(I was a passenger on one twice between Dublin and Newcastle.)

 

Consider this:  The JS4100 was RSR's (PMDG owner) first platform in an airline job.  He loves the airplane and this is reflected in the simulation.  Also, this is not a full study sim product like NGX and 777 and has a price tag that is very reasonable.

Sadly they didn't even do that SP that was rumored years ago, I doubt they'll do a P3D version. But we can still hope, right

Consider this:  The JS4100 was RSR's (PMDG owner) first platform in an airline job.  He loves the airplane and this is reflected in the simulation.  Also, this is not a full study sim product like NGX and 777 and has a price tag that is very reasonable.

 

How far short of a full study sim is it?

 

I'm not querying the price. I've come close to pulling the purchase trigger a few times. I'm a bit like George Bush..."Read my lips...no new aircraft add-ons..." until I buy (yet) another one...

Just took it out of my hanger after many years. What a jewel it is.

 

 

How far short of a full study sim is it?

 

The systems modelling is not as in depth, for example you actually use the FSX UI to set fuel and payload and it doesn't have the failure modes modelling of full study sims. However, they did not make this a "cheap" aircraft simulation.  Extensive work went into getting the geared Garretts to be realistic, in fact almost everybody has to destroy an engine before they gain the experience necessary to start those beasts.  The FMS in this airplane is less complex due to the time frame it was in extensive operation, back then the FMS had GPS but was not certified for IFR use of it.  You'll be using VORs again.

 

The plane is just plain fun to fly. Bottom line.

[unsigned Post Removed]

Sadly, I am with you on this. I have no objection to paying a reasonable amount to support the upgrade, however they did not need to start from scratch and do the work all over again for the P3D version, so I also refuse to pay full price when I have already done so once. They have fully lost me as a customer with this policy.

Sadly, I am with you on this. I have no objection to paying a reasonable amount to support the upgrade, however they did not need to start from scratch and do the work all over again for the P3D version, so I also refuse to pay full price when I have already done so once. They have fully lost me as a customer with this policy.

 

Interesting that you're still here...

 

Also: It's not an upgrade. P3D and FSX are entirely different platforms for entirely different markets. Anyone telling you otherwise is a walking example of cognitive dissonance.

Interesting that you're still here...

 

Also: It's not an upgrade. P3D and FSX are entirely different platforms for entirely different markets. Anyone telling you otherwise is a walking example of cognitive dissonance.

I know what you're saying here but.. did they spend the same amount of time developing P3D version as they did developing FSX version or even close? Some developers didn't charge a single $€ for P3D versions, some charged upgrade (yes, upgrade price and some full price. It's their choice what to do. Telling people just one of these approaches is correct is as bad as demanding from developers they should choose one of those.

I know what you're saying here but.. did they spend the same amount of time developing P3D version as they did developing FSX version or even close? Some developers didn't charge a single $€ for P3D versions, some charged upgrade (yes, upgrade price and some full price. It's their choice what to do. Telling people just one of these approaches is correct is as bad as demanding from developers they should choose one of those.

 

What other developers do is their choice, however, most people fail to recognize that the simple fact that FSX and P3D exist to serve different markets and purposes causes developers to incur costs unique to the platform.

 

As an example, if I were to create a weather add-on, I might not incur any unique licensing issues because I don't need to license my data from Mother Nature, and a lot of the government-provided resources out there. Therefore, I may realistically charge a single price for my product. Other types of add-ons, however, depend on the stipulations of the license.

 

This really isn't all that complicated. Again, it's rather simple. It's just that people don't want to step back for a moment to consider why reality is the way it is. Doing so would force them to acknowledge what they don't want to acknowledge.

What other developers do is their choice, however, most people fail to recognize that the simple fact that FSX and P3D exist to serve different markets and purposes causes developers to incur costs unique to the platform.

 

As an example, if I were to create a weather add-on, I might not incur any unique licensing issues because I don't need to license my data from Mother Nature, and a lot of the government-provided resources out there. Therefore, I may realistically charge a single price for my product. Other types of add-ons, however, depend on the stipulations of the license.

 

This really isn't all that complicated. Again, it's rather simple. It's just that people don't want to step back for a moment to consider why reality is the way it is. Doing so would force them to acknowledge what they don't want to acknowledge.

Aerosoft, for example, charges only once for their Airbus products for all platforms (FSX, FSX:SE, P3D). Just saying

Other than that, I completely agree with you! As I said, it's developers choice what to do, I just wanted to point out that since different developers chose different approaches how to sell their products is clearly no right or wrong strategy.. or are some developers in violation of some agreements and licenses because of that?

 

Back to the topic.. many of us would really like to see that amazing J41 in P3D :wink: It was one of the best aircraft I had in my FSX hangar.

 

 

Aerosoft, for example, charges only once for their Airbus products for all platforms (FSX, FSX:SE, P3D). Just saying
Other than that, I completely agree with you! As I said, it's developers choice what to do, I just wanted to point out that since different developers chose different approaches how to sell their products is clearly no right or wrong strategy.. or are some developers in violation of some agreements and licenses because of that?

 

Can't speak for other developers. Their agreements may simply just be different, as noted in the above example. All depends on the agreement they have with the holder of the intellectual property.

Another vote for a P3d update, willing to pay to have it in my hangar again. The JS-41 and the old Flight One ATR 72-500 are the two turboprops I miss the most.  The Majestic Q400 fills the ATR's void but the JS-41 space remains vacant.

 

 

Can't speak for other developers. Their agreements may simply just be different, as noted in the above example.

So you are saying that Aerosoft or Majestic Software may have been better at negotiating, or that Boeing plays hardball compared to Airbus and Bombardier?

 

Peter

Somehow Peter, I don't think anyone from PMDG is going to answer that because whatever the answer it'll make someone look bad! Anyway, back on topic...

 

I find PMDG's deliberate silence over the J41's future frustrating; it gives the impression they've no interest in porting it to SE or P3D platforms but don't want to say so (for fear of causing an uproar)? You will note that Kyle has carefully avoided answering this question, both here and in other threads (I'm aware we're not owed any answers by PMDG, but it would be nice).

 

I can't find anything officially stated since March 2015 (essentially 18 months ago) when they said beta testing of the FSX:SE compatibility update had taken a back seat to other projects. The lengthy delay is kinda annoying because PMDG said themselves there's not actually much new code.

 

For news on J41 P3D you have to go back nearly two years, to January 2015, when they anticipated release by 2015 Q2. Since then, nothing. Perhaps they are waiting for P3D v4/x64? Maybe they can't for legal reasons? Perhaps the costs are too great? They haven't stated whatever the reason is so we can only guess.

 

I live in hope of being pleasantly surprised one day, but I think by this point PMDG have abandoned any work on it until there's a big enough userbase on another platform to justify working on it.

 

 

I think by this point PMDG have abandoned any work on it until there's a big enough userbase on another platform to justify working on it.

 

I really don't thinks so, and I've seen PMDG mention since March 2015 the reasoning behind the delays.  As a PMDG beta tester I've not heard any discouraging word.... don't give up the hope and certainly leave the cynicism unless that was your intent.