This is a really odd discussion.  20 pages of speculation on PMDG's next project when historically PMDG has not had the best record of getting out the projects they actually announce...."we are getting into the Airbus business" being the all time classic, not to mention the development time on the current DC-6 and the years it took to make the current releases.  Now before you all bash me let me state that I love PMDG aircraft and own a lot of them but why waste time on this nonsense and rather just fly the great aircraft they have already released and worry about the future released when and if they happen.

 

 

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

I'm pretty sure that's just because it's Hollywood. They don't seem to know anything about planes up there.

This is a really odd discussion.  20 pages of speculation on PMDG's next project when historically PMDG has not had the best record of getting out the projects they actually announce...."we are getting into the Airbus business" being the all time classic, not to mention the development time on the current DC-6 and the years it took to make the current releases.  Now before you all bash me let me state that I love PMDG aircraft and own a lot of them but why waste time on this nonsense and rather just fly the great aircraft they have already released and worry about the future released when and if they happen.

 

This isn't entirely accurate.

 

The Airbus thing, as I've mentioned either in this thread or another, was more related to a developer being part of PMDG and leaving to start another development group, which, unsurprisingly, is making an Airbus.

 

The only other one would be the Dash 8.

 

The DC6, as explained (again, in this thread and several others), is a project for the developers in their down time. It's not on the primary schedule like the other offerings.

 

So, I'm not sure where your "history" is coming from, but it's certainly not a book based on actual events.

I always wondered why Boeing is so protective of MD aircraft data. Could it be that the MD products could too easily rival their own products?

This isn't entirely accurate.

 

The Airbus thing, as I've mentioned either in this thread or another, was more related to a developer being part of PMDG and leaving to start another development group, which, unsurprisingly, is making an Airbus.

 

The only other one would be the Dash 8.

 

The DC6, as explained (again, in this thread and several others), is a project for the developers in their down time. It's not on the primary schedule like the other offerings.

 

So, I'm not sure where your "history" is coming from, but it's certainly not a book based on actual events.

 

Kyle, I see your point, however, you are looking at this both from the benefit of hindsight and some insider knowledge.  As a customer all I see is an announcement of future development plans, and correct me if I am wrong, but no explanation of the change in plans once the decision was taken.  My main point here was not to get into the forensic details of history but just to state that PMDG's development time is long (understandably given the quality and detail of the products produced) and we should not worry about what is on the way years from now but focus on the great stuff we have to fly today!

Kyle, I see your point, however, you are looking at this both from the benefit of hindsight and some insider knowledge.  As a customer all I see is an announcement of future development plans, and correct me if I am wrong, but no explanation of the change in plans once the decision was taken.  My main point here was not to get into the forensic details of history but just to state that PMDG's development time is long (understandably given the quality and detail of the products produced) and we should not worry about what is on the way years from now but focus on the great stuff we have to fly today!

 

I guess I see where you're coming from, but if you've been around here long enough to remember the "we're doing an Airbus," you have enough hindsight to approach this from about the same angle I'm approaching it. Moreover, none of what I just wrote is related to any insider information that I have. I can probably find a post or two from a few years ago where I said nearly exactly what I just said.

 

I'm sure if you look hard enough around here, you'll find the reasoning behind the Airbus and Dash projects. It's out there. Sorry. I just took issue with the implication that there's a habit of abandoning projects.

 

I do agree, though, with your outlook on enjoying what's available now instead of worrying about the future. Still, it's a little fun to hypothesize about where things are headed.

The DC10 is probably the ultimate one for me....a 767-200/300/400 would be nice but the DC10 would actually melt me!

 

The CLS DC10 is pants!

A poll would have been perfect. It would have been easier to tally and combine with all the other wish list threads and became an instant market analysis for PMDG.

 

I would like some CRJ's and ERJ's that actually work. The airports are crowded with these planes and I want to fly them PMDG style. You know.... with logical and tested code used to program the airplanes.

Back to the C-17 Globemaster III both Virtavia and Area 51 Simulation have it. Did they do it without the blessing of Boeing/MD?

 

 

I would like some CRJ's and ERJ's that actually work. The airports are crowded with these planes and I want to fly them PMDG style. You know.... with logical and tested code used to program the airplanes.

 

I'd be in for a good CRJ.

 

 

Did they do it without the blessing of Boeing/MD?

I'm 99.99999% sure they don't have the performance data.

This isn't entirely accurate.

 

The Airbus thing, as I've mentioned either in this thread or another, was more related to a developer being part of PMDG and leaving to start another development group, which, unsurprisingly, is making an Airbus.

 

The only other one would be the Dash 8.

 

The DC6, as explained (again, in this thread and several others), is a project for the developers in their down time. It's not on the primary schedule like the other offerings.

 

So, I'm not sure where your "history" is coming from, but it's certainly not a book based on actual events.

 

You left one aircraft off your list; The Woodpidgeon. I would love to hear why they still haven't delivered on that promise - and yes I have heard the one about the negative lift model of the mandatory Briggs and Stratton lawnmower proving to be more complex then expected. 

 

More seriously, yours is all good reasoning, and everything individually justified, but given that PMDG do not make many announcements in the first place, you must admit that collectivly, it forms a history of a announcements not delivered on.

 

 

I would like some CRJ's and ERJ's that actually work.

 

+1 for the imaginary poll!  Either one of these would be perfect for little regional hops in the PilotEdge coverage area.

 

Ryan Jackson

Back to the C-17 Globemaster III both Virtavia and Area 51 Simulation have it. Did they do it without the blessing of Boeing/MD?

No developer needs the blessing of the aircraft manufacturer. Publically available information is more than adequate to do a good job. PMDG go the extra mile by obtaining official information, but a lot of gaps remain to be filled from the same sources as others use.

 

The only obstacle to sim development would be active opposition from a manufacturer, as per Gulfstream.

+1 for the imaginary poll!  Either one of these would be perfect for little regional hops in the PilotEdge coverage area.

 

Ryan Jackson

The problem with the poll idea is that it would be a pointless exercise. PMDG famously don't take any notice of them. Also a poll including all the various possible projects would be far too wide to be meaningful.

I'd be in for a good CRJ.

A significant comment from the latest PMDG member. You have some real influence now...... 

You left one aircraft off your list; The Woodpidgeon. I would love to hear why they still haven't delivered on that promise - and yes I have heard the one about the negative lift model of the mandatory Briggs and Stratton lawnmower proving to be more complex then expected.

I believe they overcame the B & S problem by using ATCO aero but adjusting the visuals to match B & S. The real issue was that they were struggling to accurately model the friction coefficient of the grass found in southern England which is more suited to the seam characteristics of the Duke cricket ball than for cylinder mower drag simulation.