PMDG - Tell us the real status for the JS41 and P3D V4

[ckyliu 1,749]

@scandinavian13 Kyle, I don't think we've said anything bad about GFO in this thread (I presume that's what you meant by "commentary about my project"), sorry if you took anything personally though, certainly wasn't intended that way; I think my tongue-in-cheek frustration/humour may have been lost in translation somewhere from English to American.

It's just some of us would've preferred those developmental resources deployed finishing the J41 P3Dv4 before they were put to work elsewhere. I get that as a business PMDG deploy resources for maximum return on investment, but for those eager for the J41 (and I believe there's more of us than most give credit for) it feels like GFO jumped the queue (along with other large projects). Just weary of playing second fiddle for so many years.

Edited January 16, 2019 by ckyliu

[vc10man 732]

17 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

 99% of us are happy with the direction of PMDG.  Keep up the good work!

+++1 happy to wait. After all, waited long enough for the MD-11, the 737NGX, the QOTSII, the 747-8i. And rewarded with top class aircraft, 99.9% of the real things.

[ckyliu 1,749]

@vc10manYes but the J41 is not a new aircraft development, it's just a port from FSX to P3Dv4. So it shouldn't take anywhere near as long as the work is already done, it's such a small project compared to any of those you mention.

Edited January 16, 2019 by ckyliu

[severniae 78]

Why some people feel the need to attempt to bully around and make demands of a developer is quite beyond me. Getting excited about a future release is one thing, getting angry with PMDG for not providing an update just to suit your lack of patience is completely another!

This is a company that has generally had a policy of no status updates unless there is significant information, and quite frankly, why should they feel the need to constantly drip feed us information? Just wait, and enjoy their other products whilst you do...

PMDG chaps, keep up the good work, and don't pay any attention to the leagues of trolls here...

[vc10man 732]

11 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

@vc10manYes but the J41 is not a new aircraft development, it's just a port from FSX to P3Dv4. So it shouldn't take anywhere near as long as the work is already done, it's such a small project compared to any of those you mention.

As you are very helpful on the Majestic Forum, I will reply to you in a polite way, and say that you do have a valid point with that argument and it does make cogent sense. But, at the end of the day, whom does the PMDG roadmap belong to? Us mere simmers, or developers to whom -----as has been pointed out earlier, -------we are mere drop of their revenue. Juxtapose yourselves in PMDG's business role.

As a very long-term simmer, I have lost count how very long I waited......waited......and waited.

And we are still waiting for that 767/757 from Level-D..........

I rest my case

[Ephedrin 418]

1 hour ago, ckyliu said:

@scandinavian13 Kyle, I don't think we've said anything bad about GFO in this thread 

 

Oh come on...

„Then GFO reared its ugly head and pooped the party(especially annoying given the mixed reception its announcement got)“

Sth like that is like a kick in the face...

[ckyliu 1,749]

@Ephedrin you cut out the most important part! 

2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

@scandinavian13sorry if you took anything personally... wasn't intended that way; I think my tongue-in-cheek frustration/humour may have been lost in translation somewhere from English to American.

But even if I was serious (which for clarity I WASN'T), heaven forbid someone should express less than full backing for an in-development PMDG product eh?

Edited January 16, 2019 by ckyliu

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Gents,

Chris's post - as he noted - was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. My reaction to it is my own choice, and my own responsibility. I chose to react in a similar manner by using meme-speak. A lot of the flight sim streamers use the phrase.

You all know me well enough that I'll hold my own if I feel that it's necessary. I didn't take it as combative. It wasn't the most glowing thing I've heard, but it seemed to be honest feedback in the form of a bit of a joke. My response was in kind. The information is already out there. The answer to the question of this thread is also out there - same answer. No conspiracies. There are enough conspiracies out there that are too hilarious to compete with. No need to make one up here...

[RichieFly 728]

All good...

Like I said: the J41 would be great, but I've got plenty to fly in the meantime.

[threexgreen 3,139]

3 hours ago, ckyliu said:

It's just some of us would've preferred those developmental resources deployed finishing the J41 P3Dv4 before they were put to work elsewhere.

it feels like GFO jumped the queue

If I recall correctly, they (Kyle?) said when GFO was announced that it wouldn't take resources away from aircraft projects.

 

[mpw8679 428]

Would this be a bad time to bring up the MD11???

[ckyliu 1,749]

Yes it would 🤣

[mpw8679 428]

7 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

Yes it would 🤣

I will keep praying then.

[anden145 2,285]

3 hours ago, ckyliu said:

@vc10manYes but the J41 is not a new aircraft development, it's just a port from FSX to P3Dv4. So it shouldn't take anywhere near as long as the work is already done, it's such a small project compared to any of those you mention.

I'm a little curious as to what led you to that conclusion?! Just because the airplane is smaller, doesn't make it technically challenging. How do you know, that it "shouldn't take anywhere near as long..." ? Maybe it just isn't a simple conversion, as you elude it to be?! Maybe the technological challenges of making this addon 64-bit compliant and the age of the coding is not a quick and simple process? 

I'm sorry for sounding cross or defiant, but these kind of conclusions seems built on assumptions.

Other (contributing) factors could very well also be business decisions. Since the JS41 most likely isn't as popular as the other Boeing projects the odds of making profit is probably limited. Combine that with technological hurdles and the aging of the coding (which most likely needs to be updated, in order to be converted successfully to 64-bit) you suddenly have quite a project. That means increased development time, which means increased costs. Perhaps the JS41 has been pushed in the background simply because the business-case doesn't make sense, or the possibility of making a sound profit of such a project is too slim? 

Now, before the lot of you, jump all over me, I would like to add, that the above is purely my own subjective opinion and it's purely speculation on my part. I have no insider knowledge or awareness of this project (or any other PMDG project 🙂 )... I just thought I would add a little 'counter-balance' to the discussion 😉

I know a lot of (mainly older) PMDG customers love and miss the JS41. But - quite frankly - I would ask to remain a little objective and view this from a developmental and business perspective. 

[ckyliu 1,749]

@Anders Bermann I'm being as objective as I can, although obviously I am passionate about the J41. My conclusions are logical deductions from similar completed ports and acquired knowledge of the FSX/P3D/ESP platform, I'm not plucking assumptions out of thin air. I definitely do not believe the physical size of the aircraft affects development required nor have I ever implied that. Other study level developers have ported fairly complicated addons from 32bit to 64bit fairly quickly, often at discounted prices, the QW146 is a good example as it uses the same GNS-XLS FMS as the J41 (and by same I mean it actually has the same underlying base code). MJC and A2A are other examples (I'm not going to name drop any direct PMDG competitors out of respect for where I'm posting). Developers wouldn't be doing those ports at that speed and price point if it was anywhere near as much work as developing a whole new aircraft, they have proven commercial viability by porting multiple products across.

Whilst a conversion may not be completely straight forward, a port is indisputably much less work than developing a whole new study level aircraft (if that doesn't hold true then you don't port, you develop anew) because the model, textures and flight dynamics are all usable without any reworking (although the model can be put through a newer compiler and enhanced with PBR etc, that's optional), and you don't need to research the aircraft again. The code and gauges obviously need more work than just being shoved through a 64 bit compiler, but they don't need a complete rewrite in a new language. There were screenshots and videos of the J41 in 64 bit with the instruments lit up c.18 months ago so it's not disingenuous to say much of the port work has already been done, apparently it's mainly the engine simulation proving troublesome but it's unclear to us casual observer how broken it is and how much work it would need.

I appreciate the potential turboprop sales base is much smaller than for a Boeing airliner and have alluded to as much previously. But as we've established above, the amount of work required for a port is not the same, so you can sell fewer and cheaper but potentially still make the same profit - indeed you can even look at porting as extending product sales lifecycle and maximising return on investment costs incurred years ago (just like when they facelift cars and drop an updated engine in)! There's less competition in the P3D 28 seat market place, whereas with full-size airliners you have lots of high end developers fighting for a slice of the pie. That's not to say the J41 port would provide a better return-on-investment compared to a new full-size airliner, but I don't think it would be fair to write it off as commercially unattractive, especially when you can get in to profit much quicker (because the port project can release sooner and you have less costs to recover)

Edited January 16, 2019 by ckyliu