itay5344

Next product of PMDG

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

5 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

That's not true. This is what they wrote on their update on June 11th:

After which, they begin the process of making it available for Prepar3D V4. I highly doubt, that they can complete that process in a matter of months, given the fact that they've taken 4 years so far in development... 

Well my eyes seemed to glance over that. You're right. My mistake.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HighFlier said:

Well my eyes seemed to glance over that. You're right. My mistake.

Hehe... No harm done.

I'm kinda excited of the 787 - have been since it was announced (ages ago). But at the same time, I'm also kinda annoyed, that it's - first of all taking that long and that they prioritize FSX over Prepar3D. But I guess that's the platform they initially began development in - just like FSLabs. FSLabs took 5 months to make it available to Prepar3D V3. We'll see how long it takes QualityWings.

I may have to re-install FSX just for this one... 

Share this post


Link to post

I always find the 'What should PMDG make' questions kinda funny.  There are basically two groups.  One group views FS airplanes as the Airline Accountant would (ie real world aviation economics).  The Accountant asks what is it's fuel burn, what is it's Payload?  Those are the planes are common because they are the most practical and economical.  Thus the commonly used airplanes are preferred by this group.

The other group views FS airplanes from a pilot's perspective....ie how fast does it go, how far does it go?  This group tends to prefer the more exotic or high performance planes.  It's kinda funny because many pilots view airplanes like most teenage boys view cars.  The parents drive a minivan because it is common, practical and reasonably economical.  The teenager, while happy to have the chance to drive, doesn't have posters of minivans on his bedroom wall lol.  

There is no wrong way to view FS, it's whatever you want to make of it and what aspect of aviation you choose to focus on.  I just find it funny there are pretty much two consistent themes going here.  PMDG isn't alone in this, this is a common thread at A2A as well.  On the one hand, make common GA planes that every pilot has flown.  On the other hand do exotic warbirds and propliners that only super rich and museums can operate.  I think its important to have both.  I like the GA planes because I have actual flight time in those planes, and I know them and understand their systems.  Those planes are great for practice.  However the desire to fly a P-51 or Spitfire is undeniable.  Every pilot I know, (including me), would jump at the chance to fly a warbird or exotic GA (with proper training of course).  The chance to fly a Mustang or Spitfire would be like a any auto enthusiast getting the chance to drive a Shelby Cobra or Jaguar XKSS.  Because those exotic types are so much more rare, having them in simulated form brings those exotic planes to many of us who would never get a chance to fly one. 

I think PMDG does a great job finding a balance between the common and the exotic.

 

Cheers

TJ

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

But at the same time, I'm also kinda annoyed, that it's - first of all taking that long and that they prioritize FSX over Prepar3D. But I guess that's the platform they initially began development in - just like FSLabs. FSLabs took 5 months to make it available to Prepar3D V3. We'll see how long it takes QualityWings.

One thing you have to consider, and most people don't seem to be aware of, is that not only is QualityWings a small development group, they also aren't developing planes full time like PMDG is. Take both factors into account, and it is going to take a while. As for prioritizing FSX over Prepar3D, you are correct in that it was the platform that they initially started developing for, as development had started many years ago, likely before Prepar3D became mainstream.

Share this post


Link to post

I do truly hope the 777-200ER is shortly to come. It's really needed in FSX considering most 777 operators do or have used it and the big dogs like Delta, United, American, British, Air France, KLM and pretty much everyone else out there has them. I would probably spend most of my FS time in that fleet type.  A new 757/767 would be swell too but 772 first. LOL. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ryan Spel said:

I do truly hope the 777-200ER is shortly to come. It's really needed in FSX considering most 777 operators do or have used it and the big dogs like Delta, United, American, British, Air France, KLM and pretty much everyone else out there has them. I would probably spend most of my FS time in that fleet type.  A new 757/767 would be swell too but 772 first. LOL. 

I'd certainly like to see one. The lack of one was what stopped me from buying the 777 in the first place.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Captain Kevin said:

I'd certainly like to see one. The lack of one was what stopped me from buying the 777 in the first place.

I certainly found myself wondering why the aircraft they picked for the base package was one that needed to ship with an overwhelming majority of fictional liveries vs real operators.

And this is completely off topic, but I find myself really liking that 747 livery in your sig. Am I right in reading the back as being Paramore? (I'm assuming the band, but I frequently make incorrect assumptions, but if so then I'm even more a fan of the livery)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, markdf said:

I certainly found myself wondering why the aircraft they picked for the base package was one that needed to ship with an overwhelming majority of fictional liveries vs real operators.

I can kind of see it from a simplicity side of it with one engine variant versus three. That said, I don't necessarily agree with it.

1 hour ago, markdf said:

And this is completely off topic, but I find myself really liking that 747 livery in your sig. Am I right in reading the back as being Paramore? (I'm assuming the band, but I frequently make incorrect assumptions, but if so then I'm even more a fan of the livery)

That would be the band. I believe that was their font and logo for their self-titled album.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

I can kind of see it from a simplicity side of it with one engine variant versus three. That said, I don't necessarily agree with it.

True, but nothing said they had to model all three variants either.  (Given the low number of actual 200LR liveries provided, I'd argue that if they wanted to do that and the 300ER, then the 300ER should have been the base, not the 200LR)

7 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

That would be the band. I believe that was their font and logo for their self-titled album.

In which case, I'm even more of a huge fan of the livery then

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, markdf said:

True, but nothing said they had to model all three variants either.  (Given the low number of actual 200LR liveries provided, I'd argue that if they wanted to do that and the 300ER, then the 300ER should have been the base, not the 200LR)

PMDG has commercial customers too (probably where most of their revenue comes from). The P8 Poseidon model came from a commercial customer (they did flight model and systems for it too but only the exterior model was allowed to be released from what I have read), so the LR could possibly have come from a commercial customer too

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, PMDG777 said:

PMDG has commercial customers too (probably where most of their revenue comes from). The P8 Poseidon model came from a commercial customer (they did flight model and systems for it too but only the exterior model was allowed to be released from what I have read), so the LR could possibly have come from a commercial customer too

A valid reason, like I say it's just something that's crossed my mind during re-installs. Regardless of reasoning it's a good end product either way - it's this kind of thing that makes "Making Of" documentaries so interesting

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, markdf said:

True, but nothing said they had to model all three variants either.  (Given the low number of actual 200LR liveries provided, I'd argue that if they wanted to do that and the 300ER, then the 300ER should have been the base, not the 200LR)

I'm not sure what good it would have done to have a -200ER with only one or two engine variants.

1 hour ago, markdf said:

In which case, I'm even more of a huge fan of the livery then

Interesting thing to note is that the livery itself had been around since 2007. The logo wasn't added until last summer.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

I'm not sure what good it would have done to have a -200ER with only one or two engine variants.

Interesting thing to note is that the livery itself had been around since 2007. The logo wasn't added until last summer.

I do love the livery too to be honest. Would you ever consider releasing it (without the Air Kevin & Paramore, because my name isn't Kevin and I don't know who Paramore is)?

Edit: What's on the tail?

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, PMDG777 said:

I do love the livery too to be honest. Would you ever consider releasing it (without the Air Kevin & Paramore, because my name isn't Kevin and I don't know who Paramore is)?

Negative, sir. Trust me, you wouldn't be the first person to ask, although the last time somebody asked, they wanted to replace the airline title with their own airline title. I'm not really too sure I like the idea of somebody's virtual airline using a livery that is exactly the same as mine.

13 minutes ago, PMDG777 said:

What's on the tail?

The red stripe basically runs up along the tail to the rear corner of the top of the rudder with Air Kevin printed again just above the stripe. I'd post a screenshot for you, but Photobucket decided to do whatever they decided to do, and so I need to find a solution to that one.

Share this post


Link to post

Consider that with the NGX release....the 'Common' variants were released as the 'base' while the 'fun' variants were released as the expansion.  The 800 is the daily driver while the 600 is the overpowered fun machine.  

The 777 is somewhat the opposite.  The unique 200LR is the performance machine is first while the common 300ER is the addon package.   Perhaps it would have been nice for each package to have a standalone option.  I would have preferred only the NGX 600-700 as a standalone package.  But from a business perspective I can see why PMDG chooses the base package + addon route.  

Regarding the -200ER, consider looking at it from the pilot's perspective.  (remember many of the PMDG staff are pilots, including the bossman), the -200ER is like a stock V6 Ford Mustang.  the 200LR is like a tricked out Shelby Mustang.  And if pilots are like teenage boys looking at cars...which would you pick?  The stock Ford Mustang is a fine car, but is much more common. The Shelby on the otherhand has the extra 'coolness' and 'fun' factor...not to mention a big boost in performance.   Which would you rather show up at the dance in?  Something everyone else drives or something unique?  I can tell you when I went to the FBO and the guy at the counter said 'You can either fly this new 172SP with its stock Cessna paint job, or you can fly this 1960 Piper Comanche with it's beautiful muscle car-esque paintjob'  Guess which choice I made.  That's like choosing between a Prius and a vintage muscle car lol.....guess we are all teenage boys at heart when we go to the airport lol. 

If PMDG chooses to do the -200ER, I'll be happy because I know a lot of you will be happy here too.  Happy customers = good for PMDG.  However if they don't, I can totally understand not spending a year or two developing something 90% similar to something already done.  

Another consideration for the 200LR is the Freighter.  Maybe you don't fly freighters, but cargo outfits are big users of these aircraft.  Isn't FedEx's fleet the largest in the world?  As the MD-11Fs eventually all retire, I can see the 777-200LRF taking over as the workhorse freighter for the forseeable future.  In 10-15 years or so I bet the 777-200LRF will be quite a common sight at freight hubs.

Cheers

TJ

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The air Kevin paint job does rock.

Mark Trainer

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, pilottj said:

Consider that with the NGX release....the 'Common' variants were released as the 'base' while the 'fun' variants were released as the expansion.  The 800 is the daily driver while the 600 is the overpowered fun machine.  

The 777 is somewhat the opposite.  The unique 200LR is the performance machine is first while the common 300ER is the addon package.   Perhaps it would have been nice for each package to have a standalone option.  I would have preferred only the NGX 600-700 as a standalone package.  But from a business perspective I can see why PMDG chooses the base package + addon route.  

Regarding the -200ER, consider looking at it from the pilot's perspective.  (remember many of the PMDG staff are pilots, including the bossman), the -200ER is like a stock V6 Ford Mustang.  the 200LR is like a tricked out Shelby Mustang.  And if pilots are like teenage boys looking at cars...which would you pick?  The stock Ford Mustang is a fine car, but is much more common. The Shelby on the otherhand has the extra 'coolness' and 'fun' factor...not to mention a big boost in performance.   Which would you rather show up at the dance in?  Something everyone else drives or something unique?  I can tell you when I went to the FBO and the guy at the counter said 'You can either fly this new 172SP with its stock Cessna paint job, or you can fly this 1960 Piper Comanche with it's beautiful muscle car-esque paintjob'  Guess which choice I made.  That's like choosing between a Prius and a vintage muscle car lol.....guess we are all teenage boys at heart when we go to the airport lol. 

If PMDG chooses to do the -200ER, I'll be happy because I know a lot of you will be happy here too.  Happy customers = good for PMDG.  However if they don't, I can totally understand not spending a year or two developing something 90% similar to something already done.  

Another consideration for the 200LR is the Freighter.  Maybe you don't fly freighters, but cargo outfits are big users of these aircraft.  Isn't FedEx's fleet the largest in the world?  As the MD-11Fs eventually all retire, I can see the 777-200LRF taking over as the workhorse freighter for the forseeable future.  In 10-15 years or so I bet the 777-200LRF will be quite a common sight at freight hubs.

Cheers

TJ

Agree on all points. Remember you do get the F with the base pack too which is very common.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

Negative, sir. Trust me, you wouldn't be the first person to ask, although the last time somebody asked, they wanted to replace the airline title with their own airline title. I'm not really too sure I like the idea of somebody's virtual airline using a livery that is exactly the same as mine.

The red stripe basically runs up along the tail to the rear corner of the top of the rudder with Air Kevin printed again just above the stripe. I'd post a screenshot for you, but Photobucket decided to do whatever they decided to do, and so I need to find a solution to that one.

Damn that's a pity. Well maybe one day you'll share it exclusively with me :cool:  Wish I had the skills to paint!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • The only plane next up that makes sense is a B767.

We finally need a -200 and -400 model. Forget the Level-D model, it is too old and maybe will never work in P3D v4.

  • The first 737 MAX has just been delievered. Everyone can wait on this one until a few dozens have been built. Then it is time develop the addon.
  • I think a 787 has not to be discussed. Let's just wait for Quality Wings. 
  • The 757 is in early beta from Level-D. There we also need patience how it will be when it has been released.

So please PMDG develop a 767!!! :) 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Captain Kevin.  You seriously didn't buy the 777 because the 200ER type wasn't included???  Really?  Just because of real life operation of that particular type and it's routes don't suit the 200LR as well???   Wow, that's pretty anal...  

Why are all you guys complaining about this issue?  Just use the 200LR with lighter fuel load, no???

John Gaasbeek 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

By the way I would love to see a PMDG 707 above all other aircraft.  Second would be a 727 and third would be a new MD-11 or 787...  

As for everybody who is whining for Split schimtar winglets on their 737....   Who cares?

Edited by jrgaz
Forgot to mention 737

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, jrgaz said:

Captain Kevin.  You seriously didn't buy the 777 because the 200ER type wasn't included???  Really?  Just because of real life operation of that particular type and it's routes don't suit the 200LR as well???   Wow, that's pretty anal...  

Why are all you guys complaining about this issue?  Just use the 200LR with lighter fuel load, no???

John Gaasbeek 

LOL!

I actually agree... I can't see why it's SO impossible to use the 200LR as a 200ER?! I know, I know - "The 200ER doesn't have raked wing-tips", but com'on. 

I understand PMDG's choice with regards to development choice... I seem to remember something about, that the 777-200LR, -300ER and freighter version, all have some similarities with regards to engine data. So it made sense to choose those planes.

I believe it's been explained why these variants were chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jrgaz said:

Captain Kevin.  You seriously didn't buy the 777 because the 200ER type wasn't included???  Really?  Just because of real life operation of that particular type and it's routes don't suit the 200LR as well???   Wow, that's pretty anal...  

Why are all you guys complaining about this issue?  Just use the 200LR with lighter fuel load, no???

 

1 hour ago, Anders Bermann said:

I actually agree... I can't see why it's SO impossible to use the 200LR as a 200ER?! I know, I know - "The 200ER doesn't have raked wing-tips", but com'on. 

For one, that just makes it too easy, as there isn't much of a challenge when the -200LR can fly virtually any two points around the world. Then there's the choice of the different engine variants. The Boeing 777-200ERs I have in my fleet have the Pratt & Whitney engines. Call me anal if you will, but just a personal preference, really.

1 hour ago, Anders Bermann said:

I understand PMDG's choice with regards to development choice... I seem to remember something about, that the 777-200LR, -300ER and freighter version, all have some similarities with regards to engine data. So it made sense to choose those planes.

I believe it's been explained why these variants were chosen.

Yes, I am aware of this.

1 hour ago, jrgaz said:

As for everybody who is whining for Split schimtar winglets on their 737....   Who cares?

Some people do. Everyone has their own personal preferences, so I'm not sure I understand the issue.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, jrgaz said:

Captain Kevin.  You seriously didn't buy the 777 because the 200ER type wasn't included???  Really?  Just because of real life operation of that particular type and it's routes don't suit the 200LR as well???   Wow, that's pretty anal...  

Why are all you guys complaining about this issue?  Just use the 200LR with lighter fuel load, no???

John Gaasbeek 

 

9 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

LOL!

I actually agree... I can't see why it's SO impossible to use the 200LR as a 200ER?! I know, I know - "The 200ER doesn't have raked wing-tips", but com'on. 

I understand PMDG's choice with regards to development choice... I seem to remember something about, that the 777-200LR, -300ER and freighter version, all have some similarities with regards to engine data. So it made sense to choose those planes.

I believe it's been explained why these variants were chosen.

Apart from the fact you have 1 engine out of 3. That's like PMDG releasing the 747 in GE only variant.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now