Depressed that the MD11 is being left behind.

[Slayer 190]

The 757 project rose from beyond the grave. Maybe all hope is not lost.

[G7USL 117]

9 hours ago, Piotr007 said:

The downside is that MD-11 is flown as a cargo foremostly just as the DC-10/MD-10. This makes it quite useless to make for a simulation, as people want to have airliners that are flown today.

 

Airliners like the DC-6 eh?

[DavidP 1,410]

48 minutes ago, vc10man said:

Same here, which is why I have not abandoned it.

That's why I don't get this "grief". I keep FSX for some stuff I use for real world IFR that never got ported to P3D e.g RXP FLN gauges and Realair piston Duke. And, dare I say it, the MD11. "Grief" over an addon? Please! There's no rule to say thou must dump FSX.

[por930 51]

1 hour ago, DavidP said:

That's why I don't get this "grief". I keep FSX for some stuff I use for real world IFR that never got ported to P3D e.g RXP FLN gauges and Realair piston Duke. And, dare I say it, the MD11. "Grief" over an addon? Please! There's no rule to say thou must dump FSX.

My understanding is that the PMDG MD11 works great on Win7 FSX but not if you introduce Win10 into the build?

[Orlaam 306]

I too am using FSX, albeit Steam, but despite the MD-11 working in Steam, I didn't reinstall it.  It's not that it didn't work, but I found performance a little lack-luster for such a dated model.  My main reason for not reinstalling at this point has been the graphics. The VC is so dated compared to newer add ons (A2A Comanche, Majestic Dash 8, NGX/QOTSII).  Plus we have no terrain or Wx display.  It just wasn't holding my attention like those other newer aircraft are.  If it were newly updated with terrain, Wx, and a couple extra modern goodies I would be all over it.  However, I'm not jumping to X-Plane to have an MD-11 either.  

Just like the Leonardo.  I adored that plane in FS9.  Flew it like mad.  Loved all the random features they included over other developers.  It was truly a joy to fly.  But the VC is so dated.  I can't fathom enjoying such a dated model. 

I do think, as far as MD aircraft are concerned, the MD80 series is the best for a developer to code.  It was such a workhorse for so many years and still flies routinely everyday. Short routes, longer routes.  I saw two or three just today heading around KPHX.  Also, it can be created with FMCs and modern displays to move away from that heavy workload of the older DC-9 style pit. 

The 727 is an amazing bird as well, but I don't think it would sell as well.  Lot of love for the 727 from aviation enthusiasts, but very few dominate the skies.  I just wonder about sales in that regard.

Also, as I mentioned, the business market is suffering too.  Yes people are making them, but be honest, they are low tier.  How anyone can go from a Majestic, PMDG or A2A type of aircraft into these others is beyond me.

[hohum 14]

1 hour ago, DavidP said:

There's no rule to say thou must dump FSX.

Except for the fact that that the release of FSX is 10 years, 8 months old at this point.  The engine itself is even older considering that it's actually based on FS9.

FSX shows its age.  It doesn't run very well on modern gaming rigs.  

That may not be important if you're a pilot using flight simulation as a training aid but for gamers with a passing interest in aviation, it makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Boeing or not going 578]

3 hours ago, Slayer said:

The 757 project rose from beyond the grave. Maybe all hope is not lost.

PMDG go out of their way, never mentioning sales in any other airplane, not even the DC-6, to tell people that the MD-11 sales had been very bad. Even though I hear so many simmers that enjoy the airplane, of course I do not have access to sales figures to prove it. If they claim that piracy caused many people to fly it that didn't pay for it, then new methods of protection in the current airplanes could be enough to get higher sales. But this is just us hoping someday they give it a second attempt. My reading up on the MD-11, my theory being the real reason is not sales but various team members that made the MD-11 are not part of the team and might have separated under less than friendly conditions. But this is pointless it seems nothing is going to get PMDG to revisit the MD-11 again. This is the second or third topic about the MD-11 in the past week.  - David Lee

[Orlaam 306]

1 hour ago, 777200lrf said:

PMDG go out of their way, never mentioning sales in any other airplane, not even the DC-6, to tell people that the MD-11 sales had been very bad. Even though I hear so many simmers that enjoy the airplane, of course I do not have access to sales figures to prove it. If they claim that piracy caused many people to fly it that didn't pay for it, then new methods of protection in the current airplanes could be enough to get higher sales. But this is just us hoping someday they give it a second attempt. My reading up on the MD-11, my theory being the real reason is not sales but various team members that made the MD-11 are not part of the team and might have separated under less than friendly conditions. But this is pointless it seems nothing is going to get PMDG to revisit the MD-11 again. This is the second or third topic about the MD-11 in the past week.  - David Lee

I don't disagree, but do believe it's a contractual reason.  Nevertheless we won't ever know, so it's moot. 

[anden145 2,285]

Hmm...

Boeing purchased McDonnell-Douglas in 1997 and halted production of McDonnell-Douglas aircrafts in 2006. Perhaps it's harder to get data for a rebuild, due to the fact that Boeing isn't producing the aircrafts anymore?

I'm just completely speculating...

[vc10man 732]

5 hours ago, por930 said:

but not if you introduce Win10 into the build?

Incorrect, as I have it working flawlessly in Win 10 Pro 64-bit.

[kevinh 409]

4 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

Hmm...

Boeing purchased McDonnell-Douglas in 1997 and halted production of McDonnell-Douglas aircrafts in 2006. Perhaps it's harder to get data for a rebuild, due to the fact that Boeing isn't producing the aircrafts anymore?

I'm just completely speculating...

The existence of the PMDG DC6 disproves this theory. I'm not going to speculate on an alternative one. PMDG made a business decision and that's the end of it.

I'm still using FSX-SE, so still have the MD-11. When, or if, I install P3Dv4, I will keep FSX-SE installed, just as I keep FS9 for a few old favourites that work better in it.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Every time I see an MD-11 thread, I know someone is going to attempt to use the DC-6 as some brilliant example of why the MD-11 is viable in some way, because we broke our normal "we make planes people connect with at their local airport" guidance to make the 6. This of course, is "proof" that we don't always use that approach, and would consider the occasional diversion from it. I have explained in numerous threads the following:

Much like the JS4100, the DC-6 was designed and built to be a testbed to understand how to get our processes and functions into X-Plane. It was chosen specifically because it was everything that our normal offerings (therefore, any product that fit into our normal "planes people connect with at their local airport" guidance) were not. It was chosen because it did not have displays that we had to re-code, it didn't have all kinds of complicated systems to make, and it didn't have any of the complexities of a modern (or even near-modern) aircraft. It was chosen because it was everything that the MD-11 was not, essentially: it is a plane without all of the complex systems stacked on top of the normal systems. Furthermore, because it was primarily a learning platform for us, we chose an older aircraft that we were passionate about.

Imagine yourself back in school - grammar, middle, high, college, or beyond - and the teacher/professor assigned you an open topic: you need to learn a new skill, but the manner in which you apply it is up to you. When it comes down to it, you are very likely going to choose something that you, personally, are interested in. The person you are selling it to (the teacher/professor in this case) is a secondary concern. Later on, you can then use the skill you invested a bunch of effort in because you were passionate about it, in a situation where you are less passionate. As an example, when I taught computer classes and was asked to learn about databases well enough that I could teach about them, I made a logbook database for myself to track all of my flying. Since I'm all about aviation, I learned a lot more about databases because my learning project was something I was passionate about. I learned about all kinds of different queries, and ways to write criteria because of the complexities of aviation requirements (like determining whether or not you meet the commercial requirements of 10 takeoffs and landings at towered fields, at night, in SEL or MEL, depending on what you're going up for; or simply totaling up all of the values for a Form 8710). If I'd done that with the standard Microsoft Northwind Example Database, I can guarantee there would be massive holes in my knowledge, comparatively.

This is the concept we applied to the DC-6. It's something we wanted to do. Everything else was a secondary concern to our learning a new platform on a project that we are passionate about.

 

 

The unfortunate part of me having to come in and constantly provide correction on this issue is that I end up coming off like I just hate the MD-11. I don't. RSR and I were actually standing in the hangar over the weekend marveling (okay, maybe drooling) over a Falcon that was sitting there, and I mentioned that some of my favorite planes are tri-holers. The MD-11 was something that I was eagerly anticipating back in the day (had AVSIM's servers not burnt up years ago, I'm sure you could still drag up some of my old posts dripping with excitement). I flew the pants off of it when it came out on FS9, and later, FSX. It was a cool plane that broke out of my usual Boeing flying in the sim.

 

TL;DR:
The quickest way to discredit your argument of what we should or should not do is to willfully ignore the primary function of the DC-6 in order to try and use it as an example of why another Airplane X is reasonable. Use literally any possible other argument and you may actually have a point. A point of "the 6 exists, so PMDG does doesn't always..." shows more that you don't understand what we're doing and why. Not good when trying to make a point that hinges on apparent clearer knowledge of business decisions.

Note: None of this is related to Kevin's latest mention of the 6, as his mention of it addresses a separate point.

[kevinh 409]

11 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Note: None of this is related to Kevin's latest mention of the 6, as his mention of it addresses a separate point.

Now that is what I call fine print.

[paulopp 56]

So, the inference from this and all the other PMDG MD-11 grievance threads and the accompanying DC-6 XP argument is, that the Douglas Commercials are LOVED but the Boeings and Airbusses SOLD?

So, as for the PMDG MD-11, maybe Ponskey-Ponderosa will someday patch it up. But then again, for the folks who get it: who is Ponskey, who is Ponderosa?

:-D

 

Best regards,

Christian Kelter, Germany

 

[Steve Dra 7,588]

4 hours ago, paulopp said:

So, as for the PMDG MD-11, maybe Ponskey-Ponderosa will someday patch it up. But then again, for the folks who get it: who is Ponskey, who is Ponderosa?

Ahhhh....Christian, for a 21-post member, you are certainly aware of the ways of Ferd and his musings.

 I suspect you have old ties to this forum as a a user who pre-dates his membership here as listed in his profile as October of 2014.   

Ferd has been around (although long-silent) since before some of these younger whipper-snappers could even grab a yoke!

He was quite the pontificator of questionable musings, always bringing a laugh and confused smile to my face.  

Sad enough even the Ponskey group is no more, but some members still are in the hobby floating out there in the virtual world.