What will be the next project by PMDG?

[anden145 2,284]

49 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

In any case, this isn't about "The plane is unflyable with that geometry!" It's hard to notice, doesn't affect things much, and it's there for a good reason. What i'm trying to say is that it's a crying shame that the only model of a 737 (the most widely used jet airliner ever) made by PMDG (a company that prides itself with the quality and accuracy of its products) has such a flaw. The 737 has just as much of a prestigious status as the 747, if not more so. And we've had 3 versions of the 747 but only one 737. As good as that model still is, it would be a shame to draw a line and call it done.

Well - you're contradicting yourself, in that statement.

The geometry in the PMDG 737NGX isn't a 'flaw'! As you yourself just said, there's a good reason for it. A flaw would imply, that PMDG missed something or has made a mistake. Well - the 'wrong' geometry of the windows, is intentional for reasons already explained. Hence not a flaw. 

Anyway, my personal assessment is, that if it's somehow possible to create the correct dimensions, then I would applaud it - but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I know, that some users in here seem to be quite zealous about it, but in my personal opinion I can understand the design choices that PMDG faced, when creating it. 

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

8 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

Well - you're contradicting yourself, in that statement.

The geometry in the PMDG 737NGX isn't a 'flaw'! As you yourself just said, there's a good reason for it. A flaw would imply, that PMDG missed something or has made a mistake. Well - the 'wrong' geometry of the windows, is intentional for reasons already explained. Hence not a flaw. 

We're arguing semantics, but a flaw is defined as "a mark, blemish, or other imperfection which mars a substance or object". The cockpit geometry meets that definition. What you're describing is called a mistake. Anyways, it's irrelevant.

Quote

Anyway, my personal assessment is, that if it's somehow possible to create the correct dimensions, then I would applaud it - but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I know, that some users in here seem to be quite zealous about it, but in my personal opinion I can understand the design choices that PMDG faced, when creating it. 

I completely agree. If they are unable (or even unwilling) to fix the geometry, i'd still buy the NG3 (or whatever it ends up being called) on launch day.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Cristi_Neagu

[anden145 2,284]

1 minute ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

We're arguing semantics, but a flaw is defined as "a mark, blemish, or other imperfection which mars a substance or object". The cockpit geometry meets that definition. What you're describing is called a mistake. Anyways, it's irrelevant.

I completely agree. If they are unable (or even unwilling) to fix the geometry, i'd still buy the NG3 (or whatever it ends up being called) on launch day.

You are of course right 🙂

I just thought I'd dig into what exactly you meant. Thanks for the clarification.

[Christopher Low 5,338]

Yep, no question about it. When the NG3 is released, I will be there with my credit card

[threexgreen 3,135]

Is the HUD the reason for the cockpit geometry not having been modelled like the real thing?

On a side note, I'm pretty sure Christopher was being sarcastic with his comment on the SSW 😁

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

2 hours ago, threegreen said:

Is the HUD the reason for the cockpit geometry not having been modelled like the real thing?

If my memory serves, yes. I don't think they ever gave the technical reason why, though.

[downscc 1,327]

39 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

If my memory serves, yes. I don't think they ever gave the technical reason why, though.

It has to do with the way they were restricted by simulating the collimator, which uses a focal length beyond the windscreen and limitations of the platform.  The option was a wonky looking collimator or minor modification to windscreen geometry. Either choice and PMDG would have been criticized I bet.

[killairbus 3]

The nice thing about all the care they put into their products you can save up on cash until the product comes out and you'll probably be able to afford the expansion packs with it.

I still can't afford Captain Sim and thank god for that!

[ErichB 3,638]

23 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

Anyway - for me personally (with regards to the NG3):

• Corrected cockpit geometry (although not a big thing for me!)
• Split Scimitar winglets.
• LED lighting (Nav, strobes, landing etc...)
• PMDG RainMaker
• Integrated EFB (if possible)

I'd like to add more fluid wing animation during turbulence/ground roll and smoother control surface animations.  

[threexgreen 3,135]

14 hours ago, downscc said:

It has to do with the way they were restricted by simulating the collimator, which uses a focal length beyond the windscreen and limitations of the platform.  The option was a wonky looking collimator or minor modification to windscreen geometry. Either choice and PMDG would have been criticized I bet.

Do you know if these limitations are still there or can it be modelled 'correctly' in P3Dv4?

[downscc 1,327]

5 hours ago, threegreen said:

Do you know if these limitations are still there or can it be modelled 'correctly' in P3Dv4?

All I know is that the update to the NG is a new product through and through.

[commandantyuuki 13]

On 2/20/2019 at 12:58 PM, Cristi_Neagu said:

That's a bit unfair considering:

1. It's not like *all* 737NGs ever made had split scimitar winglets and PMDG chose to not model that feature, just like no 737NG ever made has that cockpit geometry

2. The winglet variants had different flight models to the non winglet ones, so split scimitar winglets would actually make a difference.

In any case, this isn't about "The plane is unflyable with that geometry!" It's hard to notice, doesn't affect things much, and it's there for a good reason. What i'm trying to say is that it's a crying shame that the only model of a 737 (the most widely used jet airliner ever) made by PMDG (a company that prides itself with the quality and accuracy of its products) has such a flaw. The 737 has just as much of a prestigious status as the 747, if not more so. And we've had 3 versions of the 747 but only one 737. As good as that model still is, it would be a shame to draw a line and call it done.

That's my opinion. In any case, the argument is irrelevant. PMDG are making a new version of the 737, and i'm really happy that they are. And even if they decided not to, i can complain about it all i want, it won't change things.

Yes, in a way the winglet is useless at some point, because I'm sure almost nobody will see the difference, other than the fuel consumption, but it is still present, Westjet is fitting them to their fleet... It is like the zibomod, if you know that, they put the three varients to their 737-900 Ultimate...

[ckyliu 1,749]

On 2/19/2019 at 10:47 PM, Cristi_Neagu said:

2. Only PMDG aircraft with a heads-up display

Majestic Software didn't get your message

[ckyliu 1,749]

I for one am fed up of 737 after 737: iFly, PMDG, IXEG, Zibo etc. The NG3 being a mostly clean sheet replacement of the NGX is completely unnecessary, it's not the like the NGX isn't still cutting edge, all it needs is a few extra graphical tidbits adding and the MAX versions which could be done as an expansion pack. Then development time and cost saved could be used to produce something new that we don't already have, instead of covering the same old ground in much the same manner.

Edited March 4, 2019 by ckyliu

[Adrian123 1,015]

2 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

something new that we don't already have,

Like regional Jets?