[Next Project] maybe a 727? please?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

2 hours ago, teopereira said:

About the MD-11, it works on Prepar3d... So, maybe it's not that hard to upgrade it and launch it for Prepar3d... Can't believe all the work involved in that simulation will just fall into oblivion...

Of course, nobody would be violating the EULA by using the MD-11 in a platform outside of its license agreement, though...right?

[Steven Silva 27]

PMDG B767 PLEASEE!!! 

[Fabo 213]

4 hours ago, 777 said:

+1  for 787, wishful thinking like...we can dream.

sooner or later.. it'll be pretty much the only option

[777 340]

27 minutes ago, Fabo said:

sooner or later.. it'll be pretty much the only option

Hope so ...

[CaptainGabe 81]

I would LOVE a 767-400. I know the market isn't there, and only two airlines operate it  But that aircraft is just a work of art. 

[G7USL 117]

On 19/03/2017 at 11:01 PM, scandinavian13 said:

You're ignoring Tebin's point, which falls in line with Ryan's message.

1. The market wants highly automated and popular-in-the-real-world medium to long range jets over and over
2. The DC-6 was only a test-bed for X-Plane [Additional comment provided by me: this would be to say "market wants" were not a consideration for the DC-6]

The oddity here, however, is the fact that I've explained this a number of times to you, in direct responses to your posts about the MD-11 over the years. Surely you haven't forgotten.

Just in case you have:
The DC-6 wasn't created because we thought that the market wanted it. The DC-6 was created so that we could learn about a new platform and the requirements of developing for it without all of the complexities of a highly-automated aircraft stacked on top of trying to just get a workable solution in a simulator. The development decision was made regardless of market demand for a specific (aforementioned) purpose. Naturally, a company can't do this in perpetuity if they desire to remain afloat. Ergo, use of the DC-6 as justification for your arguments is a poor choice. It always has been, as I've reminded you on quite a few occasions.

Would you please refrain of  'talking down to me' as though I am some sort of idiot?

I merely stated a 'fact' that you seem to have overlooked. If what you say is true, regarding a modern plane why did PMDG choose an ancient aircraft for XP?

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

4 minutes ago, G7USL said:

Would you please stop 'talking down to me' as though I am some sort of idiot?

I'm not. You keep bringing this point up, but it holds no water. I simply made note of the that fact that you have continued to bring the DC-6 into the argument as if it's some sort of evidential statement that we have acted out of character, when - in fact - we have not.

4 minutes ago, G7USL said:

I merely stated a fact that you seem to have overlooked. If what you say is true, regarding a modern plane why did PMDG choose an ancient aircraft?

What am I overlooking?

Earlier, you brought up the DC-6 (yet again) as some sort of counterpoint against Ryan's statement of what the market wants. This point has no merit. As I mentioned earlier, the DC-6 was not aimed to capture the market. The DC-6 was aimed at helping us learn a new development platform. Our other products are aimed at capturing the market, however, as should be the aim of any business. In other words, the DC-6 was chosen and developed with complete disregard for the market.

The market wants complex things that require complex programming. The DC-6 was chosen specifically to be the opposite of that so that we could concentrate on learning the simpler and more basic aspects of a new platform. We could concentrate on making a high fidelity flight model in a sim platform without having to program all of the complex visuals, complex systems, complex flight protections, complex automatic functions, and so on.

We literally chose the most analog airliner that we could, that also interested us as a group. We consciously chose the most basic, would-satisfy-an-open-minded-Luddite aircraft - against market direction - to ensure that we understood the sim platform better.

Any market discussion surrounding our decision to do the DC-6 only serves to disprove the point you're trying to make. As such, if someone is discussing market direction and desire, the DC-6 should be left entirely out of the equation.

Is this unclear?

[Lude2Envy 11]

On 3/7/2017 at 0:50 PM, JYW said:

I'd like to see PMDG tackle the ATR72.

Rationale:-

• There aren't many modern Boeings left for them to do!
• They don't tend to be drawn towards Airbus.
• Regional turbo-props tend to be popular with simmers.
• It's a modern regional turbo-prop.
• It doesn't conflict with the Q400, for which we already have an excellent provision.
• It's different enough to be 'interesting'.
• It's highly utilized across all areas of the globe, on many route types - so should fit with simmers preferences = should sell plenty! (unscientific, I know).
• PMDG did a fantastic job with the BAe J41, so have 'form'.
• So let's say, an ATR72-600 ?

I didn't feel like reading through all of these post to see if someone already replied to you, but if nobody did, Milviz announced their next project will be an ATR. 

[anden145 2,284]

2 hours ago, Lude2Envy said:

I didn't feel like reading through all of these post to see if someone already replied to you, but if nobody did, Milviz announced their next project will be an ATR. 

Yep!

Announced on AirDailyX right here

[kevinh 409]

On 20/03/2017 at 5:02 PM, Fabo said:

I don't have anything official like Boeing docs at hand, but you can just google to find , so to say, eyewitness testimonies.

Dunno about that. Certainly there were many with GPSes or FMCs, though I gather those were probably all retrofits. Some say that Singapore had Delco Carousels factory fitted. Certainly there were at least some with them mounted, retrofit or not - I've been able to find a picture of a Dan Air one, allegedly ex-Singapore. That could definitely come in handy at flights to Canaries and such so.

I have googled it and found nothing. What people say they've seen and what was actually there are often two different things. Adding even just a dual autoland to the 727 would be a major engineering upgrade and require extensive certification. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but would it be cost effective? Even Lufthansa didn't need it.

Aftermarket GPS installation is not in question, but any aftermarket INS would almost certainly be a strapdown system, not a Carousel C-IV. 

[KORDATC 80]

When I google it, here's what I found:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482144-any-b727-s-fitted-ins.html

Seems as though some were fitted with INS's.

[jakef 2]

Interestingly enough in the 80's United had three of its 727-200adv equipped for overwater ops for flights over the Gulf of Mexico. They had the OMEGA system installed on them, as we ll as an early ACARS.

[RedSpinnaker 35]

How about a PMDG-quality Sopwith Camel? Bring me nostalgically back to the 80's flying Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer.

Can even have RR, instead of Yeager, come on the screen after each landing saying "That's a sorry way to land an airplane".

[PilotNuts 4]

Let us have the Woodpigeon first!

[kevinh 409]

On 23/03/2017 at 0:58 AM, KORDATC said:

When I google it, here's what I found:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/482144-any-b727-s-fitted-ins.html

Seems as though some were fitted with INS's.

Interesting thread, thanks for linking to it.