Alex Kulak

Bypass the 773 for the NGX for P3D v4

Recommended Posts

Is there anyway you can consider just getting the 737ngx out instead of us waiting for the 773? That way we have 2 planes that can do long hauls the 772 and the 747, and one plane we can do short hauls aka 737ngx. I hope you take this into consideration

Thank you

Alex Kulak 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

2 minutes ago, Alex Kulak said:

Is there anyway you can consider just getting the 737ngx out instead of us waiting for the 773? That way we have 2 planes that can do long hauls the 772 and the 747, and one plane we can do short hauls aka 737ngx. I hope you take this into consideration

Thank you

Alex Kulak 

Alex,

I think you'll find that they'll be being worked on simultaneously by different people. The NGX isn't being held up by the 773, it's slower because it's code is older so needs a lot more work to bring it up to P3Dv4 standard.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PMDG777 said:

Alex,

I think you'll find that they'll be being worked on simultaneously by different people. The NGX isn't being held up by the 773, it's slower because it's code is older so needs a lot more work to bring it up to P3Dv4 standard.

I hope this is a way to make the ngx updated with newer code and backend features 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex Kulak said:

I hope this is a way to make the ngx updated with newer code and backend features 

I'm not sure about new features, those will probably come later. I think for now the focus is on the underlying code and making sure it's stable in v4.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! Yeah! Apple? I don't know what you're actually doing back there, but can you stop doing what you're doing, regardless of how you're doing it, and the reasoning behind it, and do it the way I think you should do it? K thanks...

 

I appreciate the fervor, but c'mon guys...
A little trust that we know what we're doing, and why, would be appreciated.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alex Kulak said:

and one plane we can do short hauls aka 737ngx

What's to stop you flying a T7 on a short route? Or a 744? I don't understand your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DavidP said:

What's to stop you flying a T7 on a short route? Or a 744? I don't understand your logic.

It is simply unrealistic for some destinations to be operated using widebodies. For example, KDCA, KLGA, LOWI, just to name a few. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be cool everyone.

I'm excited as well with what's coming down the pipe. Especially the DC-6!

But, the more we pester and annoy these guys, the less they'll communicate what they're up to and about when we might see the future releases.

Just nod at the news and be thankful there's groups like PMDG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DavidP said:

What's to stop you flying a T7 on a short route? Or a 744? I don't understand your logic.

Hey David. Sorry to jump in but why you would question his logic. It's not that puzzling. He wants to fly a 737.
People have very personal reasons why they choose routes and aircraft. Maybe virtual SWA frowns on landing a 777-300 in KBUR.
I was happy to see the question even though the answer was going to be obvious.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unrealistic thing raises its head again!  How is flying a computer realistic in the first place- one must admit we all have to put a certain amount of "realisim" behind just to enjoy this hobby.

The nice thing about flying the big boys on short hauls is that it builds the skills there they are most needed - take off and landings.   As a kid my friends and I watched B-52s doing countless touch and gos at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.  We'd lay on the large round hay bales off the end of the runway (but just off base) and watch for hours on end.   Also got to see a lot of KC-135, KC-10, and A-10s doing the same thing.

My first flights with PDMG 747 QII were repeated touch and gos between Midway and O'Hare just outside of downtown Chicago.  Lots of good practice there.

And I too am psyched about the DC-6...

Mark Trainer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bob34 said:

He wants to fly a 737.

The issue is 

12 hours ago, Alex Kulak said:

and one plane we can do short hauls aka 737ngx

you can fly anything short haul while you wait the 737

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree this is starting to get ridiculous, and tbh I don't know why they waited to release there MOST POPULAR plane and best selling add on for last, I understand that they needed the hot fix but COME  ON already. nobody cares about an expansion pack anyways, #releasethe73!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, PMDG777 said:

Alex,

I think you'll find that they'll be being worked on simultaneously by different people. The NGX isn't being held up by the 773, it's slower because it's code is older so needs a lot more work to bring it up to P3Dv4 standard.

Here's my question, if for some reason the 73 is ready before the 77W, WILL THEY RELEASE IT or wait for the dumb 777? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swapilot said:

Here's my question, if for some reason the 73 is ready before the 77W, WILL THEY RELEASE IT or wait for the dumb 777? 

We're just gonna wait here and twiddle our thumbs. No sense in shifting to another project or anything...

 

C'mon. Give us the benefit of the doubt here. We're not idiots, and we aren't new to the concept of project management.

Also: welcome to the forum, please sign your posts.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.