PMDG mentioned the possibility of making XP version of their jets.  They have been as RSR stated in the past "playing in the sandbox" with Laminar Research.  I only fly PMDG, and  my desire to see them on XP really stems from its 64-bit capability.  But I also think once the inevitable P3Dv4 comes out in 64 bit, this won't be a hotly-contested topic of discussion, although I love the competition between the two platforms.   The real question is how much in terms of reprogramming and time PMDG would need to be compatible with a P3Dv4 64-bit.  Regardless, I'm excited about the future and currently enjoy my PMDG 737/777/747 rotation, despite the occasional OOMs or CTDs.

 

 

​RSR stating that Xplane has limitations goes beyond any information I'd give.  All that did was open up the floodgates to "What reasons".  Then if he were to go as far as to go in depth, more often than not the person the problems are being explained to doesn't understand and they get frustrated or start insulting you.  Someone early sarcastically quoted RSR's comment of "Marketing hog-wash" so it's happening here already because people aren't hearing what they want to hear.

 

It has nothing to do with hearing what we want to hear. If PMDG chooses not to develop on X-plane, that's fine, their choice. The only point I made there was that if you're going to accuse others of "marketing hog-wash", and also make statements about a product with out backing them up...then what is that called? They don't owe us anything, yes, but they joined the conversation, and now we are all intrigued.

 

The bottom line is, their decisions are perfectly acceptable..they are running a business; so take what they say with a grain of salt. In their shoes, I wouldn't touch X-plane until things settle down a bit and we see what happens with P3D..(maybe they know already) If P3D goes 64 bit and I can charge $130+ per addon and people are gobbling it up, then I'm not going to spend years porting it all over to a platform that provides little return. I suspect that the limitations of X-plane they refer to is the market share, not the simulator.

For me, the critical part of RSR's comment was not that XPlane was lacking some key ability that would prevent it from handling advanced aircraft, as some have suggested, but rather that PMDG wouldn't/couldn't do it today without having to leave out some bits they consider important. I have no idea what those bits are and it is very unlikely that RSR will tell us, but if you have a look at what IXEG have not implemented, and in particular the items that didn't get done for reasons other then simple time constraints, there are very few things there that I couldn't live without. I understand that PMDG have their reputation to maintain as one of the all time top sim makers and would not want to risk their reputation by delivering something that was anything less then wow, but I would suggest they look at the progress of a certain CRJ to see what can go wrong when that strategy is taken too far.

Not too long ago I believe I saw estimated user numbers out there for FSX, P3D, and X-PLANE in either this Forum, or the other One... (Can't remember where, or the actual estimated numbers).  But I do remember that FSX topped the list, which is no surprise.  But who was second: I don't know.  (I use FSX-SE).

 

I mention this because one of the reasons PMDG's current decision not to delve into the X-PLANE world of heavy jets may have had something to do with the numbers of users?  But then, again, how many other payware developers are actually creating high-end commercial airliners for all three sims?  

 

So those who use X-PLANE, take heart: R. Randazzo did not slam the door shut for all time.  Ya know the old saying: "Business is business". 

For a simmer who finds both the 737NGX and IXEG 737 very detailed simulations on their respective platforms, what does the 747 do that can't be simulated on X-Plane but can on FSX/P3D? I much prefer general aviation and stick-and-rudder flying and I don't think either platform has any glaring advantages over the other in this department (unless you are talking about helicopters). Visually both sims can produce some very immersive environments and the flight dynamic differences aren't something I've really cared too much about to notice (neither feel anything like the real thing to me).

 

Yes that's all I was wondering as well.

 

(as X-Plane commercial developer)

 

I will totally disagree.

 

If they were those kind of limitations you are referring to, shouldn't be possible to have aircrafts in X-Plane like IXEG's 733, or FF's 767/757, PMDG's DC-6, and many many more. Actually, any kind of ratio between available aircrafts in X-Plane and developers or customers, is in favor of X-Plane.

 

As all the modern gaming platforms, you can easily code any system logic, with the available high level language LUA plugins (Gizmo/SASL/FlyWithLua). You can even use directly OpenGL (LuaGL library). With X-Plane 11, Laminar introduced it's own simplified LUA API, XLua.

 

If there were such limitations, Reality XP couldn't create their GTNs for X-Plane.

 

If there were such limitations, NASA couldn't have in the public domain available its own plugin. https://github.com/nasa/XPlaneConnect 

 

Really, I cannot understand from where your assumptions are coming.

 

If someones economic model does not fit X-Plane, that's fair enough, and I will accepted. But statements that X-Plane as a platform is not capable, while the opposite is proven, then this is misinformation to the flightsim community, and economically damaging to X-Plane developers.

 

Thanks for the in depth explanation. Good to see someone with actual developing experience share their thoughts.

 

PMDG mentioned the possibility of making XP version of their jets.  They have been as RSR stated in the past "playing in the sandbox" with Laminar Research.  I only fly PMDG, and  my desire to see them on XP really stems from its 64-bit capability.  But I also think once the inevitable P3Dv4 comes out in 64 bit, this won't be a hotly-contested topic of discussion, although I love the competition between the two platforms.   The real question is how much in terms of reprogramming and time PMDG would need to be compatible with a P3Dv4 64-bit.  Regardless, I'm excited about the future and currently enjoy my PMDG 737/777/747 rotation, despite the occasional OOMs or CTDs.

 

I think 64-bit P3D is something that will of course happen eventually, the issue is we don't know exactly what that will entail as far as add-on compatibility is concerned. Don't expect every dev to update their products overnight or offer said upgrade at no cost. But I agree, competition is a good thing.

 

It has nothing to do with hearing what we want to hear. If PMDG chooses not to develop on X-plane, that's fine, their choice. The only point I made there was that if you're going to accuse others of "marketing hog-wash", and also make statements about a product with out backing them up...then what is that called? They don't owe us anything, yes, but they joined the conversation, and now we are all intrigued.

 

The bottom line is, their decisions are perfectly acceptable..they are running a business; so take what they say with a grain of salt. In their shoes, I wouldn't touch X-plane until things settle down a bit and we see what happens with P3D..(maybe they know already) If P3D goes 64 bit and I can charge $130+ per addon and people are gobbling it up, then I'm not going to spend years porting it all over to a platform that provides little return. I suspect that the limitations of X-plane they refer to is the market share, not the simulator.

 

Well said. Not answering the question si fine and their prerogative as is bringing their products to XP. That being said, the silence is a bit deafening.

You really have to think about it for a minute.  For those of us that are not hardcore, eat, sleep and breath the legacy of ESP (FSX/P3D), if we had all the "add-ons" available to us for both the ESP and X-Plane platform today. where do you think the majority would be?

 

When you look at it, ESP has strictly turned into a platform only.  I would bet %99.9999 of us don't even use anything that is stock in these sims anymore.  Pretty much everything has been replaced by "add-ons".  Scenery, weather, aircraft, online connectivity and even proper flight dynamics which, I think, should be the #1 provided key element of any flight sim platform next to environmental elements.  Everything else is lipstick and mascara.

 

Like the saying goes, if you build it, they will come!

 

 

Like the saying goes, if you build it, they will come!

 

It does seem like a catch-22 but I agree with you.

Warning - Off topic.

 

 

Like the saying goes, if you build it, they will come!

I did a stint with IBM and one of their induction lectures was on this theme. The other version of the same expression is "Build a better mousetrap..." and they then proceeded to show over two hundred patents for mouse traps, of which (apparently) only five every made any money. The moral was being the best is not good enough, people have to know you are the best.

Really interesting conversation. Personally i think it's more about the fact being in the FSX market first and P3D one after (or a mix of both) some developers kept on building their know how based on the same ESP engine for more than 10 years now, and converting (doing again) big projects on a different one is just not that financially worth it.

well i know what iam saying iam using the Aerowinx 747 simulation which is the real deal,  that is maded for pilot trainings!

 

 

and i do own PMDG airplanes (747 v2  737 and 777), really like them.  what do mean 5 procent maximum error, no the flight dynamics and performance is withing 5 procent of the performance charts!  so its 95 procent off!

 

Still PMDG does a great job, really hoping they make their own flying engine for the planes, its such a shame, so close to the real deal! (really impressive)  but due to FSX they are limited in the flight engine plus FSX is buggy, it always crashes on me when i am flying (sometimes due to fsx some systems are not working correctly) (i am very happy when i can fly 2 hours straight). thats why X plane would be awsome for PMDG all the ploblems gone!!!!!

iam really wondering why PMDG makes the plane within 5 procent. its a plane flying by the numbers!   please PMDG we love your quality and graphics but maybe just maybe next time (just an suggestion) work less on the graphics so you can make the first 100 procent working and flight dynamic plane like aerowinx or majestic.

 

That would be awsome!     

One of our beta testers uses PSX as well.  I don't know what 5% error you're talking about.  Most engine parameters are developed to match the Boeing engineering data to within 0.3%.

 

Please see Robert Randazzo's post earlier, he explained why the product will not be developed for XPL.  It's real simple, it technically cannot be done with the existing product and the market is not big enough to create a new product from scratch for a single platform.

Please see Robert Randazzo's post earlier, he explained why the product will not be developed for XPL.  It's real simple, it technically cannot be done with the existing product and the market is not big enough to create a new product from scratch for a single platform.

 

If most fsx and p3d users switched over to XP and they were not selling products - you bet they would make it work in XP

 

Not saying that would happen but think about it

 

 

If most fsx and p3d users switched over to XP and they were not selling products - you bet they would make it work in XP

 

That is a big IF..., as in if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its arse.

That is a big IF..., as in if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its arse.

 

The point is they could make it work if they had to - one way or the other no big deal to me

I think PMDG could have the B747 V3 in X-Plane 11 if they put much efforts into the port. However I am no dev so not much comment apart from own say really.

"It's not about the simulator, it's about the developer"

 

Ellis.