PMDG 787 Dreamliner

[MrPlaneDriver 41]

More because an EFB requires data that costs A LOT to license. Not only can charts be incredibly expensive, the performance data licensing costs quite a bit, too. Without those, the feature is worthless.

 

PMDG used to say that there would hardly be a weather radar in their aircrafts due to the fact that it couldn't be acurately simulated in FSX. Then HiFi came along with Active Sky Next, the two companies partenered and now all current generation of PMDG planes have Wx radar. Couldn't you do the same in order to provide an EFB? Couldn't PMDG eventually develop an EFB expansion pack that could be integrated with Navigraph Charts and TOPCAT?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

PMDG used to say that there would hardly be a weather radar in their aircrafts due to the fact that it couldn't be acurately simulated in FSX. Then HiFi came along with Active Sky Next, the two companies partenered and now all current generation of PMDG planes have Wx radar. Couldn't you do the same in order to provide an EFB? Couldn't PMDG eventually develop an EFB expansion pack that could be integrated with Navigraph Charts and TOPCAT?

 

I feel like people aren't reading what I'm writing here...

 

Weather radar, FBW, and other technically tough items are a completely different ballgame versus something that is monetarily tough. This is what I keep reiterating, but it seems I'm not getting through to people.

 

The data on an EFB, in order to be realistic, requires both nav data and perf data. That combined costs A LOT of money. Yes, even without the charts. So, something will need to be worked out if it's ever going to happen, but I keep chiming in here because people keep thinking this is a technical issue, and it's really not. It's not that hard to get the sim to display external data. That's essentially what the weather radar is doing with ASN. It's not a new thing to make something in the sim do calculations. That's what the FMC is already doing.

 

I get that the usual scapegoat is "the limitations of the sim [insert feature that can't happen here]," but as I've mentioned in the last few posts, this isn't the case here.

 

This is a licensing and a cost issue for each and every person who wants to have such a feature. In order to make this palatable for a sim market, more research and discussion needs to occur.

 

The problem with simming is that increasing realism requires the use of real world resources. The problem here is that those real world resources have to shield themselves against potential liability, which is part of the reason some of their products cost so much. When it comes to flying in the real world, you either accept the cost personally, or your operator pays for it. Despite the progress that's been made over the years, the sim community really isn't at the point where we have fostered the closest relationships with real world entities to the point where things are more palatable for the sim crowd. To me, $75 a year for a chart management interface (yes, management interface, the charts are actually free here in the States through the FAA site, or sites like AirNav.com) isn't a huge deal when I'm routinely paying $150 per hour for a plane. For many others, $75 is a big deal, and again, that's only US charts. Never mind the rest of the world, and the performance data.

 

Not trying to kill optimism here. I'm simply trying to convey how difficult this avenue is going to be. It's not just a situation where someone needs to be technically innovative.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I feel like people aren't reading what I'm writing here...

 

It's not a feeling it's the truth. For some reason when it comes to prices and licensing costs, many fail to grasp the costs involved and just chalk it up to greed or in some cases just a technical issue.

 

Sean Campbell

[Guest JustanotherPilot]

If the go ahead was given by PMDG, and they started tomorrow, it would take years before it was available for us to use. During this time of development you will see the release of the Aerosoft A330 and possibly the A350 to follow, Prepar3D will be at v4+ Orbx FTX will have the whole world in regions not just Global Base. Not just around the corner will be the Airbus Neo, with the 737 MAX just released. Boeing will be developing the 797. And finally, Global warming would have exceeded 2 deg C.

 

If a 787 Dreamliner were to be released for Prepar3D, I think the start date has way passed.

[Raven9000 272]

If the go ahead was given by PMDG, and they started tomorrow, it would take years before it was available for us to use. During this time of development you will see the release of the Aerosoft A330 and possibly the A350 to follow, Prepar3D will be at v4+ Orbx FTX will have the whole world in regions not just Global Base. Not just around the corner will be the Airbus Neo, with the 737 MAX just released. Boeing will be developing the 797. And finally, Global warming would have exceeded 2 deg C.

 

If a 787 Dreamliner were to be released for Prepar3D, I think the start date has way passed.

Yes, because 747s and DC-6s just came out, right..? :rolleyes:

[MrPlaneDriver 41]

I feel like people aren't reading what I'm writing here...

 

I understood what you said about licencing costs, but I admit I was still under the impression that there was largely a technical issue involved, because that's what I remember from older discussions about this topic. In my defence, I fail to see why an EFB with data from these two providers I mentioned would be insuficient to provide a (close to) realistic representation of the actual system. I'll then assume that I am just underestimating or totally unaware of the actual complexity of a real EFB and the amout of information required to make it work properly. Sorry if I made you repeat yourself.

[JWNoctis 4]

Aivlasoft rebuilds arrival, approach and departure chart from the same Navigraph/NavDataPro data that we know, and ground chart from FSX itself, including whatever airport scenery you may had. Much of the time this is adequate for simulation but some data are missing, like minimum safe altitude, minimum enroute altitude/minimum obstacle clearance altitude, airspace data, a textual description of procedures and expected clearances, detailed terrain and obstacle info, and varied approach minimum for different categories.

 

After all, it is rebuilt from the same data you had in your FMC with the same limitations...Still good for simulation use, nonetheless!

[Greggy_D 936]

Personally I'd rather see the PMDG 717.

[JWNoctis 4]

Or a 737-200Adv with full-cream steam gauges. If newer ones aren't possible, older ones certainly are!

[sidh 29]

Or a 737-200Adv with full-cream steam gauges. If newer ones aren't possible, older ones certainly are!

Exactly , we will be left with those options only.. but That will also be impractical I am sure..

[Hammerheadmike 6]

I feel like people aren't reading what I'm writing here...

 

 

Who wrote that?

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Who wrote that?

 

Franklin W. Dixon  :wink:

[rondon9898 84]

Is the EFB really that irrevocably integral to the 787? I don't see why we couldn't have a fabulous PMDG rendition of the aircraft without the EFB. I mean, having one would be better as I believe it's standard in the real aircraft, but in sim terms I thought it more peripheral than, say, the FMS or MFDs.

[tutmeister 710]

So is the consensus that navigraph data via their subscription is not good enough for an integrated efb? - Assuming of course that navigraph allowed subscribers to use their charts in a third party cockpit obviously. I would have thought everything you need is there.

I realise for some they don't want to pay for charts and airac data but this is a hypothetical answer to the issue regarding the licensing of data for efb type usage.

Chris

[WotanUK 289]

Meh...787, just like the 777 with even more automation, I want more aircraft that I fly, not a computer.  I hope that PMDG branch out and start developing Russian aircraft...before anyone chimes in i know the chance of that is 0.