PMDG Dash 8 development

[mikea76 184]

So you're saying I'm 12 years old or less? Did it ever come up to you that English might not be my mother tongue?

 

 

Your english is fine, I understood exactly what you meant and I am almost 37

[Kenzo 24]

What I meant to say is if you translate some words into another language, they might not mean exactly the same. Anyway, lets get back on topic.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

So yeah, back on topic.

 

Firstly, I really don't think it's fair to claim PMDG has a habit of announcing things that never materialize.  The only time that's happened by my recollection, would be the Airbus announcement, but that's a weak argument at best.  Anyone who was paying enough attention to remember the Airbus announcement should also remember that a key member of the team also left at that time.  That person is now on a team developing an Airbus.  It doesn't take a detective to figure that one out, come on now...

 

Secondly, if you pay a similar amount of attention to the MUC conference, the beginning of one of the videos started with Robert talking about the Dash project.  Even though the video starts after the discussion started, a little contextual reading can pin the topic on the Dash 8.  The gist of it was that it was more complex than they'd thought, so it has been set aside now.

[elche 5]

It is street slang for Good this week, next week it may mean something totally different in street slang.

That is why it is always better to use normal speech, in this case English, that way all those older than 12 will be able to understand you.

riiight....

[fwerff 70]

Still wish anyone from PMDG would shed some light on this....

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Still wish anyone from PMDG would shed some light on this....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZi4i-LI8bo

Start it at 06:10.

 

From the head of the company himself.  What more do you want?

[Lude2Envy 11]

I think the whole Dash 8 announcement was a joke. It was a code name for the 747-800 that was released. Watch the teaser video. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Watch the teaser video.

 

Watch the video linked above you post.  It was definitely more than just a pun.

 

...plus, watch the teaser video until the end.

1:30 has the actual model, and later it lists it as a separate development project from the 747-8:

[Kenzo 24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZi4i-LI8bo

Start it at 06:10.

 

From the head of the company himself.  What more do you want?

I did watch that video when it just came out, but I couldn't remember anything was said about the dash8. Thanks, I can't wait to read a status update from Robert saying they continued working on the dash!

[TheDanger 182]

I hope they update the 737 and release the new 747 before they work on the dash.

 

From the vid above "All dates are approximate" - Gee really? Just as well considering we are now nearly in the 2nd half of 2013 :lol:

[NGXfanatic 85]

Lucas - I imagine the Q100/Q300 development will not take as long as the Q400, as I imagine a lot of the underlying system development etc. will be at least partly portable from their Q400! It's a pretty cool aircraft! A PMDG quality ATR72 would be really cool!

Not too many folks are aware that Majestic had released a payware Q100/300 years ago.   In fact, they offered a Pro version that was used by some real world Dash operators, I think Austrian Arrows was one of the customers.   It had top notch systems programming and flight model accuracy, but it also had very dated cockpit gauges and panel graphics.   Almost freeware like quality if you ask me, circa 2004, and this was for a payware FSX product I bought around 2009.   But the point is, they have most of the work done for the smaller Dashes, they just need to upgrade the gauges and graphics really.   The Q400 is pretty much an entirely new aircraft, so it's understandable why it took so long to develop.  I can't imagine the Q100/300 will take Majestic as long to work on, and there's no argument that PMDG would be wasting their valuable time and resources creating their own Dash.

[hopskip 253]

Not too many folks are aware that Majestic had released a payware Q100/300 years ago.   In fact, they offered a Pro version that was used by some real world Dash operators, I think Austrian Arrows was one of the customers.   It had top notch systems programming and flight model accuracy, but it also had very dated cockpit gauges and panel graphics.   Almost freeware like quality if you ask me, circa 2004, and this was for a payware FSX product I bought around 2009.   But the point is, they have most of the work done for the smaller Dashes, they just need to upgrade the gauges and graphics really.   The Q400 is pretty much an entirely new aircraft, so it's understandable why it took so long to develop.  I can't imagine the Q100/300 will take Majestic as long to work on, and there's no argument that PMDG would be wasting their valuable time and resources creating their own Dash.

I'm not so sure they will just release a "exactly the same as the old 300 but with updated graphics". I think that, after they did such a brilliant job creating their own physics model for the Q400, that some smart cookie at Majestic would want to do that for any of their future products too. The Dash-8 300 they did had the usual MSFS model for turboprops, complete with the tendancy for the props and torque to go over maximum if you pushed the throttle forward fast enough, then without pulling the throttle back the torque would roll back all on it's own, very slowly, to where the throttle was set at. (possibly back to as far as 50%!) This made takeoffs ... difficult, and not exactly the way the real Dash-8 engines work.

 

Also, the earlier product was actually developed for FS9, and then ported to FSX some years later. It was a native FS9 aircraft.

 

The only real way to improve the way the engines work would be to use the same kind of simulation outside of MSFS that their Q400 product does, and I can easily imagine that they, as a good quality company would likely be wanting to make use of the new technology they have just developed for the Q400, now that it's been proven that the new technology is capable of replicating engine behaviour of the Dash-8's more accuratley than FSX can on it's own.

 

Whether this makes PMDG change their mind on their future products is up to PMDG. Certainly the iFly 737-800 release didn't change PMDG's mind on developing NGX, and if PMDG think they can make a great Dash-8 of some sort, then I'm sure we will see one.

 

That said, there aren't that many good commuter turboprop simulations out there and it would be a little less than ideal for 2 of the best addon producers make the same aircraft type, I'd rather see some different types.

 

Of course the Dash-8 line of turboprops is one of the more common ones flying around, so I can see why a good business model may not neccicarily include less common aircraft types (ie E120, Saab2000, Metro Merlin III, HS748 etc)... though, it's not like we don't have PMDG JS41's and MD11's flying around the virtual skies of Vatsim etc every day... (sometimes more Virtual flights on Vatsim than real actual active aircraft of those types).

[Tangolima 15]

Hi all, 

I have been comparing the Majestic with PMDG's J41 with a view to purchasing an in depth systems simulation of a turbo prop.

The clincher for me has been the fact that the Majestic is not compatible with Airhauler or apparently most virtual airlines. Now I dont fly with any VA's but I do use AH a lot. Pretty sure Majestic must be losing custom with this (oversight?)

Regards

Tim

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Pretty sure Majestic must be losing custom with this (oversight?)

 

I highly doubt that.  If they are, I doubt they mind.

[Steven_Caffey 23]

Hi all, 

I have been comparing the Majestic with PMDG's J41 with a view to purchasing an in depth systems simulation of a turbo prop.

The clincher for me has been the fact that the Majestic is not compatible with Airhauler or apparently most virtual airlines. Now I dont fly with any VA's but I do use AH a lot. Pretty sure Majestic must be losing custom with this (oversight?)

Regards

Tim

 

I think they fixed the issue with the landing rate, there's an update for that