PMDG Expansion 747-8 or QW 787

[joemiller 269]

11 minutes ago, por930 said:

Yeah, they said on their forum that the 4096 was killing frame rates due to the complexity of systems. They had to choose by dropping off systems, which people did not want them to do, or reducing textures. They are also not into failures, as their aim is to get the a/c operating normally before "what else".

For me, if they get the flight save feature working more robustly(at present it is a bit hit or miss), I will be pretty happy with it. 

 Yeah, I agree. Sounds like a nice aircraft. I am honestly ready for something new. 

[joemiller 269]

2 minutes ago, por930 said:

Spot on Alan. If you want to simulate an engine failure, turn it off, with or with feather etc. I think the QW will become a fun long haul a/c, with a reasonable balance of systems..

I have been a light pilot in real life for many years. For hundreds of hours, I have never had an emergency where the a/c has become serviceable. Usually it has been me who has had the planning issue usually caused by weather that caused a rethink of some flight plans.

 I suggest you turn off the weather.   

 

[FDEdev 955]

15 minutes ago, Chock said:

...the FSL one is kind of like my 'Haynes Manual' Airbus that I mess about with, knowing that it is very realistically simulated and will do things that the real one would if I pressed a certain unusual combination of buttons.

That's exactly the problem with every Airbus simulation. Even Airbus can't precisely predict what will happen when unusual failure combinations occur. 

Even in a real Level-D A320 sim some failure combinations entered by the instructor can result in different and unpredictable malfunctions! 

[Guest]

In addition to some good points that have been made already: I am totally NOT into failures, I'd hate to have them (and probably would blame the developer first for leaving a bug in their plane before I had a look (probably too late) at the plane's procedures manual) but.................. it's somehow nice to know the plane you are flying can have them. For me personally it makes the plane feel more complete and real. I don't think I am alone in this sentiment. Think about the all-buttons-and-switches-have-to-work-or-this-plane-sucks-syndrome: most people who have this disease won't use all buttons and switches in a study level plane but it's simply nice to know they do work if you ever wanted to use them! Or take the FMC/FMS/MCDU: hardly anyone uses all available pages but it sure is nice to know they all are there just in case you do want to use them. At least that's how look at it. Even when I don't use all options it makes things feel more real if they are there anyway.

I only fly the Majestic Q400 in P3D and have actually disabled the failures so it's impossible for me to get them. But still I love the idea that the potential to get failures is there in the plane. The plane is complete. It's almost real. This really helps to get me more immersed. And this is why I prefer study level planes that have everything working.

I used to fly the previous Aerosoft Airbus and truly enjoyed it for a long, long time. When the recent new version was released I was thinking about getting that one but I didn't. One of the reasons (not the only one!!!) was that it only simulated day to day use. That would be EXACTLY how I'd love to use it (if I'd buy the FSL Airbus I'd fly it as if it was the Aerosoft one) but still... it wouldn't feel complete. The experience wouldn't fully satisfy me.

That's just me, I know. But I am sure there are others who feel the same. So simply saying 'You don't need those failures implemented because they hardly ever happen during regular use' doesn't do it for. I want them. Even if I don't use them. 😉

[ErichB 3,638]

The 747 is becoming more and more a of a cargo hauler with a few exceptions. There is also nothing you can do with a 747-8 which you can’t do with a 744 - unless the EFB functionality is the lure.

 The 787 has grown significantly  in popularity with airlines. I’m my opinion , if you want to do conventional airliner style flying more than cargo hauling, then I’d go with the 787 expansion. The latest patch for the 787 makes it a great contender for your cash. 

[joemiller 269]

1 hour ago, J35OE said:

That's exactly the problem with every Airbus simulation. Even Airbus can't precisely predict what will happen when unusual failure combinations occur. 

Even in a real Level-D A320 sim some failure combinations entered by the instructor can result in different and unpredictable malfunctions! 

Well, I'm sure they won't give anyone the left  seat (or even the right seat)  if they weren't well training and experienced. To us even a simulator would be way over-whelming... that's why it costs millions and not a  $100.00.  Therefore, having said this, I'm sure Airbus knows very well what would happen in XYZ situation and this is passed on to airlines and pilots through a strict path of training.  Now if you want to get down to every fuse, and fuel line, and like-stuff, that's a job for the engineers. 

[joemiller 269]

36 minutes ago, ErichB said:

The 747 is becoming more and more a of a cargo hauler with a few exceptions. The 787 has grown significantly  in popularity with airlines. I’m my opinion , if you want to do conventional airliner style flying more than cargo hauling, then I’d go with the 787 expansion. The latest patch for the 787 makes it a great contender for your cash 

 

Well, the thing is flying these Boeings for so long  has almost got to a point where the 'first love' and excitement is fading away.  I would like to see PMDG come-up with something new... something different.. something to marvel at. Would be great if they would take on the Airbus 350-1000 .. I'm sure they would do an outstanding job...  However,  I'm almost certain their next 3 projects (10-15 years) will be ............

........... Boeings   (Or maybe [maybe] a post like this would make Randazzo step-up to the challenge and do something different.)  Who knows 

Edited September 28, 2018 by joemiller

[beep747 93]

At each his/her own. To me, Flight simulation is still a game. I wonder what you are doing after engaging the autopilot? Go to sleep, because nothing can go wrong? I like the chance - be it minimal - that something can go wrong. It keeps me on my toes the whole flight. That is why I love the PMDG, leonardo, Majestic, FSLabs airliners. But as I said, at each his/her own. 

Jos

[FDEdev 955]

7 minutes ago, beep747 said:

I wonder what you are doing after engaging the autopilot? Go to sleep, because nothing can go wrong?

Well, IRL you do get a few hours of rest on a long range flight and if something goes wrong there are two other guys in the cockpit.

Another reason why I wouldn't even consider flying LR in a sim...

Edited September 28, 2018 by J35OE

[Christopher Low 5,331]

Quote

One of my major issues is not being able to save panel state when resuming a saved flight

That is a deal breaker for me. Saved panel states are (IMO) essential for high quality payware airliners in P3D (but not like the TFDi option).

Edited September 28, 2018 by Christopher Low

[ErichB 3,638]

45 minutes ago, joemiller said:

 

Well, the thing is flying these Boeings for so long  has almost got to a point where the 'first love' and excitement is fading away.  I would like to see PMDG come-up with something new... something different.. something to marvel at. Would be great if they would take on the Airbus 350-1000 .. I'm sure they would do an outstanding job...  However,  I'm almost certain their next 3 projects (10-15 years) will be ............

........... Boeings   (Or maybe [maybe] a post like this would make Randazzo step-up to the challenge and do something different.)  Who knows 

I think PMDG will keep the fleet of Boeings current on every version of P3DNext until they see a drop off in sales numbers - like with the MD-11.  I very much doubt we will see an Airbus from them anytime soon.  The 737 MAX and a remake of the 7378 has been confirmed .  Mr Randazzo is also a classics fan - i'm pretty sure his DC3 will be next in line.  I think PMDG also sell their software to airlines and training facilities so they will keep producing what drives demand there, I guess

[joemiller 269]

10 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I think PMDG will keep the fleet of Boeings current on every version of P3DNext until they see a drop off in sales numbers - like with the MD-11.  I very much doubt we will see an Airbus from them anytime soon.  The 737 MAX and a remake of the 7378 has been confirmed .  Mr Randazzo is also a classics fan - i'm pretty sure his DC3 will be next in line.  I think PMDG also sell their software to airlines and training facilities so they will keep producing what drives demand there, I guess

Agree, the MD-11 was outstanding (and still is for the FSXers). I love that aircraft. It's a real pity they discontinue it. 

[Radial9 69]

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

  Mr Randazzo is also a classics fan - i'm pretty sure his DC3 will be next in line.

I'm getting a tingling feeling down my leg just thinking about it.

Cheers,

[Mbergsma 1]

Hello,

I was faced with the same question as the OP and went for the QW 787.

My reasoning:

Since I already own the 747 V3 adding the 747-8 would only give my a little added extra's

whereas the QW 787 would give me a whole new experience and aircraft to enjoy.

It hasn't failed in doing so although I have to admit it is not (yet) the same quality and standard

as the PMDG's.

 

Regards,

Marinus Bergsma

[Michael Moe 493]

I went for the QW787 before release of the B747-8.

But that just me 😎

 

Thanks

Michael Moe