Ok, nice to see you did not take my thoughts as any kind of insults or offence, those were not intended that way! Have to confess - I do agree with you for the most part. What I was trying to say and probably lot of MD-11 owners did..., is that I would buy another (new) version of this masterpiece only for "small" improvements. It is not possible to guess what those sales could be if this a/c would get released after NGX and T7, some good teasers+ads... ok, I am dreaming there. Anyway, PMDG loyal customer base has increased a lot, that should play some role in the figures of the sales.

 

Take care and please forgive my bad English! 

 

 

I can agree with a thought, that MD-11 (release of it) had a bad timing. So very unfortunate for us. However, I enjoy flying it for years now. IF the release date would be in next 2 months... Ok, I will not make any guess!

 

 

It is not possible to guess what those sales could be if this a/c would get released after NGX and T7, some good teasers+ads...

 

You forget that there was PMDG before 777, before NGX, before MD-11.

Their service record was just as good back then as it is now. They had their 737 and 747 releases recently.

You seem to think that people who were not around for MD-11, or were but did not want it, would suddenly throw money at PMDG because of their NGX/777 experience. That is plain wrong. The NG/QoS experience was just as good for the time, and did not help one bit.

As I remember, PMDG did a poll to find out what to develop next.

 

Out of all the popular aircraft of that time the MD-11 came out tops, so I fail to understand why they claim that it didn't sell enough?  Are we to assume that all the MD-11 voters didn't buy it?

 

The ITVV DVD featuring an MD-11 flight from Schipol to Mallorca AND BACK, was the single thing that caused me to buy it not only for FS9 but for FSX too.  I never gave the plane a second thought until then but now I love it.

As I remember, PMDG did a poll to find out what to develop next.

 

Out of all the popular aircraft of that time the MD-11 came out tops, so I fail to understand why they claim that it didn't sell enough?  Are we to assume that all the MD-11 voters didn't buy it?

 

The ITVV DVD featuring an MD-11 flight from Schipol to Mallorca AND BACK, was the single thing that caused me to buy it not only for FS9 but for FSX too.  I never gave the plane a second thought until then but now I love it.

 

I think that poll was actually posted by a user. I'm happy to be corrected but I don't believe PMDG has ever gone in for the community consensus approach when developing a product plan.

 

That aside, it's very easy to forget that this forum community makes up a surprisingly small proportion of the customer base. So it's not that a majority of PMDG's customers want a MD11 v2.0, it's that a majority of the people who happened to be on a forum and happened to see the poll thought this way.

 

PMDG know their sales figures, and they also know the forum population. If both stacked up in favour of an MD11 2.0 then I think it would be safe to say it would have happened. The truth is the PMDG MD11 was a technical triumph that didn't perform as well commercially as it deserved to.

Ok, so, or this reason, why don't let this package as free upgrade if no 2.0 is on the pipeline?

Ok, so, or this reason, why don't let this package as free upgrade if no 2.0 is on the pipeline?

+1

 

... tried to remain silent and will do so again now, but i could not resist - because indeed:

... why don't let this package as free upgrade if no 2.0 is on the pipeline?

Cheers, Christoph

I don't. I don't know how they do their coding. But like I said, I do have quite a few hours of OO coding under my belt, and I do see where the " we changed how we do things" can come from.

 

I suggest you get a few more before trying to second guess workload. Object orientated programming is over-rated.

 

We only want fixes and a few cosmetic updates... and they do NOT take forever.

 

The CTDs are well understood and gives anyone familiar with the MD-11 codebase a running start with debugging/fixing the problems.

 

The problem with the MD-11 is that it is not Boeing. The fact that PMDG won't entertain ANY modern MD product says it all. DC-6 is fine - it's a classic from the 50s. MD-11/MD-8x/717 - forget it. Even Boeing IRL hated MD and were drooling at the chance to buy them in order to get rid of them.

 

MD were light years ahead of everyone else - they just made some bad business decisions that ultimately led to their demise.

 

Just look at the MD-XX (MD-11 stretch) and MD-12 to see where MD were in terms of thinking. Their avionics from a pilots perspective are outstanding and beat anything produced by Boeing or Airbus. Their CAWS is pure genius (it speaks "CABIN ALTITUDE!" instead of the generic overspeed warning used by Boeing for example).

 

As always happens - those who are trail-blazers die early.

 

Sure, the MD-11 doesn't have the VC eye-candy of the NGX or 777, but the systems are right up there with them (the only truely missing feature compared with their later products is terrain mapping).

 

In many ways, the MD-11 set the standard that PMDG have strived to meet or exceed ever since. Many of the core systems technologies that they use today first appeared in the MD-11 (e.g. due to a restriction on providing performance data, they wrote the performance directly into the FMS so that it could compute things we would otherwise need tables for that they could not provide, such as fuel requirements and V-speeds). They also added custom fuel burn and engine modelling which were FS firsts. MD-11 was also the first to not only feature engine failure due to fuel freezing, but also the modelling of different grades of fuel that could be loaded (different freezing points). This continues to the 777.

 

As far as complexity of the FMS goes, the MD-11 FMS has to be the most complex (and most capable) of any that PMDG have ever produced. It's a work of art. The only feature it is missing (and it was posited not long after release that they "may add it later", which we know now won't happen) is the PROCEDURE TURN function. I hope RTA function on the 777 doesn't go the same way.

 

IMHO, the NGX and 777 are great, well-rounded packages, but the MD-11, as well as being a rather unique aircraft IRL, knocks it out of the ball-park. "But MD-11 was a failure; it only sold 200 units IRL!!!". So did F-22, but no-one is deriding it for that. :lol:

 

Best regards,

Robin.

How very nice and condescending of you...

As you may, or may not, have noticed, I never stated I knew even one line of their code.

What I did say, however, was that it is understandable where they're coming from.

Fixing one "simple" thing might trigger a domino reaction, and before you know it, you're months in, fixing just that one, very simple, thing. Also, they've moved on, doing things differently today. I reckon the chances are higher we'd see a completely new version of the MD-11, rather than an update. And that IS saying something...

And quite a comparison you're making there, between a multi million dollar fighter jet, designed to only sell a handful of planes, relative to a civil tubeliner.

I don't think PMDG would care about the sales numbers of the real life counterpart of the planes they're making. However, the (lack of) sales suggest that there is a correlation between those numbers and the numbers of sales they're getting.

They're a business, not a charity. Deciding not to continue development on the MD-11, however sad that decision may be for us users, is still a very solid business decision.

Sorry for being condescending.

 

Also, they've moved on, doing things differently today.

 

This is the kind of mind set that kills software developers. How they "do things today" has no effect on the level of support they offer to older software. The only question is did they completely forget how they wrote it the first time?

 

One of my direct competitiors and I share a common client for entirely different things. This competitior said recently of some server hardware/software I installed that it "had got old and was degrading due to age". In reality, the system was operating as good as the day I installed it, and there weren't any problems with it in over 6 years of operation. Just total nonsense from someone who liked to think they knew more than they actually did (and were trying to BS their way to a sale).

 

Thankfully my client is smarter than that, and heeded my advice to stick with what he had. There is no sense in spending $3000 for no good reason whatsoever. I just saw your comments in exactly the same way - FUD. Unfortunately too many in the IT industry operate this way, and I for one will not tolerate it.

 

Nothing personal.

 

It's akin to a rouge garage mechanic telling you that you need a new engine when new spark plugs would suffice. It brings the industry into disrepute.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Ok, so, or this reason, why don't let this package as free upgrade if no 2.0 is on the pipeline?

+1

In the same way, you must be really angry that Microsoft no longer supports Windows 5.1?

Moving on, does mean doing things differently. Whether you like it or not.

 

And at that, I'm going to stop discussing that same old topic, before the insults start flying both ways.

At least VC texture update, something like side project for PMDG ... would be nice.

Or maybe give permission for example for McPhat to do that - hmm, why not ?

I cannot believe how some people just keep beating this horse!!!  :t0152:   What part of "it ain't gonna happen" don't you understand?

I cannot believe how some people just keep beating this horse!!!  :t0152:   What part of "it ain't gonna happen" don't you understand?

It's a shame that you don't read what has been proposed before your comment.

It is a shame that people like you have to keep bringing up things that PMDG said they are NOT GONNA DO!!!!