Jump to content

PMDG secret project


Recommended Posts

My gut says DC-3 or something like that, but something in my doubts it, due to the fact that the DC-6 isn't ready yet.

My heart says 757, but again I doubt that due to the fact that another well respected developer once said they are working on one. 

I doubt it'll be a 787 since again yet another well respected developer (they also did a 757 once) is working on a 787. 

So in the end I'll bet on that hand-grenade Robert was talking about a few months back in an Airbus thread. :P 

 

Link to comment
  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Narutokun, on 02 Dec 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:snapback.png

Well...A little ingenuity can simulate 8 engines with 4...just playing with the thrust of one to simulate 2.

That's exactly what Capt. Sim did with their B-52. But is that the PMDG way? Maybe in XPlane.

So guys are you saying since 32 bit (FSX) can't deal with more than four engines... PMDG are working on a 64 bit plane simulating more than 4 engines and since PMDG are focused on Boeing it is highly likely that the plane will be a Boeing with more than 4 engines for a 64 bit sim platform => Boeing + 64 bit + more than four engines = B52 for X plane 10 64 bit maybe?

X-Plane11

GTX1070 8GB Vram - i7 4770K cpu @3.5GHz Quad core - 16GB RAM

Link to comment
  • Commercial Member

 

Narutokun, on 02 Dec 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:snapback.png

So guys are you saying since 32 bit (FSX) can't deal with more than four engines... PMDG are working on a 64 bit plane simulating more then 4 engines and since PMDG are focused on Boeing it is highly likely that the plane will be a Boeing with more then 4 engines for a 64 bit sim platform => Boeing + 64 bit + more then four engines = B52 for X plane 10 64 bit maybe?

 

 

Hell no. My post was just to correct the idea that simulating 8 engines in FSX isn't possible. Nothing to do with what PMDG has planned or 32 bit vs 64bit.

Jonathan "FRAG" Bleeker

Formerly known here as "Narutokun"

 

If I speak for my company without permission the boss will nail me down. So unless otherwise specified...Im just a regular simmer who expresses his personal opinion

Link to comment

It's probably that Steam style updating capability that Ryan mentioned they would create, but all of us are most likely wrong. It would probably be something completely off left field. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

777th post. If I was right, then PMDG= Illuminati confirmed.

David Zambrano, CFII, CPL, IGI

I know there's a lot of money in aviation because I put it there. 

BetaTeamD.png

Link to comment

The first FSX RC airplane?

Take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
To make a small fortune in aviation you must start with a large fortune.

There's nothing less important than the runway behind you and the altitude above you.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Link to comment

PMDG should consider doing a 727. There is no complicated navigation displays and no fancy FMC. If they wanted to add a navigation unit, they should use the same unit they put into the JS41 which some 727s use also. If this is too complicated, they can easily create a simple GPS unit that again, some 727's have.

 

I guess the time consuming aspect of such a project would be creating the various 727 models. If even this is too much of a hassle, they can just stick to the 727-200 with a Freighter and Super27 expansion.


y572_3.jpgC172Siggy1_zps11944daf.jpg

Marlon Carter - AVSIM Reviewer

Link to comment

I am always facinated by Military heavies. A C-17III Globemaster will be awesome. Its Cockpit layout is unique. Its exterior is unique. But I don't know how feasible that is. Isn't it made by Boeing?

 

Bill

C:|mydocuments\mypictures\my signature.htm

Link to comment

Boeing is protective of it's MD's? Is that why the movie Flight didn't just use an MD-80 or 717 (Like it obviously wanted)? I've always found Boeing to be receptive of entertainment brand uses. I can name a million films and games that have Boeing aircraft up close and center, but nothing with an MD.

Take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
To make a small fortune in aviation you must start with a large fortune.

There's nothing less important than the runway behind you and the altitude above you.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Link to comment

 

 


PMDG should consider doing a 727.

 

The 727 and 707 are my favorite commercial AC of all time. I would love to see the 727 done as only PMDG can. Only problem is it wouldn't be a big seller as the majority of simmers are looking for current AC in civilian service. So PMDG probably wouldn't ever do it. Too bad as the 707 really brought in the jet age as we know it today. And the 727 was the first  to open up destinations all over the world that were previously inaccessible to larger commercial jets. So much history there that not a lot of people really pay attention to. 

Link to comment
  • Commercial Member

 

 


Boeing is protective of it's MD's?

 

Yep. If you have the PMDG MD-11, you'll note that it doesn't come with a lot of performance data in the books. While I could swear there was a post out there that gives a little more specifics than this one, here is an example:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/124347-md-11-fcom-part-4-performance-missing/#entry818984

 

One would imagine that, if they're okay with giving performance data for the 777, they'd be fine with giving the perf data for another plane (especially since it was an acquisition), but apparently not.

 

 

 


Is that why the movie Flight didn't just use an MD-80 or 717 (Like it obviously wanted)?

 

haha - you mean the MD-80-717-CRJ? I think that was just their way of not having to pay one of the companies to use one of their planes in the movie. Plus, manufacturers tend to get a little uppity about their planes being used in disaster films.

 

Interestingly enough, it seems that they did think enough about a few aviation accidents that the movie was based off of to find the common type (SAS751 - the engine surge-stall aspect and subsequent miracle landing in a field; and ASA261 - the attempted inversion to save a control jam, along with the jackscrew cause).

 

 

 


've always found Boeing to be receptive of entertainment brand uses. I can name a million films and games that have Boeing aircraft up close and center, but nothing with an MD.

 

Absolutely. They must have their reasons for being a little more strict on use of the MD stuff, though I don't know what they are.

Kyle Rodgers

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...