aceridgey

PMDG 777-200ER for 2018?

Recommended Posts

So many wonderful fully detailed aircraft is giving me a case of multiple personality disorder. I mean somebody help me. Am I a freight dogger on the Atlas Air 744, a long hauler for AAL on the T7-300, a 1950's Pan Am Cap on the DC-6 or working on one of the several airlines I fly on the NGX variants? And even then the -700,-800 or -900? And always more more more being developed and they're compulsive purchases for me because they're PMDG.

Keep em coming guys!:biggrin:   

Share this post


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

10 minutes ago, PATCO LCH said:

So many wonderful fully detailed aircraft is giving me a case of multiple personality disorder. I mean somebody help me. Am I a freight dogger on the Atlas Air 744, a long hauler for AAL on the T7-300, a 1950's Pan Am Cap on the DC-6 or working on one of the several airlines I fly on the NGX variants? And even then the -700,-800 or -900?

It is certainly a conundrum for anybody with the slightest OCD.  This week, I've been flying a SWA B738 around trying to follow the same airframe even if it changes flight numbers.  For example, I have flown N8301J KLAS to KMDW, KMCO, TJSJ, KFLL and I'm on the final segment of the circuit taking her back to KLAS.  At other times, I'll use my logbook editor to see how many flights I've had in each type for past 90 days and go fly something with low numbers.  There is also the oldest scenario method,  since i always save my flights at the gate after unloaded so I can load that and start a new trip during the turn around, I have a long list of scenarios and sorted by date I'll pick some old ones I haven't touched in months and find a flight from there.  I also sometimes simply feel like flying by BBJ or the VC-118 Independence.  Too many choices.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just flown 15 hrs comfortably in a 200LR from Vancouver to Sydney. Why do I need a 200ER when I don't want to fly longer routes than this and I already have a 300ER to choose from? (Assuming I'm interpreting LR as Long Range and ER as Extended Range correctly).

Is it a different flight deck layout, different engine sounds, or something else? 

I'm all for authenticity in replicating real world flight variants but if the only difference is psychological, or a slight variation in engine sound, then I'm happy to continue with the wonderful PMDG choices I have.  

I agree with Dan - too many choices. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, walfob said:

Is it a different flight deck layout, different engine sounds, or something else? 

I'm all for authenticity in replicating real world flight variants but if the only difference is psychological, or a slight variation in engine sound, then I'm happy to continue with the wonderful PMDG choices I have.  

With the -200ER. you have a choice of three engines, and therefore, different performance based on each engine. With the -200LR and -300ER, you only get one engine choice.

30 minutes ago, walfob said:

I've just flown 15 hrs comfortably in a 200LR from Vancouver to Sydney. Why do I need a 200ER when I don't want to fly longer routes than this and I already have a 300ER to choose from? (Assuming I'm interpreting LR as Long Range and ER as Extended Range correctly).

You got it the other way around. The -200LR actually flies farther than the -200ER. It has the raked wingtips as the -300ER does (the -200ER doesn't have this), and it has a much higher maximum take-off weight than the -200ER.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

With the -200ER. you have a choice of three engines, and therefore, different performance based on each engine. With the -200LR and -300ER, you only get one engine choice.

You got it the other way around. The -200LR actually flies farther than the -200ER. It has the raked wingtips as the -300ER does (the -200ER doesn't have this), and it has a much higher maximum take-off weight than the -200ER.

I didn't realise this. I thought extended range meant extended beyond a long range version. So what constitutes NR - Normal range? Slightly confusing. Whatever, I don't think more engine choices would tempt me to purchase this, unless it came as free add-on. 

Also, would it be worth PMDG's while just producing more engine variations. I'd concentrate on a totally new plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2018 at 8:31 AM, walfob said:

I didn't realise this. I thought extended range meant extended beyond a long range version. So what constitutes NR - Normal range? Slightly confusing. Whatever, I don't think more engine choices would tempt me to purchase this, unless it came as free add-on. 

Also, would it be worth PMDG's while just producing more engine variations. I'd concentrate on a totally new plane.

The -200 was the baseline version, with United being the launch customer. The -200ER came next with increased range, and the -200LR has even more range. Ultimately, it depends on how you want to fly. For anyone who wants to fly realistically, the -200LR certainly wouldn't be the plane to fly unless you're flying one of the few that were built, given that only 59 were built for 12 customers. For me personally, the -200LR isn't a substitute for the -200ER, as my airline in the simulator operates the -200ER with the Pratt & Whitney engines. Certainly can't take screenshots with the wrong airplane as far as I'm concerned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Kevin said:

For anyone who wants to fly realistically, the -200LR certainly wouldn't be the plane to fly unless you're flying one of the few that were built, given that only 59 were built for 12 customers. For me personally, the -200LR isn't a substitute for the -200ER, as my airline in the simulator operates the -200ER with the Pratt & Whitney engines. Certainly can't take screenshots with the wrong airplane as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting information. So I wonder why PMDG decided to go with the 200LR if only a few were produced and the 200ER seems the more popular model?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, walfob said:

Interesting information. So I wonder why PMDG decided to go with the 200LR if only a few were produced and the 200ER seems the more popular model?

Very simply because the 300ER has an almost identical engine to the 200LR.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, walfob said:

Interesting information. So I wonder why PMDG decided to go with the 200LR if only a few were produced and the 200ER seems the more popular model?

Only one engine you need to model and get performance data for with the -200LR versus three engines you need to model and get performance data for with the -200ER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, aceridgey said:

Very simply because the 300ER has an almost identical engine to the 200LR.. 

I had assumed that the 300ER was the longer range, higher capacity version of the 777 family. Hence PMDG's reason for its choice of the LR/ER versions.

Seems not so - the 200LR is the lower capacity longer range version. Explains now how it handled my CYVR-YSSY flight with no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, walfob said:

 

I had assumed that the 300ER was the longer range, higher capacity version of the 777 family. Hence PMDG's reason for its choice of the LR/ER versions.

Seems not so - the 200LR is the lower capacity longer range version. Explains now how it handled my CYVR-YSSY flight with no problems.

The -200LR and the -300ER have almost identical maximum take-off weights, the -300ER having a slightly higher take-off weight by 9,000 pounds. Both share the same wing, so they have the same fuel capacity, but the -300ER is heavier than the -200LR by 50,000 pounds. Hence why the -200LR has a longer range compared to the -300ER. The -200LR can also have auxiliary fuel tanks installed to increase the range even more, but I don't know of any airline that actually took this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I went to the pmdg site to purchase eventually the -300ER version, and read what they state about the -300ER: "The PMDG 777-300ER Expansion Package will give you the longest 777 airplane made by Boeing, with a level of realism as high as you could want in an airliner package. ".

So, it seems that the -200Lr has not the longer range, as stated here.

Jos Denis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, beep747 said:

Hello,

I went to the pmdg site to purchase eventually the -300ER version, and read what they state about the -300ER: "The PMDG 777-300ER Expansion Package will give you the longest 777 airplane made by Boeing, with a level of realism as high as you could want in an airliner package. ".

So, it seems that the -200Lr has not the longer range, as stated here.

Jos Denis.

Jos. That's length of the aircraft not the range...... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes indeed, how stupid one can be. I'll go and purchase the extension and I'll try to wake up. 

Jos Denis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I totally respect PMDGs decision to launch the 200ER or not, a thought about why I am so eagarly awaiting this aircraft and why the 200LR isn't an acceptable alternative.

 

One of the things I like to do most is to fly the most demanding routes for different aircraft (e.g. I fly KIAH-YSSY in a 787-9). While yes, I can fly KEWR-VHHH with the 200LR in United livery, it isn't the same as stretching the 200ER to its limits on that route, or any of the other many performance maxization routes.

 

I really would love to do anything to help make this a reality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/29/2018 at 8:33 PM, Captain Kevin said:

Only one engine you need to model and get performance data for with the -200LR versus three engines you need to model and get performance data for with the -200ER.

Am I wrong in assuming the B744 has not one, not two but THREE engine types? Am I wrong in assuming the B748 is stretched and shares next to no commonality with the 744? They modeled all the different cargo variants of the B744, all the pax variants and all three engines (well more if you include the different thrust ratings for any one engine type depending on the airframe and it's intended use).

 

Yet...

 

B777-300ER gets released PRIOR...years prior (2013 o be exact) and 5 years later, with the release of the B748 on it's way, we still, STILL have not been able to purchase the B777-200ER with the excuse being "different engine type so it's not simple" yet we're getting 4 different engine types with the 747.

 

Also, if it takes so long to get things done and prioritizing is common withing the PMDG team, why not hire more, equally skilled staff? We love PMDG's products so it's very easy to have adoration for PMDG themselves and therefor develop a need to support them but most of us don't want and do not care about this new virtual airline thing that apparently took 10 years to develop. (PMDG Global Flight Operations-I still cannot believe tha was their secret project. If ever there was a perfect example of an anti-climax). At this rate, we won't ever see a single study-level Airbus heavy and will get the bloody PMDG787 by 2029 all because there was some new tech that needed to be understood 1st and a new platform to get to grips with but not until they release the B764 in 2025 which they may or may not complete it's lineup (B767-200/300) by 2033 because it has different engines. The priority was all wrong and we don't need to know the inner workings to know this.

Outside of the FSX/P3D/X-Plane community, things...get...done otherwise people lose their fanbase and even go bankrupt when a newer, more efficient rival hits the market and the old, complacent dinosaur is too stuck in it's way to adapt and compete. Unfortunately the FS Community is a monopoly so what other motivation is there for these devs to increase efficiency? You'd think by RSR's attitude towards his customers that PMDG products were freeware LOL

 

The flight simulator community still has no study level 787, 777-200ER, 767, 757, A330, A340-200/300, A340-500/600, A350 or A380. You'd think at least ONE would capitalize on this and eat up all that green wouldn't you? These planes are still popular and flying currently!!!!! Yet, every dev and their grandmother wants to develop their own version of the A320 and since they lack stiff competition, can take years and even close to a decade doing so. Some even cancel after setting off. I wish I had a thing for programming. There wouldn't be a single disappointed airline simmer being made to wait in the dark about much anticipated products and being scolded by casual simmers whose heads are stuck so far up....................as well as devs with little to no customer service skills who forget the business dynamic they CHOSE to incorporate themselves into.

 

Then you have the personal, passive-aggressive insults whenever you ask for information. This is business. Customers wish to put money in their pockets for a product that they want. The DEMAND should always dictate what comes next but nooope. Not in FSX/P3D. What other sector do you know where the service provider/retailer does whatever they want and treat their CORE customer base as whiny drones? 

 

Rant Over

Frustrated Simmer

 

 

p.s Bring on the personal digs as per usual or delete this post. I thought this was a forum to praise, criticize, make queries, share information as well as getting help. There's a reason WHY the AVSIM community has the reputation it does. 

Edited by Coolieboy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2018 at 8:50 PM, rsrandazzo said:

Alex,

You have asked this question a number of times, and the answer has remained the same:  We will, at some point, and we are not in a position to share any information on the topic just yet. 

I recognize that in your world, all factors are completely static, which allows you to remain on the steel rails of your life plan, but PMDG exists in a world that is significantly more dynamic and thus requires quite a bit of open minded creativity with respect to our development schedule and use of resources.

To simplify it a bit:  You have three hours in which to accomplish six tasks but I am only giving you resources to accomplish two tasks, each of which take one hour.  You need to prioritize and continually evaluate your goals and resources in order to maximize output.

On my end, I have a very clear idea of exactly what set of circumstances I am looking for in order to trigger the 200ER work cycle, but I am certainly not going to share any of that information with you because it is constantly evolving and we have seen time and time again how warmly this community reacts to changes that don't suit their personal wants/needs.  (Think of some of your own posts on this same topic, or the many MD-11 demands for P3D or pretty much anything related to XPlane...)

So yes, Alex- thank you for your interest- but please try to understand that we don't just wake up in the morning and chase the next sparkly bangle that goes by the window...

 

 

 

Perhaps hiring more skilled staff may help with efficiency? Nope? Okay then. I just came back from an alternate universe where FSX/P3D had multiple devs giving you stiff competition. Guess what? 

 

We had the B757/767-complete lineup, B777-complete lineup and the B787 was being developed as we speak. There was no PMDG Global Flight Operations. Just a tease from you regarding future airbus products. Don't worry RSR, I'm dgoing back. That RSR is waaaay more appreciative of his own fanbase/customers 😉   

 

😞 I wish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Coolieboy said:

Perhaps hiring more skilled staff may help with efficiency? Nope? Okay then.

I don't know what meaning you have put into that sentence, but...

  1. Do you mean, that PMDG should hire more skilled staff (than they already have)?
  2. Or do you mean, that PMDG should hire more skilled staff?

As I said, I don't know what you meant, but if it's the latter, I would take that as an insult.

(Now come on, people! Give me the rippin' for reading to much into it...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

I don't know what meaning you have put into that sentence, but...

  1. Do you mean, that PMDG should hire more skilled staff (than they already have)?
  2. Or do you mean, that PMDG should hire more skilled staff?

As I said, I don't know what you meant, but if it's the latter, I would take that as an insult.

(Now come on, people! Give me the rippin' for reading to much into it...)

haha I see what you mean. No. 1

 

These guys are infinitely amazing at what they create. Cannot question their skills!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Coolieboy said:

haha I see what you mean. No. 1

 

These guys are infinitely amazing at what they create. Cannot question their skills!

Fair enough. Thanks for not taking offense for asking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Coolieboy While I completely understand your frustration, you've got a few points wrong which is worsening your frustration. GFO didn't take 10 years to develop, it's just something that PMDG have wanted to do since 2008. It's been in development for a couple of years now as the principal project of Kyle ( @scandinavian13 ), and not the aircraft dev team. Randazzo also said the 748 was going into beta yesterday, to which he personally commented "Finally, it's only about a year behind schedule". Developing aircraft to the level of PMDG et al is fraught with endless little rabbit holes of bugs and system logic. Look at FSL, they announced the A320 at the 2012 FS Conference in Germany and said it'd be out later that year, yet it took until 2016 to actually finish it. 

So PMDG themselves have acknowledged that they're behind - it's annoying, sure, but it's just the way it is. PMDG will not release a bug-filled product just to meet a deadline, it's not their MO. Yes, it's frustrating - I really want to see the -200ER too, with all three engine types - but until PMDG can devote the resources, there's nothing we can do.

 

What I really want from PMDG right now is a detailed roadmap. Confirm the 748 is now in beta, properly announce the NG3 and all the details (announce it's a refresh to bring it up to 747 standard, including more airframe options, announce that it'll include the ER models, announce that it'll include the BBJ models, announce that the MAX will be an expansion, etc etc, whatever will be included), announce the next secret aircraft that Kyle has already (in my opinion, teased in a poor manner) mentioned if it's not the NG3, and announce if the 777 will get continued expansion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, squerble said:

What I really want from PMDG right now is a detailed roadmap. Confirm the 748 is now in beta, properly announce the NG3 and all the details (announce it's a refresh to bring it up to 747 standard, including more airframe options, announce that it'll include the ER models, announce that it'll include the BBJ models, announce that the MAX will be an expansion, etc etc, whatever will be included), announce the next secret aircraft that Kyle has already (in my opinion, teased in a poor manner) mentioned if it's not the NG3, and announce if the 777 will get continued expansion.

Wow! That's a lot of announcements...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Coolieboy said:

Am I wrong in assuming the B744 has not one, not two but THREE engine types? Am I wrong in assuming the B748 is stretched and shares next to no commonality with the 744? They modeled all the different cargo variants of the B744, all the pax variants and all three engines (well more if you include the different thrust ratings for any one engine type depending on the airframe and it's intended use).

Okay, I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but I'm just going by what I've seen here. This was said back in 2014, mind you.

On 7/24/2014 at 9:57 AM, scandinavian13 said:

I really don't understand why people assume PMDG released the 200LR/F as some spiteful measure towards the sim community.  The 200LR/F and 300ER use the same single-engine type philosophy.  As such, it's really easy to develop for.  You only have to make one flight dynamics model.

Another one in 2014.

On 7/24/2014 at 11:34 AM, scandinavian13 said:

The 777 DEV schedule was the way it was in order to streamline development. The 200LR/F and 300ER all use a common engine.

And this back in 2013.

On 9/4/2013 at 3:57 PM, scandinavian13 said:

This is true, but only so far.  If you go back and find it, I think you'll see that they said initially they'd be doing the ones with common engine types to make things easier, and they'd evaluate other options after the initial release.

One other thing to take into consideration is that they must have had the data for all of the 747-400s and the 747-8 to be able to do what they did. Do they have the data for the -200ER? I don't know. If they don't, that's definitely going to stop them from being able to get far since they aren't really one for just sticking the engines on the wings and calling it done, they'd need to model the flight dynamics for it. But I don't work for PMDG, so I don't know any more of what's going on than you do. All I have to go by is whatever was posted here in the past.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 12:59 PM, Captain Kevin said:

Okay, I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but I'm just going by what I've seen here. This was said back in 2014, mind you.

Another one in 2014.

And this back in 2013.

One other thing to take into consideration is that they must have had the data for all of the 747-400s and the 747-8 to be able to do what they did. Do they have the data for the -200ER? I don't know. If they don't, that's definitely going to stop them from being able to get far since they aren't really one for just sticking the engines on the wings and calling it done, they'd need to model the flight dynamics for it. But I don't work for PMDG, so I don't know any more of what's going on than you do. All I have to go by is whatever was posted here in the past.

You do realize I am fully aware of the above and was not disputing any of it right? I'm pretty sure if you re-read what I said, you would find that I am getting at. If not, I will elaborate;

 

1. how long it takes due to a lack of resources and manpower/Not meeting customer demand (demand in a business sense, not a rude one before you grab your pitchfork 😛)

2. the lack of communication/general outlook

3. the petty, passive-aggressive digs when asked normal questions any fan/customer asks in any industry

 

I have no problem with PMDG pricing. I have no problem with PMDG product quality. Releasing a product after most or all bugs have been addressed is standard so I'm not grateful for it since I am the one paying hard earning money on a "product" and expect customer satisfaction like every customer when I make a purchase. 

REGARDLESS of new flight dynamics and data, there is an unfinished product that has had it's resources pulled to work on other aircraft as well as a far less relevant product that no one asked for. I know the B772 has different wings and engines but the 748 is the same case. PLUS...the B748 was not modelled before. The V2 748 used the B744's flight dynamics

 

The DC6 was partly developed to understand X-Plane better. I get that. But how much money I wonder did the DC-6 bring in compared to the 747 or 777? The heavy hitters (787/777/747/737) is where the demand and money is, but I "THINK" that RSR just creates what THEY want to create instead of what THEIR CUSTOMERS/FANS want to buy. I'm sure there are 100's of super intelligent programmers who would kill to work for and with the PMDG team and compliment them and their work ethic perfectly, boosting productivity and efficiency tenfold. 

I also understand that it is not easy to recreate these models but that is their instinctive passion and desired profession. The business end from MY perspective is not as great and all it takes is for one new developer to slide into the spotlight with aircraft of PMDG level to throw a spanner into the works or even better, a new platform that already has PMDG level aircraft fresh out the box.

Either way, deep down, even the most die hard PMDG supporter (like me) knows he/she may not be alive to have their personal favorite heavy available to fly within an FS platform 😞 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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