Archived

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

Jetx44

Suggestion for the 777

Recommended Posts

Hi PDMG!

 

Say, what if you can install air stairs?   The 737 has it and it would be a wonderful add on for the triple.   Maybe have a option under the menu to where it rolls in to either the first door or the second??

 

Just an idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

dont think 777 has stair option.  might want to check specs of real plane but dont remember seeing that in list of equipment that boeing provided on 777

 

 

Thanks,

 

Andrei.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the 777 has built-in airstairs; probably too high off the ground for that to be practical.  However, I would have been nice if they had included a selectable external airstair, especially for the freighter.  It just does not look right sitting on the cargo ramp with all the doors open, but no way for crew to get in or out.  I remember that PMDG did include this for the 744 freighter.

 

Andrew Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The 737 has it and it would be a wonderful add on for the triple.

 

It was there because the real 737 has this feature.

 

The 777 does not, so it's doubtful that this would be added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Say, what if you can install air stairs? The 737 has it and it would be a wonderful add on for the triple. Maybe have a option under the menu to where it rolls in to either the first door or the second??



Just an idea

Do you truly understand how big this plane really is? I work on aircraft like this for a living so take it from me, it is next to impossibe/impractical to have one installed. There are several issues:

 

-the plane is too high. The doors are almost three stories high. That is a lot of stairs

-with that much stairs, where can you stow such a large and heavy contraption? The doors are located above the cargo holds and electronics bay. there simply isn't any room.

-safety. Stairs going that high must be sturdy and that means it will be heavy. No need for the extra weight.

 

Nice try though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stairs would not be installed but an option to wheel it out to the doors.  How do the folks of FEDEX that fly the 777 get into the plane?  Just wondering..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stairs would not be installed but an option to wheel it out to the doors.  How do the folks of FEDEX that fly the 777 get into the plane?  Just wondering..

I guess real world airlines use GSX or AES

 

It's not PMDG's job to simulate what happens outside of the airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


How do the folks of FEDEX that fly the 777 get into the plane?

 

Stairs, but those are more reminiscent of something like what GSX provides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stairs, but those are more reminiscent of something like what GSX provides.

 

PMDG created dock-able stairs for their 747s.  I kinda wish they would bring them back, and wondered why they stopped incorporating those stairs into their future (then) products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PMDG created dock-able stairs for their 747s.  I kinda wish they would bring them back, and wondered why they stopped incorporating those stairs into their future (then) products.

 

I remember, but that was before there was a reputable source for ground operations.

 

The problem is that the approach you're referring to requires each developer to do this on their own, which means only their aircraft get to use that feature.  Instead, utilities like GSX have come around to make it more universal, and take that pointless load off of the aircraft developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember, but that was before there was a reputable source for ground operations.

 

The problem is that the approach you're referring to requires each developer to do this on their own, which means only their aircraft get to use that feature.  Instead, utilities like GSX have come around to make it more universal, and take that pointless load off of the aircraft developers.

 

Sure... except for those people that don't want to spend $40 for a dock-able airstair and pushback car.  Therefore, "pointless load" is rather subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure... except for those people that don't want to spend $40 for a dock-able airstair and pushback car.  Therefore, "pointless load" is rather subjective.

 

Eh...that's debatable...

 

Sure, it's subjective, but given that PMDG hasn't included what you're referring to since the J41, it would appear that they have a similar stance.

 

Subjective or not, reality is something you have to face.  GSX (and others) have ground simulations available.  PMDG clearly has determined that this is a better avenue for simulating ground operations, instead of burning their own time to include stuff like that.  I'd say that's pretty straightforward, and rather reasonable.

 

$40?  Sure, but it works with all of your aircraft essentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDMG makes a high quality product just like A2A.  Both of them are the cream of the crop when it comes to designing planes that are the real deal.  A2A has the B377 and has a wonderful air stair that comes up to the side of the plane once you activate the door to open.  I was thinking on that line with the 777 that a simple air stair that can come up to the side of the plane or move away.  It is all about realism. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


It is all about realism

 


It was there because the real 737 has this feature.



The 777 does not, so it's doubtful that this would be added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know 737 has the automatic air stair that comes out of the plane but to have a external type that moves to the door as an option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess real world airlines use GSX or AES

 

It's not PMDG's job to simulate what happens outside of the airplane.

 

:lol:

 

Eh...that's debatable...

 

Sure, it's subjective, but given that PMDG hasn't included what you're referring to since the J41, it would appear that they have a similar stance.

 

Subjective or not, reality is something you have to face.  GSX (and others) have ground simulations available.  PMDG clearly has determined that this is a better avenue for simulating ground operations, instead of burning their own time to include stuff like that.  I'd say that's pretty straightforward, and rather reasonable.

 

$40?  Sure, but it works with all of your aircraft essentially.

 

.... but PMDG has already chosen to give us a ground air and ground power cart, and chocks, so a simple set of stairs that can be switched on or off from the CDU like the other ground connections is hardly going to be a massive "load" on the developer.

 

Half as much again in cash terms to another developer (plus whatever FSX resources this takes), just to get a set of stairs, which is all the OP was suggesting, does seem a little like overkill when all the other ground connections have already been included in the package ... 

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Half as much again in cash terms to another developer (plus whatever FSX resources this takes)"

 

I sometimes wonder if folks realize what they have been able to purchase for less than $100? Outside of spending millions for a Level D sim, your PC now is the absolute closest thing to a Boeing 777 possible. For less than the cost of dinner out on a Friday night it is possible to derive THOUSANDS of hours of educational entertainment. Wading through the documentation and failures will keep the average simmer busy for the better part of a year. Then he/she can navigate to far points of the globe immersed in a comprehensive simulation that is audio-visually penultimate. This could occupy the better part of a decade.

 

This is not meant to dismiss the OP.... But, that one line I read further down I simply could not pass on. Together with the NGX, PMDG continues to obliterate every preconception about the limitations of PC based simulation.... and we can experience all this for half-cents an hour......stunning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess real world airlines use GSX or AES

 

It's not PMDG's job to simulate what happens outside of the airplane.

 

+1 for this!:) GSX and AES is the way to go. I have both and I absolutely love these addons to bring the extra realism to the apron.

 

"Half as much again in cash terms to another developer (plus whatever FSX resources this takes)"

 

I sometimes wonder if folks realize what they have been able to purchase for less than $100? Outside of spending millions for a Level D sim, your PC now is the absolute closest thing to a Boeing 777 possible. For less than the cost of dinner out on a Friday night it is possible to derive THOUSANDS of hours of educational entertainment. Wading through the documentation and failures will keep the average simmer busy for the better part of a year. Then he/she can navigate to far points of the globe immersed in a comprehensive simulation that is audio-visually penultimate. This could occupy the better part of a decade.

 

This is not meant to dismiss the OP.... But, that one line I read further down I simply could not pass on. Together with the NGX, PMDG continues to obliterate every preconception about the limitations of PC based simulation.... and we can experience all this for half-cents an hour......stunning!

Well said! I quess as a developer, you have to draw the line somewhere what to include and what not. I think the list could be endless if you try to implement every single wish from the public, and this is no offense.

 

Just my two cents

 

Cheers

Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


.... but PMDG has already chosen to give us a ground air and ground power cart, and chocks, so a simple set of stairs that can be switched on or off from the CDU like the other ground connections is hardly going to be a massive "load" on the developer.

 

....becaaauuuuuuuuuuuse:

 

Nobody has modeled this yet because it's so aircraft specific.

 

 

 

I think people are failing at seeing the point here in a really blindingly obvious way:

PMDG added ramp support equipment a while ago, but stopped because someone else was making a product that all aircraft could use.  This frees them up to do other things.

 

Yes, there are still ground equipment models, but think about it:

Can you really rely on another developer to model something that directly interacts with your aircraft?

No, not really.

 

"But the belt loaders, fuel trucks and jetbridge interact with your aircraft!!1!1!"

They appear to interact, but nothing is going on, really.  They're just visual effects that appear around the aircraft.  The GPU, ASC and ACC all actually interact with the aircraft.  Each one of those carts actually have an effect on the systems of the aircraft.  Relying on third parties to do that is potentially setting yourself up for disaster.

 

 

 

Not sure where ya'll's history lessons came from, but over time we developed this thing called specialization.  The Cliff's Notes version is that Bob, Harvey, Dick and Tom all used to hunt, cook, make weapons, and plant crops.  Eventually, each one of them realized that they each enjoyed one of those activities more than the rest, and began working only on that specialty.  Bob started hunting, and relied on the rest to do the other functions, as others began to do the same.

 

I'm sure woodworkers used to walk into their back yards and chop down the next choice tree for their next project.  Now they generally go to Home Depot.

 

That's what we have here:

Someone else is providing a service that can be capitalized upon to free up resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I shouldn't have entered this fray  :lol:

 

I still don't see why a set of steps is such a big deal ... what the OP wanted is a depiction of a set of steps that he could look at, nothing more. 

 

 

 


The GPU, ASC and ACC all actually interact with the aircraft.

 

The picture of the GPU in the external view doesn't interact with the plane, and there's is no reason that a GPU couldn't be modelled without having a depiction of it when looking at the external view. It's eye candy.

 

I think this request is much more akin to the "visual depiction only" (PMDG's words, not mine) of the test equipment on the testbed aircraft, which they thought some people would like to look at in external view. Some people (the OP and me for starters) would prefer a set of steps to get to their virtual 777 doors, without paying nearly 50% of the list price of the whole plane!

 

Cheers  :lol:  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I still don't see why a set of steps is such a big deal ... what the OP wanted is a depiction of a set of steps that he could look at, nothing more. 

 

I hate it when people reduce things to "well what's the big deal?" and "how much extra time could it take???"

 

If you don't think it's a big deal, go do it.  You'll quickly learn an appreciation for why they aren't doing things where they aren't necessary.

 

 

 


The picture of the GPU in the external view doesn't interact with the plane, and there's is no reason that a GPU couldn't be modelled without having a depiction of it when looking at the external view. It's eye candy.

 

True, but then you're going to get the people complaining that they can't see the GPU or other carts related to those features outside (and here's the important part, and I've repeated it enough times for this to have already hit home by now), because nobody else provides this visual modeling.

 

Is that specialization commentary sinking in yet?  Hopefully the bolded, italicized, underlined, red text helps drive the point home, because at this point, I'm not sure people are listening...

 

 

 


I think this request is much more akin to the "visual depiction only" (PMDG's words, not mine) of the test equipment on the testbed aircraft, which they thought some people would like to look at in external view. Some people (the OP and me for starters) would prefer a set of steps to get to their virtual 777 doors, without paying nearly 50% of the list price of the whole plane!

 

Again, the test package isn't done by someone else.  See above.

 

...and the price argument is moot.  It's not quite fair to stress that the price is 50% of the whole plane's price.  While it's true, it's not like the 777 is the only plane it will work on.

 

It's funny that so many are making that argument here that it's too expensive (as a percent cost of the one aircraft), yet I know some of them have to be using EZCA.  As a percent cost of one aircraft, that's a significant cost, too, but nobody is getting upset about that one.  Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


True, but then you're going to get the people complaining that they can't see the GPU or other carts related to those features outside (and here's the important part, and I've repeated it enough times for this to have already hit home by now), because nobody else provides this visual modeling.
 
Is that specialization commentary sinking in yet?  Hopefully the bolded, italicized, underlined, red text helps drive the point home, because at this point, I'm not sure people are listening...

 

There's no need to pile on the sarcasm just because a few people disagree with you...  and just because they don't agree doesn't mean they are either not listening or are wrong!

 

Anyway, the OP made his request for a small addition to the visual model. The folks at PMDG can decide if they think it adds value, if they don't, they won't do it and we'll all still buy their things anyway. Just like we would have done if they hadn't included a visual model of the flight test equipment (or the ability to add a satcom antenna to the NGX).

 

Anyway, enough of this, I now remember why I've been a member here for 10 years and don't often post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


There's no need to pile on the sarcasm just because a few people disagree with you...  and just because they don't agree doesn't mean they are either not listening or are wrong!

 

Sorry - I just hate repeating myself.  The points made were in line with what I already explained, and part of it is that I've been repeating myself ad nauseum because people won't read the intro manual before coming here and claiming something is wrong.  Granted, that's a separate issue, and yes, I know I'm not required to respond to stuff, but still...

 

 

 


Anyway, the OP made his request for a small addition to the visual model. The folks at PMDG can decide if they think it adds value, if they don't, they won't do it and we'll all still buy their things anyway. Just like we would have done if they hadn't included a visual model of the flight test equipment (or the ability to add a satcom antenna to the NGX).

 

Again, you can't call it "small" until you've done it before.  Seriously.  Not only does the item need to be modeled, it needs to be animated (the show/hide and restrictions in its appearing are animations).

 

Also, clearly they've already made the decision that it doesn't add value as they've only included certain items/features that haven't been modeled by others.

 

 

 


Anyway, enough of this, I now remember why I've been a member here for 10 years and don't often post.

 

Sorry to contribute to that, but if you're going to offer a counterpoint to someone's argument, it's expected that you're going to draw their fire.  It's the nature of human discussion.  Granted, my heavy dose of sarcasm isn't often necessary, but that's no reason to not post frequently.  I hate to say it, but if you jump into a discussion and offer a counterpoint, you should know what you're getting into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)  I hate to say it, but if you jump into a discussion and offer a counterpoint, you should know what you're getting into.

 

 

... especially with Kyle!   :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites