Just now, joemiller said:

Sure

 

Would you like to argue otherwise?

Just now, Milton Waddams said:

I mean if you have evidence to suggest that is what PMDG is doing then by all means, share it with us.

Dont worry, I don’t inflame

Fantastic.. inflaming is not good. Be strong. 

4 minutes ago, joemiller said:

Fantastic.. inflaming is not good. Be strong. 

Wilco

1 minute ago, Milton Waddams said:

Would you like to argue otherwise?

hahaha, relax Johnny. I could argue these clear points, but it only took me a few seconds to realize you are  incapable of seeing beyond one developer. No my friend, trust me there's a lot lot more than just one developer. 

Good luck! 

12 minutes ago, joemiller said:

hahaha, relax Johnny. I could argue these clear points, but it only took me a few seconds to realize you are  incapable of seeing beyond one developer. No my friend, trust me there's a lot lot more than just one developer. 

Good luck! 

Joe, I think that’s your name correct me if I’m wrong, I really am trying yet struggling to see your point of view. From my interactions with PMDG, I get the feeling that they are the real deal. You can tell they’re on the ball with all of the correct data, data that can only be acquired from Boeing themselves and not via the internet, as well as them having a close relationship with Boeing. Developing the level of aircraft they produce is simply impossible without a decent relationship with the manufacturer, I’ve know from experience of trying to get the required data from a company myself. Saying they don’t do an Airbus because they don’t know how is simply preposterous and you know that. They make Boeing’s because they have the data and access to the aircraft as well as a strong relationship with Boeing, and not with Airbus. Help me to understand your point of view, please.

I’m not incapable of seeing past PMDG, and I know there are other developers out there. Why you included this is beyond me.

9 minutes ago, Milton Waddams said:

Why you included this is beyond me.

You do realize you've made around 100 posts in the past 24 hours, right?  (Yes, I counted)

1 minute ago, Greggy_D said:

You do realize you've made around 100 posts in the past 24 hours, right?  (Yes, I counted)

Is that a problem? 

I read all this and this is like the Pepsi and Coke argument.

I do not currently use P3D or FSX so I cannot claim expertise regarding the PMDG offerings.

I do think Milton has a bit of a valid point. If PMDG has access to Boeing data, then I would expect their aircraft to behave more realistically than iFly. I don’t know if iFly is privy to any Boeing data or not. I would imagine that they probably get their data from other sources, internet or through airlines or other operators of the aircraft. But both developers offerings are made to work within the confines of a desktop computer with some limitations when you equate it with the real world example.

I use the iFly in FS9 and from my limited knowledge of 737s and 747s, they seem accurate to me. I’m sure both developers employed heuristics in their development. 

Airbus guards their data and specifications quite closely. So FSLabs probably used other means to develop their Airbus. Probably consulting with operators and the use of heuristics. 

I don’t how anyone did their development, I’m just guessing, but as I said, Pepsi vs. Coke.

6 hours ago, Milton Waddams said:

From my interactions with PMDG, I get the feeling that they are the real deal. You can tell they’re on the ball with all of the correct data, data that can only be acquired from Boeing themselves and not via the internet, as well as them having a close relationship with Boeing. Developing the level of aircraft they produce is simply impossible without a decent relationship with the manufacturer,

I wouldn't place too much store on the Officially Licensed Boeing tag you see on products; there are officially licensed Boeing keyrings, coffee mugs, fridge magnets, pin badges, cups, baseball caps, t-shirts and so on. Now obviously being an officially licensed Boeing product is better than not being an officially-licensed one for a simulated 737, but it's largely a case of copyright of the name and other trademarks, rather an indication of anything otherwise, i.e. it's basically being told you're okay to use the name Boeing on your product.

Ariane Design's Boeing 737 NGs are officially licensed Boeing products, iFly's 737 NG collection is not an officially licensed Boeing product, but which one out of those two do most people own and/or would recommend? I'd put money on it not being the Ariane Design one. Now don't get me wrong here, there's nothing wrong with the Ariane Design NG as a flight sim add-on itself, in fact there are some things about it which are better than any other 737 you can get for either FS9, FSX or P3D and if I recall correctly, I think the Ariane 737 NGs are also officially licensed by CFM too, but sadly it's a bit overpriced in my opinion, which might not be an issue for some (I have bought two Ariane 737 NG product myself after all), but what is an issue for all is that the DRM on the product is ridiculous, which is something that would prevent me from recommending it when there are other choices which do not utilise draconian DRM policies. The point here being that the Boeing officially licensed product badge is hardly a guarantee of standards which I personally would find acceptable.

Now if a simulated aeroplane for FSX, P3D, FSW or XPlane or any other flight sim for that matter, had a logo on it which said it was 'officially endorsed or approved by the maker of the real aeroplane', or perhaps 'developed in cooperation with the maker of the real aeroplane', that I certainly would be impressed with.

Such endorsements have happened with a few FS add-ons, for example: Flight 1's ATR-72-500 was indeed developed in cooperation with Avions Transport Regional, and they were very happy with how it turned out by all accounts, even more impressively, Sim720's FSX Ikarus C42 is both officially approved and officially endorsed by Comco Ikarus. In both cases, these add-ons were created from genuine schematic drawings for the real aeroplanes, having been provided by the manufacturer, also utilising aerodynamic performance data from them too. These are not the only ones where this has occurred, however it isn't the norm and has little to do with an official license; most developers will more often gain access to an in-service aeroplane and use data from that as well as imagery for textures etc, this is what for example, PMDG did with their 737 NG and in a more recent example, it's what Aerosoft did when creating their Antonov AN2. There is nothing wrong with going about it that way, after all, you're trying to simulate a real aeroplane, so what could be better than examining the real aeroplane? But the notion that Boeing licensing somehow means PMDG are some kind of favoured son among add-on developers, is to place a bit more credence on what that licensing endorsement actually means than is the reality of it, as evidenced by that Ariane Design NG also wearing that logo.

This is in no way intended to suggest PMDG don't make great add-ons, they certainly do and I've got loads of them because of that, but they aren't alone in doing so, and they aren't even alone in doing so with Boeings either.

11 hours ago, joemiller said:

Hummmmm, well you might be right to a certain point. Yes, PMDG's  better; but I-Fly 737 is no lightweight either. They made a fine product at half the price- that is a huge win.

yes   thats  correct just like comparing aersoft  bus to fsl bus, doesnt matter which one is better is what you prefer to fly and buy, least  there are many choices to make from

Whatever comes from PMDG is Good!  SO... Looking fwd into it :-)

14 hours ago, Milton Waddams said:

Without diving into their pricing policies, I’d argue that they are well within reason to charge their prices. RSR isn’t the type of guy to charge as much as we’ll pay just for the heck of it, there’s logic behind his decisions.

+1
Couldn't have worded it better myself! The notion, that PMDG is basing their pricing policy of comments of enthusiastic customers, who's expressing their wish to get their hands on an upcoming release, is just ludicrous in my opinion.

13 hours ago, Greggy_D said:

You do realize you've made around 100 posts in the past 24 hours, right?  (Yes, I counted)

What's your point?! 

13 hours ago, Greggy_D said:

You do realize you've made around 100 posts in the past 24 hours, right?  (Yes, I counted)

Its  a public  forum  and  has  much  right  to post  as  much  as  he likes,  you dont  have  to  read  his  post or  simply  use  the  ignore  option

12 hours ago, Chock said:

being an officially licensed Boeing product..., but it's largely a case of copyright of the name and other trademarks... it's basically being told you're okay to use the name Boeing on your product.

There's a bit more to it than that, Boeing is effectively protecting its brand.  There are rules that have to be followed (ex one is you can't show the aircraft in a bad position (ie like burned up)). You also may not even have a choice, Boeing may contact the dev and say , you need a license  to continue doing what you are doing. There may also be a cost involved with the license.  Its potentially a contributing factor to the increased cost of Aircraft addons people probably aren't aware of.  But yes the Boeing official license likely does not mean any sort of official access to the Boeing technical expertise etc.  But the licenses will differ.

Just now, ErnieAlston said:

There's a bit more to it than that, Boeing is effectively protecting its brand.  There are rules that have to be followed (ex one is you can't allow the aircraft to be displayed in a crash/damage config). You also may not even have a choice, Boeing may contact the dev and say , you need a license  to continue doing what you are doing. There may also be a cost involved with the license.  Its a contributing factor to the increased cost of Aircraft addons people probably aren't aware of.  But yes the Boeing official license definitely does not mean any sort of official access to the Boeing technical expertise etc.  

True, but the point remains that such licenses are not necessarily an indicator that one add-on is more accurate than another. It is quite often simply a case of legal matters being covered for trademarks, which is understandable for a company such as Boeing, which certainly would want to protect its corporate identity and not have any old piece of cack have the Boeing name slapped onto it to trade off their good name.

A good example of where that can get silly and even misleading however - and it frequently does - would be the Just Flight Douglas DC-3, which somewhat ludicrously owing to the international vagaries of copyright when in its Steam FSX-SE iteration, is referred to as the McDonnell-Douglas DC-3 because DC is held as a trademark by MD even though MD is actually now part of Boeing and ironically, the DC bit actually stands for Douglas Commercial anyway. Hence the DC-9 becoming the Boeing 717, at least before it was the MD-90 or whatever. We all know it's a tarted up DC-9 with better avionics regardless what any of that marketing might claim, in the same way as the MD-11 is a tarted up DC-10 lol. If I stuck a Garmin GPS on the panel of a Supermarine Spitfire IIA, I wouldn't start calling it the Garmin Spitfire IIA.

Despite all that, on the Just Flight website, their DC-3 is referred to as the Douglas DC-3, albeit only in the product description and not in the product name, where it is the 'DC-3 - Legends of Flight' - note no mention of Douglas in the actual product title - but at least it ain't listed as being made by McDonnell Douglas, which definitely makes more sense given that Douglas didn't merge with McDonnell until 17 years after the DC-3 was out of production. 

This is purely a case of Steam going all 'belt and braces' legally of course, which they also quite often do with repaints included with FS add-ons, whereby you can sometimes find that buying an add-on from a developer directly or buying via Steam will see the add-on you buy possibly having less liveries included. In the case of that DC-3, such legal shenanigans might lead someone to presume that the Steam version of the DC-3 is perhaps better than the one you buy from Just Flight's website directly because one has the MD tag on it and the other doesn't, where in fact they are exactly the same product in every respect. Moreover, one might even argue that both of them, either endorsed or not, are not as accurate as some of the (completely bereft of any official licensing whatsoever) freeware DC-3s one can find out there.

So much of the time as far as the accuracy of the add-on is concerned, one can take any logos on the packaging or marketing blurb with a healthy pinch of salt, because it's as likely to have been merely fodder for the lawyers as for any other reason in these litigious times we have to endure, and as they say: What do you call 500 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? A good start.