The problem i have with it. That it takes a lot of dev time to make all these versions of the 747. With the 777-200er pmdg used as excuse. That the 777lr is already better then the 200er. Why would you like to fly a lesser plane? But now they make all these varients. It seems more like a prersonel thing from pmdg to make these and not reason.

 

1. I don't think that they need any excuses.

2. You are probably right, but it's their choice to make whatever they see fit.

 

Additionally, the differences between the different sub-variants might not be as complex to implement as on the 777. So while it looks like a lot on paper it might be roughly the same amount of work after all. Without having all the information it's rather pointless to try and guess their motivation. Being here for quite a few years now, I think it is a combination of personal preference and sound business planning. The 747 is a huge icon after all and it deserves to be the best product in the PMDG line-up. Especially now that she is disappearing slowly.

Robert, or anyone in the PMDG development team - do you have any comments on this suggestion?

I can't/won't answer for the development intentions of PMDG, but I can say that the VC and External models are different. When you're in the VC flying the plane, the external model isn't affecting your frame rates.

 

 

With the 777-200er pmdg used as excuse. That the 777lr is already better then the 200er. Why would you like to fly a lesser plane?

 

I believe you may be referring to what Ryan said about the 777-200LR versus the other versions.  If I recall correctly, and on this I stand to be corrected of course, what Ryan said was that the aircraft is a 777, so you can do anything with it that a 777 can do.   Cannot fault that comment in anyway, as it makes perfect sense.  

 

Furthermore, as for the excuses, you should probably read the earlier comments about why they chose to do the 200LR and then the -300ER variants.   It has nothing to do with any excuses with what you are referring to in your post.   It has to do with the fact that both the LR and the ER uses the same engine variant, the GE engine, whilst the other variants are powered by three different engine types.   As I recall, we were informed that to start with the others would significantly increase development time due to researching the other engine performance tables.   Might just be me, but that sounds like a hundred percent sound business explanation to me.   That and that fact that they were harassed about the development time of the 777 already lol!

 

 

 

But now they make all these varients. It seems more like a prersonel thing from pmdg to make these and not reason.

 

Remember that whilst the 747-400 and the -400ER etc have some differences in them, they are essentially 747-400's.   I am not a developer and I am not speaking on PMDG's behalf, however, being essentially the same airframe, one can probably liken the 747-400 vs the -400ER to the 777-200LR with or without the auxiliary fuel tanks.   The same type of modeling that went into the differences there in terms of center of gravity etc applies to the differences between the -400 and the -400ER for example.   This is easily selectable via an option in the FMC or the Operations Center.   Again, the same AIRFRAME, with minor differences here and there to make it apply to the extra fuel tanks and minor structural changes.  (Again a disclaimer - this may be vastly oversimplifying the development process, and I have a feeling that it is, and if so, my most sincere apologies to everyone working very hard at this stuff behind the scenes!)

 

The differences between this project and the 777-200/-200ER would be the engine variants and the data required.   So yes, might be the same airframe but the different engine variants adds a significant amount of extra development time to it and is a challenge in itself.

 

Besides, I agree with the poster above mentioning that PMDG really don't need any excuses - they have been at this long enough to know what works and what doesn't.

 

Regards.

Looks fantastic!

Still hoping to see them on P3D this year

 

 

Just logged in and seen this post and I must say I'm like a 5 year old kid and christmas. Happy New Year everyone!

 

I like your picture RPTECH - takes me back!

Hey Werner,

 

these were not my quotes. ^_^

Hey Werner,

 

these were not my quotes. ^_^

Sorry got them from the wrong place now I see lol - dang it hahahaha.   Sorry about that!

 

Kind regards

I'm beginning to re-tool my paint hangar to accommodate the 747 freighters. :Whistle:   Haven't decided which one to paint 1st (but it will be a port of one of my 777F's for sure).

 

It's gonna be tough to pull my hands off the yoke in the 1st few days after release and replace it with a paintbrush, but I imagine I'll get to it once I burn though a few sets of tires!  .....Have to remember....Cockpit waaaay higher...flare sooner, save rubber! 

Haven't decided which one to paint 1st (but it will be a port of one of my 777F's for sure).

I was doing some "hangar surveillance" around your parts Steve-O and I saw what resembled a National 744F, a Kalitta 744F and judging by the quick glimpse of green I got, the third one looked like an Evergreen International 744F!

 

Now that's a freighter lineup!!!

 

 

I really, really hope it will have a 2D panel.

 

It won't. 

Sad but not surprising. At PMDG prices, 2D panels users could be taken in consideration :mad:

As well as for the 777, I will not be customer.

 

I think to have already posted this answer but it seems to be deleted. Censure?

 

Might be because you don't have your name in your signature which is a required rule for the PMDG forum.

 

 

Censure?

Nope, but reading the forum rules might make sure your posts don't get deleted next time...

 

 

I think to have already posted this answer but it seems to be deleted. Censure?

 

Not censure. Lack of adhering to the forum rules.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/245586-you-must-sign-your-full-real-name-to-posts-to-use-this-forum-posts-without-names-will-be-deleted/

 

At the same time, the 2D panel issue has been discussed for nearly a decade now. Apart from 2D pop-ups, they're done. This was the position prior to the 777, and I imagine it will be the same with the 744.

Slightly late to the party, but this is very exciting news!

 

Well...  We chose Roller Power because BAV has been such a positive and vocal supporter of PMDG for a number of years- and we know they will be interested to see the RR powered airplane is the first out of the barn.

 

To echo John's comments, I know my fellow BAV B744 drivers certainly are! Do we get an electric aux pump on hydraulic system 1 as well? 

 

Looking forward to following the 744v2 story over the coming months!

I was doing some "hangar surveillance" around your parts Steve-O and I saw what resembled a National 744F, a Kalitta 744F and judging by the quick glimpse of green I got, the third one looked like an Evergreen International 744F!

 

Now that's a freighter lineup!!!

Hmmm....that is in the realm of possibility. :Whistle: