Just now, mikea76 said:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

 

its not a toy.. the advanced modules have very good flight models, and system depth

Thank´s! I will take a look att DCS. I am very demanding when it comes to my hangar.

1 minute ago, Wenholt said:

What aircraft do you want PMDG to create?

MD-11 *_* 

 

(won‘t happen either) 

1 minute ago, Wenholt said:

Thank´s! I will take a look att DCS. I am very demanding when it comes to my hangar.

no problem, I think you will like it. 

I´m whit you in that wish.

1 hour ago, Wenholt said:

henry, I wrote  "P3D Prof". Maybe you not understand the abbreviation "P3D Prof". Just ask me, I can help you understand;-) The Superbug seams to compatible with Academic licens only.

No sir, I misread your post and my post was a misunderstanding. You are all good. BTW, check out DCS as suggested.

The extent of simulations is "in theatre" combat ops so don't expect good ATC or AI traffic. But the aircraft modeling is a very high quality.

1 hour ago, Wenholt said:

What aircraft do you want PMDG to create?

Stick with tube liners.  If you want a study level fighter why in the world would you want it in P3D? DCS world is made for fighters.

4 hours ago, jrgaz said:

Lighten up dude.

No need for that, Kyle was attempting to explain the reason behind you misunderstanding the situation. Unless your post was a joke that he didn’t catch, I see no reason for you to tell him to “lighten up”. We’re all friends here, after all!

2 hours ago, Wenholt said:

Go for Profit is good thing.

Profit is indeed a good thing, it keeps businesses afloat after all, but weren’t you just accusing VRS of making the superbug for one version just as a cash grab?

1 hour ago, Wenholt said:

I do not know. Therefore I suggest marketing investigation as we always do in my company before we create a new service for customers.

As stated before, the amount of customers using the forum is a small minority of their customer base and does not provide accurate or reliable marketing data as to how many people will buy a product, just ask the OPs of every thread requesting they bring the MD-11 back

1 hour ago, Wenholt said:

What aircraft do you want PMDG to create?

As stated above, an MD11

Failing that, a 787 would be nice. I would’ve said the Max but, well, RSR took care of that already...

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t data and documentation be extremely hard, or even impossible, to obtain? I wouldn’t think Lockheed or any other manufacturer would want a study level simulation of their latest and greatest jet available for anyone to buy. Wouldn’t such documentation be classified, anyways?

 

48 minutes ago, YukonPete said:

Stick with tube liners.  If you want a study level fighter why in the world would you want it in P3D? DCS world is made for fighters.

Simply stated, DCS world is a limited sim and does not come close to reflecting the total operations of a military combat pilot. Yes, it does what it does reasonably well but even Falcon BMS was a more complete combat sim.

8 hours ago, Wenholt said:

Well, maybe I´m to rude. I work in the military security service. We are all a bit rude in that department;-) I may be interested in DSC. Is it a realistic platform or more like a toy? Do you talk about VRS F / A 18E?

Excuse me, but just because you're in a line of work, where it's part of the job to be firm, authoritative and (maybe) a bit harsh, doesn't leave you 'cart-blance' to act that way towards other people. Besides, there's a difference between being firm and direct, while still keeping the mutual respect and just being rude, arrogant and acting disrespectful.

8 hours ago, YukonPete said:

I am not interested in a PMDG fighter jet!

+1

14 hours ago, Wenholt said:

Well, maybe I´m to rude. I work in the military security service. We are all a bit rude in that department;-)

Real or simulated? I thought you said that you work for a company, not the government.

Let's cut some of the side chatter out, please.

You all know me. I'm blunt. I appreciate bluntness elsewhere. Ken's commentary may be blunt, but I don't take it offensively (and most of you know that when I take issue with something, I'm usually one to address it myself).

I jumped in to remind people to use thread titles that make sense. Like it or not, this is a (semi-)public forum for others to participate in discussions. In order for that to happen, there is an implicit contract to use common languages (ideally English, but some require help in other languages, and there are usually a few other members who can assist with that). Part of the use of common languages is using that language in an accepted standard (to sense dropping grammatical the make ability structure breaks down <- dropping grammatical structure breaks down the ability to make sense). "Aviation Speak" for example, is a subset of English (kind of). A METAR might look like gibberish to a commoner (), but to us, here, it's within the accepted standard because the majority of us can understand them.

So...when it comes to interaction here, keep it all in some form that is understandable to the audience here. Does that mean you need to have perfect grammar? No. Does it mean taking a moment to question whether or not something would make sense outside of your head? Absolutely.

Super simple stuff (thanks Oz).