Sign in to follow this  
Airbus A340 Pilot

PMDG 767

Recommended Posts

Hey PMDG,

I really would like to see a PMDG 767 next. And the 767 would open so many ways to other planes. So let me start. First of all. The first 767 ever built is already so old but the 767 is still in production. Even if the 767 is not the most efficient airliner, it´s a very important airliner for aviation. The 767 is used by so many airlines and is such a beautiful airplane and I think that this is the best airplane for PMDG to do next. If you have the 767-300ER as the base pack and the 767-200ER as an expansion pack it would already be great, but you have already modelled the 777 and there is the 767-400ER which has for 99 percent the same cockpit as the 777 so the cockpit modelling would be easier and you would have the 3 actual 767 types for sale. And as many know: the 767 is the sister of the 757, so the 767 cockpit is modelled like the 757 cockpit and that would make modelling easier. And why do not test an airplane which has not so mch importance. You have modelled the 737 and this plane is very important because it´s the most succesful airliner. You have modelled the 777 which is the biggest twinjet. And you are on to modell the 747 which is known as "the Queen of the Skies" because it was the first airliner with two decks and it was the biggest airliner for a long time. 

I would be very very lucky if you decide to do the 767. I know that there is the Captain Sim 767 but there are big bugs as far to small winglets. And there is the Level-D 767 which is simply a very well done airliner but the cockpit is real shid in my eyes and the 2  payware 767s are quite old addons and I would say: If PMDG starts to work on a 767, it´ll take minimum three years and then he 2 actual 767 addons are really to old. And the Level-D 767 is also not compatible with P3D and there are many people who switch from FSX to P3D and many people who buy P3D from the beginning.

 Please think about that. What else would you do? A 787? I think such a plane would take about 5 to 6 years or more to finish and there would be nobody waiting 6 years when he can get an OK 787 from Qualitywings this year.

 

I´m really hoping and looking forward to that.

Regards:)

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

From a systems point of view the 757 and 767 are quite different. Given that PMDG simulates almost every system accurately, a 757 and 767 would pretty much have the same amount of development work as any other new plane project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a systems point of view the 757 and 767 are quite different. Given that PMDG simulates almost every system accurately, a 757 and 767 would pretty much have the same amount of development work as any other new plane project.

how different? its a common type. Genuinely curious.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how different? its a common type. Genuinely curious.

 

Yes a common type for the pilot, but there are enough differences in the "behind the scenes" systems that simulating them all correctly would really be two projects, with perhaps some crossover. The 787 in some countries has a common type rating with the 777(!) I believe the A330/A340 systems are closer together than the 757/767.

 

See here:

 

http://www.757.org.uk/diff/index.html

 

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-300275.html

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/100198-systems-difference-757-767/

 

http://www.smartcockpit.com/ - Very good site.

 

I don't mean to say that they are that different that there is no commonality at all; just in a simulation perspective, there would still need to be a lot of work done around the flight envelope, systems and of course exterior models. They couldn't just give us a 767 and for a couple of months of extra dev work, give us a 757 as well.

 

Happy to be proved wrong however!  :smile: 

 

EDIT: I used the words "quite different" - this is perhaps to extreme. I meant "different enough"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are enough differences between the 757 and 767 to mean that if a pilot has a type rating on either the 767 or the 757, and is looking at operating the other type, they'll be attending a course starting off with a full week of intensive learning, followed by 20 more hours of study comprising: 14 hours ground school, followed by 4 hours of practical work in the simulator, then a couple more days study covering CRM and emergency procedures. There are a lot of what might be regarded as 'small' system differences (i.e. what things do and how they work), but they make a big difference in terms of operation. And don't forget that after that study, you're gonna be sat in the right seat for a while too.

 

So whilst it's probably true that a developer could re-use the odd bit of 3D modeling for the cockpit parts of a VC for FS if making a 757 and a 767, that's probably the least of their worries in terms of how complex the production of a simulation of the aircraft would be. They might also use some of the coding for some sub systems too of course, but probably not as much as it might seem, because those two aircraft fly really differently in addition to be operated differently in terms of how the systems interact.

 

Unlike the 767, the 757 is a real rocket ship in terms of power to weight ratio, as anyone who has either flown one, or even seen one getting thrown about at an airshow. If I recall correctly, the 757 has the highest power to weight ratio of any major airliner, not to mention that it had to be classified as a heavy in spite of not being one because of the amount of wake turbulence it kicks out, so nobody's going to be turning a believable FS 757 flight model into a convincing 767 flight model with a couple of minor tweaks when one considers all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really know that there are many differences behind the scenes but you have to model all the switches and you can modell a no smoking switch for the 767 and you can use it for the 757 afterwards. My topic was about the easier modelling. If you do a 787 I think there is no other plane than the 737 MAX which have the same switches and displays in the cckpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. namely that you have to include your full, real name when you post.

& I always thought your name was steve ..... !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really know that there are many differences behind the scenes but you have to model all the switches and you can modell a no smoking switch for the 767 and you can use it for the 757 afterwards. My topic was about the easier modelling. If you do a 787 I think there is no other plane than the 737 MAX which have the same switches and displays in the cckpit.

 

This is partially true; however I would hazard a guess that the design of the switches is a fairly small part of the development efforts.

 

Going by that logic, they already have the 3d structure of the 767 cockpit as the 777 uses the 767 section 46, which is the cockpit from just behind the windows, forward. Would this be re-usable - ? I don't know. The systems and flight model are where a lot of the development time resource gets spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if I am one of only a few that would like completion of the 777 product line before we start moving onto others?  Although we have the 777-200LR and 777-300ER (which are fantastic and probably the main aircraft I fly these days) it would be great if we had the complete lineup.  I know they have responded that they're aware of the demand for the other variants but currently we have the GE engines only with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.  The full lineup would include the 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-300 with all their engine options which can be viewed on the Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777 although I remember a post way back saying it was hard to get some of the engine data that was required in order to model these accurately

 

I'd also love additional options in the 777 that allow some customisation of the electronic checklist based on airline configurations, but I think I recall another post saying that would be difficult.

 

I guess what I am saying is there is a lot of scope and future in the current lineup before getting onto other projects.  I am sure once the 747 is done we'll have a longer post from RSR that will give us an idea of the future.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Unlike the 767, the 757 is a real rocket ship in terms of power to weight ratio, as anyone who has either flown one, or even seen one getting thrown about at an airshow. If I recall correctly, the 757 has the highest power to weight ratio of any major airliner, not to mention that it had to be classified as a heavy in spite of not being one because of the amount of wake turbulence it kicks out

 

Yeah but it can't do a negative G push-over because of its inverted flight tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Hey PMDG,

I really would like to see a PMDG 767 next

 

I support that!.

Cheers, Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but it can't do a negative G push-over because of its inverted flight tanks.

 

The data [...] is inaccurate.

 

Well, I just happened to see [one] do a...

We...sorry...we happened to see one 28 do a 4G negative dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support that!.

Cheers, Ed

i am all with you on this... last time i flown the level d must at least been 10 years. that would be fantastic.

 

henry koch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The data [...] is inaccurate.

 

Well, I just happened to see [one] do a...

We...sorry...we happened to see one 28 do a 4G negative dive.

 

<puts on blonde curly haired wig>

 

Kyle, I have top secret clearance. The Pentagon sees to it that I know more than you.  So.. Kyle.. where exactly were you?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this