Dead horse but PLEASE!!!!????!!!!

[wayne.stjohn09 5]

Is PMDG ever going to do a 757? I own...well I think all your products, but need a good mid range option. CS does not cut it and PMDG can completely rule the flight SIM world with a 757 and perhaps a 767.

Wayne

[signmanbob 592]

PMDG 757 =☠

[Stratox 22]

I love how these days the supports forums are filled with requests rather than support for actual issues....

[anden145 2,285]

4 minutes ago, Stratox said:

I love how these days the supports forums are filled with requests rather than support for actual issues....

LOL, yes! Says a lot about the stability and quality of PMDG's products...

[DavidP 1,410]

25 minutes ago, Stratox said:

I love how these days the supports forums are filled with requests rather than support for actual issues....

It is a "General" forum.

[Jim Young 2,356]

6 hours ago, Stratox said:

I love how these days the supports forums are filled with requests rather than support for actual issues....

PMDG uses the trouble-ticket system for official support.  This is more a user-to-user forum with some official support when the PMDG Team can respond appropriately.

[ckyliu 1,749]

@wayne.stjohn09 Long time no speak Wayne (London Control here 😉 ). Boeing will tell you the 737-900 is the answer, but we all know it's not! The MAX10 might be an option if PMDG do the Maxes in their NG3 product.

Are you referring the P3Dv4 or FSX CS757, they're very different beasts?

Edited January 31, 2019 by ckyliu

[captainsazzman 83]

Legends say PMDG turned away from the 767 out of respect for Level-D, who announced a 757 years ago with very little news since. To be honest, I would probably choose a PMDG 767-300/400 over and MD11.

[wayne.stjohn09 5]

Hey London! I have P3Dv4 CS 757. Not too bad of a plane but performance is awful. They seem more interested in a visually appealing aircraft then one that performs...

[vc10man 732]

26 minutes ago, wayne.stjohn09 said:

CS 757. Not too bad of a plane but performance is awful.

Have it and not had a single issue with it. Depends how you quantify/qualify  'performance'

[John Johnston 7]

Wasn't PMDG's first aircraft a 757 for the "Fly!" flight simulator back in the late 90's?  I seem to recall owning that one.

jj

[VHOJT 172]

Might not be much use, but there is a fairly detailed 757 available for XPlane by FlightFactor.  Might be worth reading review on it if you are desperate for a 757.

[sddjd 117]

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Wasn't PMDG's first aircraft a 757 for the "Fly!" flight simulator back in the late 90's?  I seem to recall owning that one.

jj

Yep, two decades ago this year.... hard to believe!

I've always been curious about the Level-D connection. I read many references (various sites) to a gentlemen's agreement of sorts between these developers so as not to step on each others' products; since most of what we read on the internet, and in particular flight sim forums, is true 😎 I wonder if anyone on staff could clarify.

Not looking for internal info or future developments, just seems like a scenario that might have been accurate years ago and time and development scenarios have moved on. My guess is that if the PMDG team was jazzed at the idea of a 75/67 and thought it a good biz proposition it would be in the cards... Even if that were the case RSR's updates seem to indicate their plates are full for quite some time.

Edited February 1, 2019 by sddjd

[captainsazzman 83]

2 hours ago, sddjd said:

Yep, two decades ago this year.... hard to believe!

I've always been curious about the Level-D connection. I read many references (various sites) to a gentlemen's agreement of sorts between these developers so as not to step on each others' products; since most of what we read on the internet, and in particular flight sim forums, is true 😎 I wonder if anyone on staff could clarify.

Not looking for internal info or future developments, just seems like a scenario that might have been accurate years ago and time and development scenarios have moved on. My guess is that if the PMDG team was jazzed at the idea of a 75/67 and thought it a good biz proposition it would be in the cards... Even if that were the case RSR's updates seem to indicate their plates are full for quite some time.

you would have to ask Ryan Maziarz, or Rob Randazzo himself, this goes way back

[anden145 2,285]

6 hours ago, sddjd said:

Yep, two decades ago this year.... hard to believe!

I've always been curious about the Level-D connection. I read many references (various sites) to a gentlemen's agreement of sorts between these developers so as not to step on each others' products; since most of what we read on the internet, and in particular flight sim forums, is true 😎 I wonder if anyone on staff could clarify.

Not looking for internal info or future developments, just seems like a scenario that might have been accurate years ago and time and development scenarios have moved on. My guess is that if the PMDG team was jazzed at the idea of a 75/67 and thought it a good biz proposition it would be in the cards... Even if that were the case RSR's updates seem to indicate their plates are full for quite some time.

I don't know why you would believe anything you read on the Internet. I actually have the opposite attitude. But, even if your statement was true, they wouldn't give you an answer. That would be an internal business matter. As far as I know, PMDG never discusses or reveals such decisions to anybody but themselves. You're beating a dead horse.

I seem to recall somewhere that it was mentioned, that PMDG would mainly direct their attention towards airframes, which are current and which are still flying and operated and not 'dying' birds like MD-11, 757, 767, Tristar etc.
Now, before you start bending reality and brining the DC-6 into this, just stop. There have been given endless reasons by PMDG for developing that airframe.

Whether you agree or disagree with that, is another matter... 🙂 

You can probably search the forums - the answer (and requests for above airframes) have been given a couple of times, if I recall correctly.