1 hour ago, harvester21 said:

That is probably the best idea yet. I would opt in for this.

And what if are costs are not met? You get your money back?

2 minutes ago, Farlis said:

You get your money back?

Sounds about right.

I suspect there are other reasons the MD-11 was never updated, and if my suspicions are true, then we will never see another PMDG MD-11.  I do not think it has to do with poor sales.  I believe it sold well enough.  

Nevertheless, an MD-80 variant would be most welcome if they were to create an older MD aircraft.   It has just enough automation and modernism to be challenging and fun at the same time.  The MD-80 has been a workhorse of many for decades.   I'd actually prefer that over the MD-11 anyhow given the shorter hauls you can do.  The Leonardo version was a great add on for its time.  

15 hours ago, HighTowers said:

Kyle , thanks for your response. I gathered you would be here soon enough to shoot it down as before. I have no doubt about the DC-6s development goals as it was made clear before. It looks like an outstanding simulation and one that was very complicated to replicate. I have the utmost respect that it was done. I was just pointing out, that the MD-11 was said to be not so popular because people dont see it at the airports and cant relate to it very much thus the poor sales. Based on that, the DC-6 falls into the same category especially with newer generation of simmers. Of course its an iconic aircraft of old and has alot of history but we still dont see it very much at all. Its cool, but not something I would personally like to fly. I have alot more relationship with the MD-11 because they were prime time when I worked on ramp at the time. Forgive me for being a fan and praising the awesome job PMDG did for it at the time. Hoping for it to be resurrected was surely a dream. (think we are allowed to dream here) Thats all. No discredit to current and future projects. 

Dave - sorry to draw out the long guns, but the point being raised is moot. Since this post continues down the same line of thought, let me provide a little more detail.

You note that the MD-11 didn't sell well because people don't see it at local airports and can't relate. You then note that the DC-6 falls in the same category (isn't seen at local airports and people can't relate), and that people (notably yourself - understandably so, given your experience with it) probably have more of a relationship with the MD-11. The problem here is that, despite my earlier notes, you're continuing to stack them up side by side, when this should not be the case. The MD-11 wasn't a testbed for anything. It was a product released in our main line, intended to be a good seller. We put a lot of work into it (clearly, as people still speak fondly of it), but the sales numbers didn't reflect that it was the best use of that work. Unfortunate, but true.

 

I'll use a more extreme example:
Say one day we need to learn something new about Sim Platform Q. In order to learn about it, we're going to make a plane. This plane will be internal use only and we will literally not sell it to anyone because it's our testbed and it's just our internal project. Because it's us, we pour a ton of work into it so that we can all enjoy the plane internally while also learning how to really take advantage of Sim Platform Q. The end result is the Westland Woodpigeon, and we just decide to keep it to ourselves.

Someone then comes into the forum and starts using the poor Woodpigeon as "proof" that we don't always follow the "seen at your local airport" concept, and as "proof" that we don't always make what will sell. As the 'pigeon wasn't ever intended to be sold, that point is moot. The 'pigeon was simply a project to help us learn something that would be useful in developing the next plane that people have "seen at their local airport."

In other words: don't compare the two because they have zero commonality, and zero comparative qualities. One was made to sell. The other one was made to learn, with sales as an afterthought.

6 hours ago, 777200lrf said:

PMDG could sell an MD-11 early adopter or pre-order, stating they need a certain number of sales to make their development costs back, if all this is about is thinking an MD-11 isn't going to sell. Us simmers can prove that wrong! - David Lee

I don't see us ever going down that line. There are no reasons for doing pre-orders. Back when people sold physical copies of things, it helped them get a clue of how many copies to have created/printed/etc. With downloadable software, however, that is not really a concern, so there is no real reason to do it.

...and it's not about thinking an MD-11 isn't going to sell. We have specific sales numbers that it didn't. It isn't a feeling, or just a thought - it's hard numbers.

7 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

ou note that the MD-11 didn't sell well because people don't see it at local airports and can't relate. You then note that the DC-6 falls in the same category (isn't seen at local airports and people can't relate), and that people (notably yourself - understandably so, given your experience with it) probably have more of a relationship with the MD-11. The problem here is that, despite my earlier notes, you're continuing to stack them up side by side, when this should not be the case. The MD-11 wasn't a testbed for anything. It was a product released in our main line, intended to be a good seller. We put a lot of work into it (clearly, as people still speak fondly of it), but the sales numbers didn't reflect that it was the best use of that work. Unfortunate, but true.

So what your saying is that you couldve made the MD-11 new again and as a test bed, to learn the new platform. Instead us MD11 fans drew the wrong card and got a DC6 instead. 

Glad you're joking Dave, as Kyle already mentioned the DC-6 was simpler from a systems point of view (and how those systems interact, or don't), it's not full of automated complexity ;)

I really don't know why everyone is flogging a dead horse - I liked the MD-11 too, but it is abundantly clear that it won't be revisited. No amount of lobbying in posts such as this will change that.

3 hours ago, HighTowers said:

So what your saying is that you couldve made the MD-11 new again and as a test bed, to learn the new platform. Instead us MD11 fans drew the wrong card and got a DC6 instead. 

haha - precisely.

(In all seriousness, for those who might take the above as serious: no, because the MD-11 has all kinds of systems on top of systems that we were trying to avoid; specific reasons we chose the 6.)

And a Cessna would have just been too easy, right?  :P

Cheers,

Put it to a test perhaps?  Do a crowdfund.  I contributed to star citizen, which I never play, on promise.  A similar investment with you wouldn't be too high of a risk.

You made the MD11 in the middle of your product history - after successes with the first NGX and Queen.  Your reputation is more secure than ever for making the highest-fidelity of airliner-oriented products. Perhaps you can test-bed things out for your 737-MAX line with an MD-11 redux?  How about doing it on our dime?

Just a thought.

Not having the MD-11 available now that we have 64-bit leaves a large hole.

2 hours ago, ahuimanu said:

Do a crowdfund

I can't believe people get suckered into this "crowd funding". Sounds like a modern day Ponzi scheme.

3 hours ago, ahuimanu said:

Do a crowdfund.

I don't have a quote for you, but if you search the forums you'll find that this idea was already pitched and rejected.

7 hours ago, wsmeier said:

I don't have a quote for you, but if you search the forums you'll find that this idea was already pitched and rejected.

Thanks Walter.