aceridgey

PMDG 777-200ER for 2018?

Recommended Posts

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
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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

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