Lets just imagine the building blocks required to produce a piece of software that the end customer uses.

 

The blocks usually involve at least 4 to 5 specialists, people who are experts in particular fields. Then theirs the people that need to ensure that all these specialists are working on the same page, then the testers the feedback and the list goes on.

 

For some projects their may be only 2 or 3 people involved for others it can be in the tens or hundreds. Or maybe only 1

 

It is possible that a few special people can do many tasks however, the fewer their are the longer the project.

 

Because, company's have many other non productive tasks to perform like after sales service the simple rule is that the fewer people their are the longer the project.

 

As this hobby is rather niche I assume that many developers are working from their bedrooms FOR the company that is A or B or C whilst working on other projects that pay the bills. This is simply my opinion, because of the time involved in producing something ready for the market, and the number of sales possible.

 

You can only support so many developers and admin staff and the fewer you have the longer the time frame.

just like Mcdonalds.. Im luvin it!! (this thread)

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

 

 

Just to get back to the CS topic: CS has this to state in their own ("official") forum:

 

"For example the '757 Captain' system programming consist of 1600+ print pages of handwritten C++ and XLM(sic!) code."

 

Not trying to be offensive but this number could represent the PMDG MD-11 FMS alone, roughly speaking. Not to mention the "rest" of the MD-11 systems coding.

(...) (I bet they recycle most of their system stuff from their previous projects), (...)

 

 

As some hints:

 

- Bugs and shortcomings from their 757's and 767's FMC reiterating in their 777's FMC?!?

- The ALTN button on the 777 CDU would distinguish this version from the 757's and 767's CDU. This "new" button still INOP in the 777 version 1.1?!?

 

 

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

 

 

 

Just to get back to the CS topic: CS has this to state in their own ("official") forum:

 

"For example the '757 Captain' system programming consist of 1600+ print pages of handwritten C++ and XLM(sic!) code."

 

Not trying to be offensive but this number could represent the PMDG MD-11 FMS alone, roughly speaking. Not to mention the "rest" of the MD-11 systems coding.

Maybe, just maybe that includes all the white space and comments who knows.

 

Number of lines or printed pages of code bears no resemblance to quality or complexity. It's just a number to impress the uninitiated and cannot be used as a comparison.

They do?

 

Boeing 777

 

Initial Design proposal 1988

First offer to airlines 1989

First Flight  1994

First Commercial flight 1995

 

Airbus A380

 

Initial design finalized 2001

Manufacturing starts 2002

First Flight 2005

First Commercial Flight 2007

 

Boeing 787

 

Initial design finalized First version (7E7) 2003

First order 2004

First final assembly of the first test aircraft (Obviously the parts were earlier, but there is no date mentioned)  May 2007

First Flight Dec 2009

First commercial flight 2011

 

Seems allot longer than 4 to 6 months to me!!!

 

True when it's in production it may be at that rate, but using the same analogy,  PMDG and FSL is in their design phase , which means they still have a few years, before Boeing or Airbus can do it faster. Once in production, theirs can reproduced  in a few minutes download and install.

 

That said I think we can be sure the PMDG 777 will be sometime this year.  They do have a good track record after all. Not sure though about the FSL A320, as there is very little information on that one to go on.

 

Is this for the real world or for FSX :biggrin:  :biggrin:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Sure../ tell PMDG not to take too long, ?

 

Agreed. Johnny767, that was a laughable post, really "ignore list" worthy.

 

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Agreed. Johnny767, that was a laughable post, really "ignore list" worthy.

 

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Really? Uhhhhhh Whahaiiiiiiiiii  ?  Nooooooo. I'm glad you're having fun.   :LMAO:  :LMAO:

 

Alright, Johnny, stop messing with people's brains (they don't like too much fun) , and stick to the topic. We're discussing CS stuff. So get serious ! :t0101:

 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:

 

 

So what software projects have you worked on?  If you have not then how do you know how long it should take to develop addons

Johnny, you aren't "messing with people's brains" you are just telling lies then when called out you backpedal and change the subject. If you know how long it takes to create a PMDG quality addon then go out and do it. Lets see what you can publish.

 

I'd also like to see your tax returns just to prove you aren't on the Captain Sim payroll, you've been a vocal supporter of theirs since day 1.

Maybe, just maybe that includes all the white space and comments who knows.

 

Number of lines or printed pages of code bears no resemblance to quality or complexity. It's just a number to impress the uninitiated and cannot be used as a comparison.

 

 

Guess that's why CS made their thread about CS code pages a "sticky" in their own forum. Unfortunate that some other developers can easily provide the community with even higher numbers of their pages and code lines.

Don't feed the trolls comes to mind here.  

 

I don't know why anyone is bothering trying to debate Johnny's "points", as they're clearly formed from nothing but a childish impatience and frustration, with a total ignorance of what is involved is simulating 95+% of a real airliner, as PMDG did with the NGX, and as they're doing with the 777.

 

If not being inconvenienced by having to wait for something is your top priority, then as someone else said, buy CS stuff......... or maybe Abacus stuff would suit you - they turn 'em out pretty quickly   :wink:

 

 

 

* ain't that just the way these days.... people holding a sense of entitlement over everything

Having experienced CS, Abacus (and, I might add) AFS-design, could actually increase your patience towards top-notch developers' releases:

 

As ... impatience can hurt your flightsim experience as much as your wallet!