PMDG 777 is out for P3D!

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Am just loading a flight, CYYZ-EGCC to test the PMDG 777-300ER on its first long-haul for me. I've had a few terrain.dll CTDs with FSX-SE, same aircraft, so am hoping for something better with the newly-bought P3D.

 

Rick it will be better in P3D guaranteed Buddy

[vc10man 732]

Thanks for that vote of confidence, Amigo. Will try and wave wings if routing takes me over Boston! You may just be down there looking up at the contrails!!

 

TC Buddy.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Thanks for that vote of confidence, Amigo. Will try and wave wings if routing takes me over Boston! You may just be down there looking up at the contrails!!

 

TC Buddy.

 

With all the snow we are having that may be a while Rick take care - any P3D questions just ask you are in for a treat

[vc10man 732]

With all the snow we are having that may be a while Rick take care - any P3D questions just ask you are in for a treat

LoL!!!!!

[MarkW 1,493]

You can do that in P3D also ... sorry you can't get to that place, but it is possible.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Unfortunately I can't judge for myself Rob so all I can go on is the comments on these forums.  I guess its pretty much like FSX, mixed bag!

[Baylorguy 39]

To people complaining about memory usage, it really isn't the PMDG 777's fault. I mean, it doesn't make things any better having very VERY high quality textures and an enormously complex model and avionics suite, but all I do in the PMDG 777 is long hauls, between 10-15 hours each. The longest I've done was VHHH-SCEL (more of a proof of concept flight to see if it was possible) and only once have I had a panel freeze (descending into LAX from Dubai after about 14 hours). I think the key here is to balance how pretty the sim is with how stable it is. If you want to fly with these extremely complex aircraft, disable some fancy stuff like autogen or maybe just use default airports instead of these FSDT monsters. I have the ground textures and mesh very high, but disable autogen. I never notice it as I'm above 10,000 feet for 99% of the flight. Learn to make some sacrifices, people or spend all your time tweaking instead of simming. 

 

Kylan, have you flown a 10+ hour long haul specifcally on P3D?  If so, would you mind sharing your add ons and settings?  I am trying to pinpoint what people have actually done so far versus what they have done on FSX.

 

My settings are anything but high...

Not now, got too many other things on my plate ... but in all honesty, even if I set it running overnight and did the 10+ hour flight would you believe me and/or would that make any difference to your situation?  

 

I've done this before on request for others and it usually just ends up being "oh you didn't install or run this add-on so your test is invalid cause I always fly with this add-on otherwise I don't bother..." yada  yada ... I even had one person "demand" I record the entire flight with no interruptions and upload it to YouTube (10 hour flight is a probably about several 100 GB's worth ... YouTube is simply going to reject any video that size.

 

Your best option is to provide screenshots of the 5 pages of settings, provide exact list of add-ons you are using, provide exact details on how you have those add-on configured, then I can give you hints of what to do to avoid OOM.  That would be a lot more helpful to you than me doing a 10 hour PMDG flight just to prove "I told you so" ... that doesn't help anyone and I have no desire to do it again.  

 

I've done LONG distance flights ... I usually do it when I'm programming my GoFlight gear as that can take many hours.  For example I loaded up the Citation II S550 ... filled with fuel and just fly until I ran out of fuel 2000+ nm at 400 Kts GS or less (about 6 hours as I recall) from St. Maarten to Mexico ... VAS usage was 200MB.  Now before you say "well that's not as complex as the PMDG" ...  this is relative usage meaning P3D's usage, so if the PMDG 777 is behaving (no memory leaks) then it should consume close to the same regardless of it's initial VAS starting point.  If it's not, then you need to ask PMDG what's up and not LM.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

I hear you.  To clarify, I am not out to get anyone, not whining, etc.  I specifcally asked you since you have a good methodology to testing.  You gave me some good ideas though so hopefully I can get some baselines and solid testing done.

[Noel 4,502]

Pricing seems steep, but I did it anyway, and presumably PMDG did the math and decided this price point was going to still fly as it were pardon the pun, so in my case they were correct.  I can justify it somewhat, even as a former owner for Fsx, on the basis that when P3D goes 64-bit the product will be updated at no add'l cost.  Without this piece, I would have definitely skipped it.  

 

The amount of work it may have taken to allow the T7 to run in P3D, and of course I don't really know, one would think had to be miniscule compared to what it took to build the original release.  Even though T7 is much more complex than most other planes, most all planes built for fsx do run in P3D 2.x w/ minimal to no addition work, outside of an installer.  

 

It performs better than I thought, really.   One will have to be careful where they fly in and out of even w/ high end hardware, but that is nothing new really to fsx nor P3D users.  I'm glad to have it again as a P3D only user, and good to know if n when P3D goes 64 bit we'll have something to use in all of that available VAS ;o)

[blueridgeflyer 1]

Well I just finished my first long haul... a 17 hour flight from KDFW to VHHH. I have good news and bad news

 

The good news is PMDG has an excellent panel state restore where, if you save your flight, it loads it like you never left... thus resetting the VAS back to a low number.

 

The bad news... is that I had to save and reload 3 times to avoid an OOM. Even over the open Pacific ocean, my VAS kept climbing... this is the only aircraft I have experienced that in. Doing a bit of research it seems FSX users experience similar things. I need to play with it more... apparently there is a setting with the sound package that will free up memory, etc. But it is definitely a heavy hitter in the VAS department.

^

||

 

This is a bummer. I might hold off until P3D 2.5 is released. Admittedly I'm not optimistic that it will help though

 

If Dovetail would fix the DLL errors plaguing FSX SE then I might be apt to remain on that platform for the VAS footprint alone.

[vc10man 732]

Took off from standard CYYZ heading for home, EGCC. VAS was around 842Mb before I had even taken off. Using Rob's settings. No weather add-ons. Now at cruise not too far from Northern Canada's reaches, and the VAS now reads 900Mb. At least it is not going the other way. So, perhaps the more experienced P3D users can comment on this. Is it because the ground below is not as heavily textured as at say the default CYYZ?

 

 

If Dovetail would fix the DLL errors plaguing FSX SE then I might be apt to remain on that platform for the VAS footprint alone.

That was a gamble I was contemplating to take before I pulled the switch and bought yesterday.

[vgbaron 3,627]

Well you might consider

 

FSX is essentially DOA except for some 3pD addons that give it life

 

FSX:SE is at least being worked on but the basic code is still FSX

 

P3D is being worked on and they have been changing much of the old FSX code as they progress - HOPEFULLY culminating in a 64bit version down the road.

 

I feel that this entry by PMDG is starting to hammer the final nail for FSX.

 

Vic

[Paul_Yorks 97]

It appears that PMDG is censoring contributions to their 777 pricing scheme thread. I wrote a _very_ polite post, stating essentially that I am not prepared to pay twice just to fly the same plane on a different platform. That post seems to have been removed. Such an action would also explain the overwhelmingly positive comments in that thread.

 

I find censorship disappointing.

Peter

 

Quite so.  And on their Facebook page their position is "don't talk about our pricing policy".

 

I'm disappointed.  I also predict they will regret their approach.  I think I'm one of very many who would have parted with 30 or 40 bucks without a complaint (even though I don't even yet have P3D!) to get the upgrade.

 

But I won't pay full whack for a product I already have, and Aerosoft and the other houses evidently can manage an upgrade path (or free upgrade/dual installer) with no issues.

 

So I will squeeze what I can out of FSX, and eventually (with say 64bit) I'll go to P3D and then buy what I like.  By then what I like might be the v.2 747, for example - but I won't have to buy it twice, because this policy means I just won't buy it at all for FSX.

 

And who will?  Have PMDG abandoned FSX?  Because you'd have to be nuts to  buy an FSX product now, from them, if you intend a P3D upgrade - better to wait and make the switch later.  Or you're doubling your price.  Who, in fact, if they intend a P3D upgrade, will ever now buy a FSX PMDG product?

 

Very shortsighted,  I fear.  And amazingly poor on the customer loyalty front.

[Marius_S 4]

I see a few posts here comparing the PMDG 777 with the Aersoft Airbus, and I want to make a few comments.

The Aerosoft bus is, in my opinion, the best simulation of the A320-series to this date, but it is not on the same level as PMDG, and AS never intentended it be either. That is one reason for the difference in price to begin with. Also, PMDG is licensed by Boeing. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Airbus has licensed AS for their A320? That license does not come for free, and making the 777 available in P3D probably cost them a bit more then for the FSX-version.

 

Maybe the biggest reason for the price is the promise of continued development including a 64-bit version when that time comes, for no additional cost. No promise from AS has been made on that subject (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Yes, it's expensive, but in my opinion it's totally worth the price.

[vc10man 732]

Rich, as you seem to be the current  'P3d Guru', IMHO, can you kindly tell me why is that when I try to point AivlasSoft's EFB Navigation Data tab in Settings to the correct AivlaSoft folder that contains that navigation data in the FSX root directory, I get as attached. Yet it is there, with data. Bit weird.

[qqwertz 781]

Very shortsighted,  I fear.  And amazingly poor on the customer loyalty front.

You are completely right, Paul. I really don't like if my reasonably voiced opinion gets deleted without as much as a short message. I already decided that I will be fine with what PMDG planes I already own for the next while.

 

I think their policy is like that of a car manufacturer that forces you to buy the same car again if you decide to move from Europe to North America, instead of charging you for the shipping. On top of that, they forbid you to sell your car in Europe.

 

With a car, most customers would be upset I believe.

 

Peter

[Paul_Yorks 97]

 

I see a few posts here comparing the PMDG 777 with the Aersoft Airbus, and I want to make a few comments.

The Aerosoft bus is, in my opinion, the best simulation of the A320-series to this date, but it is not on the same level as PMDG, and AS never intentended it be either. That is one reason for the difference in price to begin with. Also, PMDG is licensed by Boeing. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Airbus has licensed AS for their A320? That license does not come for free, and making the 777 available in P3D probably cost them a bit more then for the FSX-version.

 

Maybe the biggest reason for the price is the promise of continued development including a 64-bit version when that time comes, for no additional cost. No promise from AS has been made on that subject (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Yes, it's expensive, but in my opinion it's totally worth the price.

 

So charge me extra to upgrade to 64 bit.  For a change as substantial as that, I'll pay extra.

 

But I won't pay it now, for a marginally improved sim, for a product I've supported already.

 

Or, if they want to launch a Kickstarter to enable them to develop - then fine.  Crowdfund it.  Everyone else does.

 

I think people are defending the indefensible, at present.