Will you give it a rest!!!

 

Give what a "rest" precisely?  :-)

This you've been posting  this crap all over AVSIM!

 

It's bull and you know it!!

 

 

 

As a simming platform, FSX is unfinished and fundamentally broken.

Ah I see.

 

Well I have been around the FS series since its inception so know of what I speak.  And my comment was within context of a larger remark.  And I call it the way I see it.  So, carry on.  :-)

Ah I see.

 

Well I have been around the FS series since its inception so know of what I speak.  And my comment was within context of a larger remark.  And I call it the way I see it.  So, carry on.  :-)

 

I've been around since FS 1.0 too. When you can show me a sim that can do all this let me know!!

 

 

...and that's only the tip of the iceberg of what's FSX is capable of.

 

You are the perfect CS customer.... I think you should just stick to CS planes and leave the real sims to people that understand why it takes a few years to make them.

 

 

Who cares if it's incomplete, does not fly right and is frustratingly bad  as long as you get something that looks like a 777 right?  

 

Thankfully the developers of the top quality study level planes (PMDG,FSL,MAJESTIC and IXEG) don't listen to "stuff" like this. 

 

 I did not mentioned anything about CS on 'my' post. However, since you bring it up; then, I'm sorry to disappoint you but in the 85 years of simming,  I bought only one CS aircraft..But, since it's roobish, I uninstalled it from my computer very quickly. I know about flight simulation. My point is they take way too long to finish a product...Even if their intention is to simulate metal fatigue with time or a dead bug on the engine, or the serial number on the a/c...They should not take years to do this.   However, when they do it (as I mentioned), it's very likely  due to lack of time , lack of resources, lack of enough manpower, or simply the desire to hype-up the product.  Of course no serious simmer wants a messed -up product; least yet wait a century for a decent a/c. (Or are you one of those who would say: "Oh no worries guys, I know this is a top notch developer, uhhhh yeahhh, uuuuhhhh, ahaaaaaaa, I know it's going to be the best 777 or the best Airbus , so I don't care if they take 10 years to complete it; I'll wait...In fact, add another 5 years to the 10." :lol:

On the current CS 777 (v1.1) you have to use the hotkey (Shift+H) to turn on the pitot heat - there is no pitot heat switch in a rw T7; its pitot/probe heat is automated.

 

Now what does this tell about CS's capabilities to give us a finished and fairly debugged 777 with system depth worthy of that 60 Euro price tag?

 

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I understand your frustration, but please carefully evaluate your statements before posting.

1. PMDG has demonstrated that it possesses the financial and intellectual resources as well as the passion required to produce high-quality FSX aircraft.
2. The time that should be taken to model a high-quality B777 (and the definition of an "acceptable time frame") should be set by one, such as a developer, who fully understands the complexities of the software design process.
3. PMDG most likely considers and tries to balance the "completeness" of its initial releases with the customer impatience it perceives.
4. Progress involving many human life aspects would slow if all ambitious, delayed, or long-term projects were cancelled: many modern real-world aircraft would not exist! Patience often pays off.
5. Tom addressed your Airbus/Boeing point well.

 

 

 

+1:

 

One huge difference among many others is that CS would stick as much as possible to the FSX SDK when modelling planes. If you want something way closer to the rw plane you have to start writing your own code - actually a huge amount of it.

 

You have more code to write, more code to tweak, more code to test, more code to optimize ... PMDG's development circle just has to be so much longer than CS's. The result will be a much higher-fidelity-plane, than the other developer could achieve with the limitations he exposed on himself (time and custom code).

 

This you've been posting  this crap all over AVSIM!

 

It's bull and you know it!!

 

 

As a sidenote: If FSX weren't unfinished and broken, why would Prepar3D fix and enhance it???

 

 

. My point is they take way too long to finish a product...Even if their intention is to simulate metal fatigue with time or a dead bug on the engine, or the serial number on the a/c...They should not take years to do this. 

Why it shouldn't take years to do that? If you wish to simulate a complex jetliner as well as possible, making every little detail as near to the real aircraft as practically possible sure that is going to take a lot of time.

 

Then if all or some of the developers also have other job which eats part of their time the amount of time they have for developing is very limited. Also still after all it's pretty small scale business compared to some more mainstream games for example, thus you can't really have too many people working on a product and still get enough income for everybody. 

 

 Either you have no simulation at all, a bad simulation that you don't have to wait too long or a brilliant one that takes a year or two to create. 

 

So what's your point? How you suggest PMDG and others should overcome the realities and develop their products in as good quality as they are doing now, yet in a lot less time? 

FScamp,

 

actually in your quote Johnny767 is referring to CS (taking too much time finishing their planes focussing on eye-candy-stuff).

 

A thorough development takes way longer than Johnny767 is requesting; finishing a CS plane, say, two years after customers paid their, say, 60 Euros, for an initial release labelled "complete" is not acceptable for me, either.

 

To do some justice to Johnny767: If a developer refrains from too much custom code, using every bit of the SDK, that should result in a shorter development cycle than PMDG's.

I think it was over 100,000 lines of code alone for the FMS of the PMDG MD-11 to give some perspective on how much work goes into their products. Quality, affordable, and quick, you can only pick two.

 

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD

I think it was over 100,000 lines of code alone for the FMS of the PMDG MD-11 to give some perspective on how much work goes into their products.

 

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD

 

 

(Me, being off-topic):

 

Any estimations on the number of code lines for the "XML knots" (or whatever they are called/however that's accomplished) for those 400+ crew alerting messages in the MD-11?

 

I think it was over 100,000 lines of code alone for the FMS of the PMDG MD-11 to give some perspective on how much work goes into their products.

 

 

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD

 

 

 

(Me, being off-topic):

 

Any estimations on the number of code lines for the "XML knots" (or whatever they are called/however that's accomplished) for those 400+ crew alerting messages in the MD-11?

 

I have no idea. The number I stated for the fms was claimed by someone from PMDG, but they didn't state any other figures. Just guessing, but the total lines of code for a PMDG aircraft must be massive, probably several hundred thousand or more.

 

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD

 

 

As a sidenote: If FSX weren't unfinished and broken, why would Prepar3D fix and enhance it???

 

If FSX were that bad, why would a company like LM  choose it as a platform to develop on? Why didn't they pick X-Plane if it's so much better? That should tell you allot!!!

If FSX were that bad, why would a company like LM  choose it as a platform to develop on? Why didn't they pick X-Plane if it's so much better? That should tell you allot!!!

 

Tortuous reasoning.  Perhaps X-Plane was too expensive, or they couldn't license it, because X-Plane is already involved in commercial training?

 

I think that FSX is (at the moment) the pinnacle of civilian flight simming, but its not entirely perfect a new release would be most welcome if only a 64-bit version to avoid the OOM errors.  :rolleyes:

If FSX were that bad, why would a company like LM  choose it as a platform to develop on? Why didn't they pick X-Plane if it's so much better? That should tell you allot!!!

 

 

I faintly remember that is was mainly for that massive polygons-processing capability of FSX.

 

If you take a look at the Prepar3D enhancements over FSX, it's pretty obvious, that FSX gives a better starting point to shape a military training aid than X-plane (following text partially quoted from wikipedia):

 

• Internet multi-player capability – collaborate with others to train for missions or tasks
• Multi-channel capability – creating a more expansive viewing capability all the way up to 360 degrees field of view
• Sensor camera options – experience night vision and infrared sensor camera options to enhance military mission or night flying training
• Realistic scenery – high resolution 12 cm content added for specific locations
• Underwater environments
• Enhanced developer toolset – create new training solutions for the most modern platforms
• Expanded Hardware Controls – train with realistic hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS)

 

 

BTW I never rated X-plane over FSX - especially since I don't have any X-plane experience at all! (Just suggesting that the FSX release probably wasn't meant to be Microsoft's end of its development cycle - LM simply took over.)