4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I still struggle to get my head around the concept of not flying the 777 simply because it is an LR and not an ER There are only ever going to be a small selection of aircraft that are modelled by PMDG at any one time, so compromises need to be made.

 

1 hour ago, Anders Bermann said:

+1
Agreed. I don't get it either... 

 

I think, for some (myself included), it's a realism thing. I look at flightaware for the aircraft I want to fly in the sim and just recreate those flights. So, if I'm flying the 77L, I look for 77L flights. It's a natural "swap" to put a 77L on a 772's flight, but it doesn't feel right to me, especially if the operator doesn't use that type. As an example, UAL flies a ton of 772s, but no 77Ls. I wouldn't swap a 77L into that flight, despite the existence of UAL 77L fictionals. Same with BAW.

In general, I keep it to non-fictional liveries, with the exception of the PMDG House liveried aircraft, and in those cases, I take those wherever I want.

I do realize that it's a bit odd to some, but it's a rule for myself that doesn't really affect anyone else, so I don't find it too egregious.

For me, the 77L has too much performance for me to feel satisfied with swapping with the 200ER.

 

I predominantly fly BAV and some routes are performance restricted, which will definitely not be the case for the 77L.

I think also with the quantity of 777-200ERs in existence,  I felt it justified that PMDG would at least release an expansion for it, my worry, with a declining fleet, it will never get done, and the 200er never feature in our simulators of any quality.

 

 

3 minutes ago, aceridgey said:

For me, the 77L has too much performance for me to feel satisfied with swapping with the 200ER.

Yeah, that too. I forgot to loop that angle into my post as well. Good point.

4 minutes ago, aceridgey said:

I think also with the quantity of 777-200ERs in existence,  I felt it justified that PMDG would at least release an expansion for it, my worry, with a declining fleet, it will never get done, and the 200er never feature in our simulators of any quality.

As a matter of personal opinion, in light of my earlier post about my own sim "rules," I would love it if we did a 772.

51 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

As a matter of personal opinion, in light of my earlier post about my own sim "rules," I would love it if we did a 772.

You might be one of those few people here that might convince RSR :D 

double-„might“, but rather you than us :D

Simulating real world flights is of no interest to me. In fact, every single flight I make with a PMDG aircraft (737/747/777) is with the PMDG House colour scheme. I can understand why ultra realism matters to some people, but I still think that flying the LR is a far better option than not flying anything at all!

Edited April 10, 20188 yr by Christopher Low

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...

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 20188 yr by rsrandazzo

13 minutes ago, rsrandazzo said:

Alex,

[...]

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.[...]

 

 

 

Meow.

I feel your reply is a little unfair as I was trying to entice debate and discussion. I don't think it's unfair of me to say that you haven't kept the community updated, and it was implied that we would be waiting months. A small update to say that the 200ER slipped would have been great, rather than ignore the subject completely.

 

I appreciate your response, extremely glad it's still on the cards, would appreciate a little less personal dig though ;)

 

Cheers,

 

Alex

 

Edited April 10, 20188 yr by aceridgey

Well, Robert, you should also understand that making statements that sound like promises (I use these words intentionally :P) <<like>> „the js41 will land on your desktops in very short order“ or „we intend to do a xyz shortly after release of...“ will keep people asking for exactly these releases. I understand the reasons why some products become delayed or why there is always a chance that they even get dropped. (and I know the difference between intend and promise :D ) But that‘s a communication thing and playing with words what exactly was written versus what was understood will always keep people sitting on their chairs, some smiling (like me) and some getting angry... PMDG is a master of teasing and PR in the flight sim community/business, but there are always two sides... 

Edited April 10, 20188 yr by Ephedrin

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:00 PM, aceridgey said:

would appreciate a little less personal dig though ;)

That made me double-take as well. 

On 10/04/2018 at 10:22 PM, Ephedrin said:

Well, Robert, you should also understand that making statements that sound like promises (I use these words intentionally :P) <<like>> „the js41 will land on your desktops in very short order“ or „we intend to do a xyz shortly after release of...“ will keep people asking for exactly these releases. I understand the reasons why some products become delayed or why there is always a chance that they even get dropped. (and I know the difference between intend and promise :D ) But that‘s a communication thing and playing with words what exactly was written versus what was understood will always keep people sitting on their chairs, some smiling (like me) and some getting angry... PMDG is a master of teasing and PR in the flight sim community/business, but there are always two sides... 

I bet that's the reason we never hear about anything and this sentence has been removed.

Still a valid point though.

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!   

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.

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. 

 

 

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.

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.