwise we would all still be flying Sublogic Flight Simulator around Meigs.

I think in 2019 most people will be flying some other simulator, someone is going to fill this void eventually.

I'm going to buy it simply becuase we need high quality planes from the 1960s - 70s to keep me interested. FMS flying gets boring really quickly.

 

Even if it isn't perfect, efforts like this should be encoraged to keep developers in the game who love hand flying big iron...

 

Colin

Hey all,

A few updates, just finished help sort out the adf in the VC, now I have a real one sat in my hands lol,

so Jamal and Espen are working away on that too, with getting it setup correctly (It's still the same collins version,

with a drum display, you can see some photo's here of the real world ones...... http://www.flickr.com/photos/saraslave/sets/72157631583272363/

 

Also been working on something else, what colour would Sir/Madam like their cockpit...

These are in the original 4096x4096 size, so the original detail we had in mind.

Naturally the initial loading time is longer, but once loaded that's it.

Don't expect to be able to use them with a 512mB graphics card though lol.

Not sure when, if, or who will release them, but that's not my side.

 

IF your wondering what my setup is for painting and flying, its old, but functional ....

Intel QX6700 Quad core at 3.00GHz (It won't over clock). 6Gb 1066 DDR2

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 2048Mb in SLi. running at 1920x1200

It depends what you are used to, i get 6-10fps for flying in heavy scenery areas,

And obviously can't max out sliders with this CPU, but can still fly around with UK2000 airports, and playsims UK photoscenery with treescapes added.

So your rig, is important. Also I use DX10 all the time, much faster, and this was designed around that to gett all effects,

There are fixes for the DX10 bugs like scenery and taxiway guides, I'll see if i can dig up the Shader fix, it's on the AVSIM forums though.

 

That looks beautiful, but I can't get the textures to look sharp no matter what. No idea what I'm doing wrong. My i5-2500/560Ti rig should handle this beautifully. The 4096 mod is in fsx.cfg. I'm using these settings: http://www.simforums.com/forums/settings-for-new-drivers-updated-v1959_topic36586.html

 

Can't even read the red "caution sticker". :(

I'm not sure why,

I'm not a settings expert as i try not to tweak too much as I need FSX as raw as possible to try and see a basic view of how things will look without to many graphics card frills.

You won't get the same sharpness as the above shots, as those are the UHDT textures, the released ones from flight1 were 2048x2048,

However your textures should be readable.

My settings are set the Max Texture to 4096, and everything else is set to let the application decide,

except Texture Filtering set to High Quality, Texture filtering - Negative LOD Bias - Allow, Tripple Buffering Off.

Maybe someone here who tweaks more might be able to help a bit more.

747-fan....Did you try the Venetubo fix? It works great for me? I'm still on the fence with this DC-9. I love the slightly older pre-FMC planes where you have to really navigate. There just seems to be a bit too much negativity counter-acting the positive reviews surrounding this aircraft. Maybe I'll try it on my rig. We'll see.

 

What are UHDT textures? I'd rather not see images of a VC if I can't expect to get the same quality at home on MY rig. It's like the fast food restaurant commercials where it looks so great until you actually order it and see the difference.

The shots with the new panel colour look really good to me.

I agree...they look very good indeed!