PMDG 747 will come to x plane aswell?

[mtrainer 136]

Folks,

 

Why harass the individuals who just spent years delivering you the most advanced aircraft simulation in the history of Personal Computing- that is the refined and ultra detailed B747-400- merely one short week ago?  People who sit behind the comfort of the Internet sure can be bossy.  I've never seen so many demands of explanations.  It's easy to be a arm-chair quarter back when you've never programmed in C or C++, or flown a 747, or run a business.

 

This team owes no one any explanations as to why they pursue the directions they do.

 

Some of us, a bit older I suspect, remember what flying a simulator was like in the 80s....things are VERY good these days and it's time to recognize that the glass is half full and be thankful for what we have, and if you're not happy with the state of things I suggest you take a course in Economics and understand the laws of supply and demand.

 

Mark Trainer

[Paul_Smith 92]

...

Currently the platform cannot take this airplane in the level of detail we have created it, without us removing some pieces that our customers feel are pretty critical- and that we feel are critical to the product's success.

 

 

 

That is it in a nutshell.

I understand your dilemma but some of your customers also think that various aspects of the FSX platform that are beyond PMDG's control are also critical, specifically the limitations imposed by being 32bit and having a very shallow multi-processing model, and I suspect that number is growing much faster then you anticipated. At some point in the future, LM will solve both problems but it will almost inevitably be incompatible with what we have today meaning even if they release a new version tomorrow, it could be years before PMDG can release a product that takes full advantage. LR have solved those problems already (whether or not you like their solution) that gives them and anyone developing for them a head start worth years. 

 

FSX, as released ten years ago, could not take a plane as complex as this one is, but Moore's law (doubling CPU power every 18 months) means todays hardware is over 100 times more powerful then it was then. XP11 may not be able to take your plane today, but when has that every stopped PMDG in the past?

[GCBraun 2,390]

Folks,

 

Why harass the individuals who just spent years delivering you the most advanced aircraft simulation in the history of Personal Computing- that is the refined and ultra detailed B747-400- merely one short week ago?  People who sit behind the comfort of the Internet sure can be bossy.  I've never seen so many demands of explanations.  It's easy to be a arm-chair quarter back when you've never programmed in C or C++, or flown a 747, or run a business.

 

This team owes no one any explanations as to why they pursue the directions they do.

 

Some of us, a bit older I suspect, remember what flying a simulator was like in the 80s....things are VERY good these days and it's time to recognize that the glass is half full and be thankful for what we have, and if you're not happy with the state of things I suggest you take a course in Economics and understand the laws of supply and demand.

 

Mark Trainer

 

Oh, come on. They are a business and may very well be questioned by the paying user. If it is a business decision not to develop for X-Plane because of smaller returns, fine. But when it is stated that X-Plane *cannot* be used to host a complex simulation such as a 747 when there are already multiple high level addons for same platform, that statement is puzzling and deserve to be questioned. Nothing "bossy" about that.

 

Thiago Braun

[sizziano 172]

Oh, come on. They are a business and may very well be questioned by the paying user. If it is a business decision not to develop for X-Plane because of smaller returns, fine. But when it is stated that X-Plane *cannot* be used to host a complex simulation such as a 747 when there are already multiple high level addons for same platform, that statement is puzzling and deserve to be questioned. Nothing "bossy" about that.

 

Thiago Braun

 

 

Yes exactly thank you. This is especially suspicious when it's not followed by an example,especially when PMDG have already offered examples of things they can do in XP that can't be done on the ESP platform. But that's just me.

 

 

 

Felipe Vicini

[paulopp 56]

Concur with Thiago. A 'nagging' customer pays the same price as the 'follower' and is 'worth' as much. The 'good old times' are indeed gone when there was no choice at all what to buy - so much for 'supply' and 'demand'.

 

I love(d) PMDG for FSX, but as a customer in general I at least made my decision not to buy their 747v3, be it as good as it may be, as I go with X-Plane in the future. If PMDG refrain from that platform for whichever crucial reason, it's their undisputable freedom. One cannot, however, criticize those X-Plane customers for seeking their own supply by the people who can do it. That's a praise for PMDG, indeed!

 

This thread shows at least, that there is some serious 'demand' for PMDG presence on X-Plane. If it's economically promising and technically possible for PMDG, they have to know. However, asking for their reasons is not in itself reprehensable.

 

Best regards,

Christian Kelter

[emmanuelk 3]

Folks,

 

Why harass the individuals who just spent years delivering you the most advanced aircraft simulation in the history of Personal Computing- that is the refined and ultra detailed B747-400- merely one short week ago?  People who sit behind the comfort of the Internet sure can be bossy.  I've never seen so many demands of explanations.  It's easy to be a arm-chair quarter back when you've never programmed in C or C++, or flown a 747, or run a business.

 

This team owes no one any explanations as to why they pursue the directions they do.

 

Some of us, a bit older I suspect, remember what flying a simulator was like in the 80s....things are VERY good these days and it's time to recognize that the glass is half full and be thankful for what we have, and if you're not happy with the state of things I suggest you take a course in Economics and understand the laws of supply and demand.

 

Mark Trainer

 

I am not harassing anyone. I am a developer myself in many languages and platforms, so no arm-chair complaining here.

 

I am interested in the very fundamental technical aspects of why it should be not possible to have such a detailed addon - like the 747 - on the X-Plane platform. I would wish even for code examples but this is just a wish of course ...

So if PMDG does classify this knowledge as company secret ... fine, if its a business decision ... fine, I for one am just here to learn from one of the best development teams out there, as this is what good developers do!

 

Of course as I use X-Plane myself and just recently added also some addons to my FSX (including FSLabs A320) I am also interested in the roadmap for X-Plane as this is the platform I (!) prefer.

I am now completely selfish and only wish for the 737 NGX, for me they can skip 777 and 747 even if the platform would need a bit of competition here, especially in visuals.

 

However I am first of all here as developer not as maybe-customer and not as someone complaining. A statement if X-Plane is still a topic within PMDG (as outlined here http://www.avsim.com/topic/499200-state-of-the-union-concerning-x-plane/?p=3523124) and if there is still a roadmap or an update to it, is - in my opinion - not too much asked for.

 

best regards,

Emmanuel

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Starting to get a bit contentious, though somewhat surprisingly, relatively civil for a discussion of this type. I'd suggest a couple degrees of course correction, but thanks for not letting this devolve into the typical "[insert sim here] is awful; [my] sim is the best, you're awful for thinking [insert sim here] is the best."

[nriddell 0]

Starting to get a bit contentious, though somewhat surprisingly, relatively civil for a discussion of this type. I'd suggest a couple degrees of course correction, but thanks for not letting this devolve into the typical "[insert sim here] is awful; [my] sim is the best, you're awful for thinking [insert sim here] is the best."

 

I think this is such a true statement. It's been a great discussion to keep reading and I think there have been a number of very interesting views. I hope if anything it encourages PMDG when they see the general level of support for their products and also the extent of the enthusiasm there is within both the X-Plane and P3D platforms for future products.

[anubhavs 66]

Good job mods for not shutting this down. This has actually been informative!

[rototom 198]

Folks,

 

Why harass the individuals who just spent years delivering you the most advanced aircraft simulation in the history of Personal Computing- that is the refined and ultra detailed B747-400- merely one short week ago?  People who sit behind the comfort of the Internet sure can be bossy.  I've never seen so many demands of explanations.  It's easy to be a arm-chair quarter back when you've never programmed in C or C++, or flown a 747, or run a business.

 

This team owes no one any explanations as to why they pursue the directions they do.

 

Some of us, a bit older I suspect, remember what flying a simulator was like in the 80s....things are VERY good these days and it's time to recognize that the glass is half full and be thankful for what we have, and if you're not happy with the state of things I suggest you take a course in Economics and understand the laws of supply and demand.

 

Mark Trainer

 

Yes, you have a point, the developers know what's best for them, and they make their own choices. However, it's not unreasonable for us to complain or offer our opinions; at the end of the day, we pay the money and in this world, that gives you every right to speak. So anyone can choose their own path, and I have chosen to stop buy anything 32bit. It's old, rusty and it smells bad.

[Tiger6k 13]

I completely understand if some features in the 747 v3 can't be ported over to X-plane in it's current state, but I'm still SOOOO curious about something like the 737NGX as it's over 5 years old now?  

 

I suppose though, if they end up making a 737v3, they would most likely include a lot of the features of the 777 and 747v3, which would then make porting the 737 to X-Plane unlikely at that point also.  =( 

 

Honestly, I love flying the 737 in P3D, I just wish I could take advantage of my hardware and not get OOMs when I crank up the detail.  Give me that, and you can keep PMDG in P3D as long as you'd like!

[rototom 198]

 

 

I completely understand if some features in the 747 v3 can't be ported over to X-plane

 

I think that's just "marking hog-wash".

[Tiger6k 13]

I think that's just "marking hog-wash".

 

Not sure why you think he would lie.  What's the point of that?  He didn't have to give any answer at all but he chose to give us some inside information as to why the 747 at least isn't being made for X-Plane.  He could have just said it wasn't worth it, or it was too difficult, or we hate Austin.  lol.

[sizziano 172]

Not sure why you think he would lie.  What's the point of that?  He didn't have to give any answer at all but he chose to give us some inside information as to why the 747 at least isn't being made for X-Plane.  He could have just said it wasn't worth it, or it was too difficult, or we hate Austin.  lol.

Except he actually didn't really give us an answer just a vague statement.

 

 

Felipe Vicini

[anden145 2,284]

I highly doubt he was 'lying' of being dishonest. Perhaps there's some 'showstopper' or extremely difficult issue that they've discovered during their DC-6 development for X-Plane? And that it would be, if not impossible, then least so difficult to circumvent, that it wouldn't be economically feasible to continue? There's simply somethings which isn't worth doing, so to speak... Maybe some of the things, they need working in order to make an 747 (or 737 for that matter), is too hard to get working the way they're comfortable with...

 

I don't know - I'm just guessing here...

 

(Please be aware, that I'm NOT saying, this necessary is the case. This is pure conjecture on my part!)