6 hours ago, commandantyuuki said:

But, would you prefer that they do the -200ER right now or work on the NG3, GFO and JS4100 ?

The -200ER, actually. Nothing against the NG3 or GFO, of course, I'd like to see them, too.

I like how I correct the "external flight model" point, and then a bunch more misconceptions creep in...

1. The 200ER is quite popular. A quick glance at PlaneSpotters (or wiki, or similar) would show that the majority of non-300ER orders/deliveries was this model, by far. It isn't an issue of popularity (why do I get the impression that this is known already, though), but an issue of the number of engine types offered.
2. The 737 is a popular airframe, and people like it have it, so people continue to do it. If you're looking at a comparison, which [unnamed] seems to be doing, it's vastly more popular than the 200ER, and much easier to do on a account of the single engine type (though, yes, the rated thrust varies based on the option and aircraft - all CFM56s, though).
3. Global Flight Operations is much, much more than "glorified ACARS." To be honest, it was Global Flight Ops that set the baseline/architecture to even make an ACARS simulation possible within the much larger scope of Global Flight Ops. If it isn't for you, it isn't for you, but don't mischaracterize it because you assume you won't like it.

17 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

Always love when this pops up. This is what we have been doing for literal decades...

Oh I had no idea *sits in chair and feels dumb*, but how does the MJC have such good performance? That's a genuine question, not a jab at other developers!

 

 

15 hours ago, CaptainLHKLM said:

Oh I had no idea *sits in chair and feels dumb*, but how does the MJC have such good performance? That's a genuine question, not a jab at other developers!

 

 

Even with identical development environments, equally competent programmers and the same depth of simulation, a Q400 simply has less systems then a big Boeing so needs to use less machine resources to emulate them, leaving more resources for the pretty stuff, so why wouldn't it appear to have 'better' performance. 

On 1/2/2019 at 2:34 PM, scandinavian13 said:

Global Flight Operations is much, much more than "glorified ACARS." To be honest, it was Global Flight Ops that set the baseline/architecture to even make an ACARS simulation possible within the much larger scope of Global Flight Ops. If it isn't for you, it isn't for you, but don't mischaracterize it because you assume you won't like it.

 

Kyle,

When GFO comes out are you, or will you be releasing a youtube video giving everyone a full insight/walk through how to use it to its full potential. I use the D-Link and uplinks in the -8 and the 777, am interested in what it brings and how to fully exploit it.

It would be very useful to get up to speed asap. If you do it is appreciated. 

Edited January 4, 20197 yr by Nyxx

40 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

When GFO comes out are you, or will you be releasing a youtube video giving everyone a full insight/walk through how to use it to its full potential. I use the D-Link and uplinks in the -8 and the 777, am interested in what it brings and how to fully exploit it.

Absolutely - I'm chomping at the bit to give people an insight into all of this.

7 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Absolutely - I'm chomping at the bit to give people an insight into all of this.

So... are you releasing this video anytime „soon“? 😜

just caring about your health of course.. chomping at the bit isn‘t the best for your teeth xD

Edited January 4, 20197 yr by Ephedrin

15 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Absolutely - I'm chomping at the bit to give people an insight into all of this.

Great, thank you. 

10 minutes ago, Ephedrin said:

So... are you releasing this video anytime „soon“? 😜

just caring about your health of course.. chomping at the bit isn‘t the best for your teeth xD

haha - true.

1 minute ago, Nyxx said:

Great, thank you. 

Welcome!

I'm sure I will probably like whatever they do (I will for sure like a new NG and a Max). But now that Boeing is buddying up with Embraer, I would love to see the E-series, or even an ERJ from PMDG.

On 1/2/2019 at 9:34 AM, scandinavian13 said:

I like how I correct the "external flight model" point, and then a bunch more misconceptions creep in...

1. The 200ER is quite popular. A quick glance at PlaneSpotters (or wiki, or similar) would show that the majority of non-300ER orders/deliveries was this model, by far. It isn't an issue of popularity (why do I get the impression that this is known already, though), but an issue of the number of engine types offered.

I thought the -200ER only has three engine types, just like the 747-400 variants. Is there more to this or am I missing something?

 

This isn’t a jab at PMDG btw, I just like learning more about aircraft at each opportunity.

4 hours ago, HighFlier said:

I thought the -200ER only has three engine types, just like the 747-400 variants. Is there more to this or am I missing something?

 

This isn’t a jab at PMDG btw, I just like learning more about aircraft at each opportunity.

Yes, there are three engine types, but that means they need the performance data for all three engines.

It's not only the three main families (GE, PW, RR) but there are many different variants within each engines, each needing its own fine tuning. The GE-90 itself mounted on the 777-200 is 5 variants. So that's not three engine types, but a dozen at least we are looking at here.

We all know when doing work it is not the 90% that are hard to do, but the last 10%.

8 minutes ago, TopGun33 said:

It's not only the three main families (GE, PW, RR) but there are many different variants within each engines, each needing its own fine tuning. The GE-90 itself mounted on the 777-200 is 5 variants. So that's not three engine types, but a dozen at least we are looking at here.

We all know when doing work it is not the 90% that are hard to do, but the last 10%.

I don't know if they're going to be doing each variant, though. The 747-400 had several variants within each engine, and they certainly didn't do every single one of them.

No one ever mentioned 737-100/200/ADV?

IMO it's true pilot's airplane. It isn't too heavy on machines so no flight engineer needed as old 707/727/741, nor it's too smart that can fly itself as 757\767 737CL onwards...