Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

doorstep

A new (NGX) version of the wonderful MD-11

Recommended Posts

 

 

If the theory of sales was based on popularity and R/W flying at airports today, then that would make the DC-6 project obsolete before its even released.

 

 

I know this thread has gone for several pages, but this point has been raised several times.

 

Self quote to avoid repeating myself several more times:

 

The difference is that there were gaps in the development cycle that are now filled.  It's not an issue of opportunity cost, rather an issue of making money where none was previously made.

 

The DC-6 is a lighter interim project that is meant to fill the gap between the major developments to keep the teams tasked with something.  They are not deferring resources to work on it, rather, as resources become available, they can move to the interim project.

 

The teams were originally idle at various times during the main project's development cycle, and are no longer idle.  As such, by releasing a new product, regardless of the aircraft type, money is now being made where money was previously not made.

</blockquote>

 

Well aware of your post and opinion. Still doesn't nullify the theory that he presented of sales based on RW present flying popularity. Interim project or not, why would people be put to work on something that wont sell well based what the md11 supposedly did? How many know of or is popular with the dc6 compared to the 737. Few. Old timers and select number of others. I agree its nostalgic and unique but its a business looking for sales and I personally don't see how it would even outsell even the MD11.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


CYVR LSZH 

http://f9ixu0-2.png
 

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Still doesn't nullify the theory that he presented of sales based on RW present flying popularity.

 

It does, really.  An MD-11 or similar popular aircraft of today is going to be complex.  The DC-6, while complex in its own ways, is not going to be nearly as complex as today's aircraft.  While it's not a popular by today's standards, or by today's numbers, it has a quicker turnaround to the market.  Ergo, while it might not be as popular, it's not going to cost as much to produce, and again, is still creating income where none existed.

 

Any time you're creating income where none existed, theories related to other sources of income aren't really an issue.  An additional reason for the interim projects is not so much to make profit, rather to get a break from the more complex, in-depth projects:

 


So as the NGX wound down, and it became time to give everyone on the development team a rest from the brain-bending work that is required to produce a product like the NGX- various folks on the team started to tinker with this gem of an idea for a "fun" development project for the team.Yes- occasionally even we need a break from the endless glass/FMS cycle... and what better way to recharge the batteries than with an airplane as beautiful as an old Douglas propliner?

 

You simply cannot compare the interim/light projects to the main development projects.  You're comparing apples to oranges.


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post

Kyle you seem to be completely missing the point. All we are asking for is a better cockpit that is similar to the NGX?

 

I feel sure that, that would be a much simpler exercise than developing a DC-6 to PMDG standards.

 

We already know the answer that they are not going to do it. Others are debating whether the DC-6 is going to be a meaningful and paying project in comparison.

 

Whether, or not they lost money on it is debateable. It's Still selling not only in downloads but on disk too.


George T

 

Banner_MJC11.png
 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Kyle, you make points for the DC6 which im not against btw, (not sure if I would buy it) but I think its pretty clear on here for MD11 fans and probably most others wherever they may be that own the MD11 would love to pay for a visual upgrade HD pack. And I dont think that involves a whole lot of complexity compared to developing a whole new aircraft FMS or not. 

 

But Im not trying to step on PMDG, I dont know all about the factors determining their business decisions, just saying I dont understand it. Just dont think the MD11 deserves to be completely shelved IMHO. After all how many said they would continue to fly her even though the 777 will be out. 


CYVR LSZH 

http://f9ixu0-2.png
 

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Kyle you seem to be completely missing the point. All we are asking for is a better cockpit that is similar to the NGX?

 

I'm really not.  Going back and updating the cockpit takes resources away from other projects.  Robert stated very clearly on the last page that the data supports their decision to not go back and do this.  Why?  Going back and doing this likely has two outcomes:

1 - They do it for free as a SP, which means they've lost out on the opportunity to otherwise make money.

2 - They charge for it, but again, have likely lost out on the opportunity to otherwise make as much money as another project.

 

 

 


I feel sure that, that would be a much simpler exercise than developing a DC-6 to PMDG standards.

 

Simpler, and shorter term, too, likely.  At the same time, see above.

 

 

 


We already know the answer that they are not going to do it. Others are debating whether the DC-6 is going to be a meaningful and paying project in comparison.

 

I understand that, but my points are still valid.  It's an issue of opportunity cost.  Again, see above.  Even if the price of the aircraft were the same as the MD-11 panel project, I really believe (in concurrence with Robert's previous statement) that they would see more money come in from a new plane, regardless of complexity.

 

 

 


Whether, or not they lost money on it is debateable. It's Still selling not only in downloads but on disk too.

 

I don't think anyone could say they lost money.  I don't think any one of these guys is on a salary (I could be wrong), so other than paying for servers, the domain name, and other fringe costs, there isn't much cost going into the project, and there can't be too many direct costs (licensing the product would be one).  I'm not going to dismiss those costs entirely, but to say they lost money on a software product, given my understanding of their business model, would be a bit of a stretch.  Again, I could be wrong, because I don't know how much licensing would be, or what their business model is, but that's my gut feeling.

 

I'm sure it's still seeing downloads, but again, the issue is one of opportunity cost.

 

Sales of the disks are through third party vendors, which were probably licensed for a particular number of copies, at a particular rate.  As such, the continuing sales of disk copies don't really bring them extra money.  This is only my assumption, though, because I don't know the nature of their agreements.



 

 


Kyle, you make points for the DC6 which im not against btw, (not sure if I would buy it) but I think its pretty clear on here for MD11 fans and probably most others wherever they may be that own the MD11 would love to pay for a visual upgrade HD pack. And I dont think that involves a whole lot of complexity compared to developing a whole new aircraft FMS or not. 

 

I understand, and I'm on the same page.  I'm for the DC6, and I would actually love to have an update for the MD11.  I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, and help people understand that there are many other factors than simply looking at the response of the forum here.  I'd definitely pay for the upgrade, but again, you have to remember that the forum is only a small part of the customer base.

 

 

 


But Im not trying to step on PMDG, I dont know all about the factors determining their business decisions, just saying I dont understand it. Just dont think the MD11 deserves to be completely shelved IMHO. After all how many said they would continue to fly her even though the 777 will be out. 

 

I wouldn't say you're trying to step on anyone, really.  I agree with you, and I'm sure they would also agree that they wouldn't like to see it shelved.  You can even see several allusions by the team that they did it because they really like the plane (emotional side).  As such, I'm sure they'd really like to have it up to NGX standards (visually or under the hood).  The business case (non-emotional) states that they should pursue other options, however.

 

As they're a business, despite their wants and desires, sometimes it's better to pursue what's going to give you more bang for the buck.


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post

LOL, I believe there are about as many airworthy DC-6s as there are 777-200LRs in service :lol:

 

Maybe developers sometimes choose a project simply because it will be fun and exciting for them to do. The MD-11 apparently was a fun project to do. Too bad it's sales weren't as high as the other projects.

 

If you were developing virtual cars, would you rather spend your time developing a Ford Windstar or a Jaguar E type?. There is no wrong answer, everyone has their preferences.

 

A good aircraft choice...King Air or Starship? (popular workhorse vs obscure exotic bird)

That is answered by how do you fly...for fun or for virtual 'work'. Again no wrong answer...whatever floats your boat.


"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Douglas Adams
war2.jpg
Tejon 'TJ' Stanley

Share this post


Link to post

There is something in the debate of popular vs sales that is being missed.  Someone brought up the Concorde as one example.  Yes there was less than 20 ever produced, but it is iconic!  Being iconic or something people dreamed of flying on will make it popular.  The 747 is iconic and has had 1600+ built so is has been flown on by a lot of people.

 

We all have some plane that is a favorite because possibly of something from out past.  Maybe we took a flight on one when we were young, or lived near an airport where they were common.  Definately developers do planes that 1) they want to do 2) will make money so they continue to be able to do #1.

 

The MD-11 was well recieved, I believe PC Pilot did a huge write up on it; can't remember if it was even a two part article.  It did get a lot of attention and press, it was a jump up that PMDG followers know happens every time a new addon is released.  For what ever reason, people did not buy it.  But those who did shows they are passionate about it.  I am on the side that while MD-11 is great, it isn't iconic to me and thus I tend to pick my 747 to fly instead.  I will probably will start to fly the 777 the most when it finally releases.  I too have a love of an airplane that does not seem to get all that much love, it sold well and there has been one or two addons created for it; but it has never been up to the PMDG level I am used to.  So Rob if you need a "Classic", please do a 727 the right way!


Jhan M. Jensen

KOGD / KSLC

Beta Tester: PMDG [MD-11, 747v2(LCF/-8), J41, NGX, 777, 747v3], FlightBeam [KSFOhd, KMSPhd], PacSim [KSLC, KRNO], Turbulent Designs [KIDA, TerraFlora, KGFI],
                    Drezweicki Designs [Patches], Aerosoft [Airbus A32X Professional], Microsoft [FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS9, FSX], Fly2K!

Boeing777_Banner_BetaTeam.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

There's another important thing to consider, which is this:

 

PMDG already made a big investment into developing the MD-11. That part is done and over with. No doubt at least 95% of lifetime product sales at its current price point are already done. In other words, barring any changes in pricing or product features it's never going to sell much more than it already has. What PMDG could do is slash the price (nothing extreme, say $39.99) to drum up sales that they would never get otherwise. Suddenly they're making some money again on a product that was otherwise "dead."

 

If such a change was made, I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility that they might sell enough units at the new lower price to justify an update, even if it was only a small update to the virtual cockpit and maybe some functionality here and there. This in turn could bring more sales.

 

Hey, they have already stated their position on this so it's all academic at this point, this is just what I think could happen if things went in a different direction. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Sound business sense Molleh.

 

What I fail to understand is that, we are not asking for a new development, merely a 3D version of the VC cockpit? The length of this thread must tell all, surely.  I would be quite prepared to pay double the original asking price for this in FSX.


George T

 

Banner_MJC11.png
 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Sound business sense Molleh.

 

What I fail to understand is that, we are not asking for a new development, merely a 3D version of the VC cockpit? The length of this thread must tell all, surely.  I would be quite prepared to pay double the original asking price for this in FSX.

 

Hi George,

 

I think it was Ryan who told that building a new VC is very time consuming. I remember it was in a discussion about the possibility to change between a dirty and clean cockpit. They have to make pictures, They must build up the picture, etc.

I'm not very skilled in programming, bur I can imagine, if it cost a lot of time it isn't worth the money you get for the new upgraded MD11.

 

However, I love to fly the MD11 and I agree with you, I'm willing to pay a lot of money for a "NGX qualitylevel" MD11 VC.

 

Several month ago someone started to build a high res cockpit for the 747X. It was removed (didn't asked permission to PMDG or something like that. No doubt PMDG was right), but I should  be happy with a simple upgrade like that. The textures this guy made looked very crispy.

 

Regards,

 

Eric


Eric van Dorp

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


What I fail to understand is that, we are not asking for a new development, merely a 3D version of the VC cockpit?

 

And while you are at it, could I have a pretty hostess that will bring me fresh coffee when ever I press a button...  What you are asking for is a major investment of time and effort to improve a cockpit that is still one of the best available for FSX. The only way that you could think this was not a new development was if you have never tried to develop anything. Try doing one or two aircraft repaints and you will get a sense of what is involved, just in the graphic component of the task. And why do you think this is worth any effort at all? Do you really think that there are customers out there that have been put off buying the current MD11 because they don't think the VC is good enough?

 

Please. This horse is dead, stop flogging it.


Paul Smith.

Share this post


Link to post

Whether PMDG change there mind or not, the MD11 is still the best aircraft they've ever done in my opinion, and I've owned everything they've produced since the days of Fly!


Thanks, Matt  -|-  Win 10 Pro 64, 7820X @ 4.6Ghz, Corsair H115i, Asus Strix X299, 32Gb Corsair Vengeance, MSI RTX 2080ti, Samsung C49RG90, CH Pedals, Saitek Yoke, Aviator Joystick & 2x Throttles, TrackIR, VRinsight MCP Combo, XP11, P3D v3.4 & v4.5 Pro and way too many add-ons to mention! Simming since '95. Flying since '98.

Share this post


Link to post

Ahh...the PMDG MD-11F. Was ever a finer simulation of heavy metal ever produced? Methinks not! But seriously, as simmers we often fixate too much on what we don't have rather than what we do.

 

Would I love an MD-11 refresh and touch up? That's like asking if I want bacon. Of course, and where is this bacon you speak of? Are we getting one? Rob, Ryan, and these forums say no so I'm just going to go ahead and enjoy flying the wings off of what I do have. It's possible the 777F will lure me away with FDX routes but my "Mighty 3-holer" will still likely be my main mount for cargo runs.

 

So if you are part of the PMDG MD-11 cult and find yourself upset because there will not be a v2 power up your existing MD-11 and let "B****ing Betty" know your troubles. She always listens to mine.

 

 


Daniel Fernandez

Share this post


Link to post

It's possible the 777F will lure me away with FDX routes but my "Mighty 3-holer" will still likely be my main mount for cargo runs.

 

I know exactly how you feel Dan.  The 777 may reduce my flight hours in the MD-11, but it will never pry me away for long.  I was 19 years old and stationed on a military base overseas surrounded by L-1011's, DC-10's and eventually MD-11's (US Military contract planes supporting the Air Force fleet).  How could one not be awestruck by the uniqueness of having 3 engines instead of 4 on all their globetrotting missions?  There's just something about a 3-holer that draws you in.  Flying on all of them in real life numerous times was impressive to say the least.  That's why my beloved MD-11 fleet in FSX doesn't see much ground time, all the while rekindling great memories.  No updates, disappointing yes, end of the world, no.  I love what I have and even when Z Plane replaces X Plane and MSFS 20 are released (wishful thinking right), the MD-11's will still be ruling the skies in my neck of the woods.

 

As I type this on my second computer, I'm at FL360 in FedEx 449 with 2300 miles remaining till touchdown in Taipei in my trusty MD-11F.  Life just can't get any better!


Chris Sunseri

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    39%
    $9,930.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...