PBR update available for PMDG 747/8

[barramundilure 152]

Steve it was the 300ER that was last updated Oct 2017 hence the confusion.  You are correct to 200LR had a minor update mid 2018.

My concern is that the Queen has had all the updates while a curent product in the B777 has had little or no love, with none in the works any time soon.

As you said, everyone is entitled to an opinion as to when an update is overdue or not.

Edited March 10, 2019 by barramundilure

[fluffyflops 1,843]

I wonder which out of the 3,    747,777,737 has sold the least copies? For P3D. 

I make a punt and say the 747.  I could well be wrong mind you.  I'll make a bigger punt and say they did the 747 first to boost some sales of it.  

Like I said I'm probably wrong but just a theory as i remember they brought the 747 out first on P3Dv4 when it was released.

Saying that though ive just done 2 flights in the 747. one in the -8 and one in the 744 and its looks amazing the pbr effect

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by tooting

[stevefocus 15]

5 hours ago, tooting said:

I wonder which out of the 3,    747,777,737 has sold the least copies? For P3D. 

I make a punt and say the 747. 

I would of said the opposite, I know since the 747 was released I have barely flown anything else, I have not even bothered to install the 737.

[fluffyflops 1,843]

Who knows. I also fly the 747 more than the other 2 but that's only because I work for an airline that has them.  I'd guess the 737 sold the most

[_Gladius_ 24]

I have to believe that the 737 has sold the most, just because of the price point.  If someone wants to get their first PMDG aircraft, they’re probably going to want to see if all the hype is real.  Therefore, buy the cheapest airliner and give it a whirl.  Then you can make an informed decision about getting the 747 or 777.  That’s what I did.

I guess that the 747 would be the next highest seller, since after getting the 737, you would want something more radically different (4 engines vs. 2).

[Christopher Low 5,325]

The fact that PMDG do not currently have time to give the 777 the PBR treatment is hardly the end of the world, and they certainly should not be criticised for it. They work hard to give us quality products that are close to perfection, so give them a break. I do all of my flying from inside the VC, so I have not even noticed the difference in the 747.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Christopher Low

[G-RFRY 1,705]

I have purchased 747 twice first in FS9 and now in P3Dv4. I think it would be and strong contender for the most popular. I don't get this what`s first thing in time all will be done and unless you update content in P3Dv4.4 you will not see it. I get the impression that patience is something that's gone missing today if the users cant get it now he`s not happy.  

[Patco Lch 1,459]

25 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

The fact that PMDG do not currently have time to give the 777 the PBR treatment is hardly the end of the world, and they certainly should not be criticised for it. They work hard to give us quality products that are close to perfection, so give them a break. I do all of my flying from inside the VC, so I have not even noticed the difference in the 747.

I agree. PBR is outside eye candy and adds little to realism. Other then preflighting that is. I personally would like to see those resources devoted to getting NG3 developed.

[netshadoe 144]

The 747 has always been their "baby".  When they were only selling manuals (hence the name precision manuals), the 747 manual was the first, followed by a 757 manual.  I had that 747 manual (I think I still have it in the basement somewhere) and it was ground breaking at the time since the internet was in its infancy (circa early to mid 1990's), and information was not nearly as plentiful as it is today.

Here is the timeline of the releases from my memory and purchase history (I have emails archived from way back in 2004!!  😲)

- 747 Queen of the Skies (QOTS) released around 2004 (Bought this one)

- 747F (QOTS) expansion released in 2005.  (Bought this one)

- 747 QOTS v2 released in 2007. (Bought this one)

- MD-11 released in 2008  (Bought this one)

- JS-41 released on 2009.  (Bought this one)

- B737 NGX released in 2011.  (Bought this one)

- B777 released in 2013.  (Bought this one)

- DC-6 in 2017 - don't have it, but it's recent history.

- B747 QOTS v3 released in 2017.  (Bought this one)

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Couple things:

The 747 line got the update because we still had some things to correct. Moreover, these things to correct (and add, though you can’t see/interact with the latter yet), are integral to Global Flight Operations. If you’re already actively updating one product, and PBR is going into a product, it would naturally be the one you are currently working on.

Next, PBR updates are a *significant* amount of work. Ask any painter how much work they need to do and they’ll back me up. Now add to that fact that all of the models need to be redone, so our modeler will, too. This work naturally takes people away from other tasks. It can be tough to hear/see a seemingly negative reaction when an update took a significant amount of work out of developer time (when they could be working on any number of upcoming projects), particularly when the part of the update in question is added features at no cost. Hearing “but why not the other plane” at that point is - in my opinion - a bit like getting a free cookie (biscuit?) and saying “but why not that one?” I don’t feel as if Tim’s post was that egregious, but there were points that I felt it walked the line. Wrong? No...but a bit odd in spots, especially when there were a few mentions that seemed to imply that we don’t really care about the 777.

We do. It needs to be updated to get it into Global Flight Operations, much like the 747 needed to be (but guess which one was in development when I started building out Global Flight Ops, making it easier to get the necessary changes into it). Keeping in mind that we tend to update more than exactly what is necessary and add a couple features when we do that, I don’t think it’s too hard to imagine that it’ll be gotten to in due time.

As you have all seen, we’re quite clear about when things cease (note the x86 announcement, for example). The 777 has gotten a few updates since release, and we haven’t explicitly stated we’re done with it. In fact, we’ve stated here and there that it’ll need updating to get into Global Flight Operations. Just because it’s not in the limelight at the moment doesn’t mean that it’s dead, or will be.

[UAL4life 236]

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The fact that PMDG do not currently have time to give the 777 the PBR treatment is hardly the end of the world, and they certainly should not be criticised for it. They work hard to give us quality products that are close to perfection, so give them a break. I do all of my flying from inside the VC, so I have not even noticed the difference in the 747.

I’m really bummed the 777 won’t get the rainmaker either. Oh well. 

[fluffyflops 1,843]

2 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

Couple things:

The 747 line got the update because we still had some things to correct. Moreover, these things to correct (and add, though you can’t see/interact with the latter yet), are integral to Global Flight Operations. If you’re already actively updating one product, and PBR is going into a product, it would naturally be the one you are currently working on.

Next, PBR updates are a *significant* amount of work. Ask any painter how much work they need to do and they’ll back me up. Now add to that fact that all of the models need to be redone, so our modeler will, too. This work naturally takes people away from other tasks. It can be tough to hear/see a seemingly negative reaction when an update took a significant amount of work out of developer time (when they could be working on any number of upcoming projects), particularly when the part of the update in question is added features at no cost. Hearing “but why not the other plane” at that point is - in my opinion - a bit like getting a free cookie (biscuit?) and saying “but why not that one?” I don’t feel as if Tim’s post was that egregious, but there were points that I felt it walked the line. Wrong? No...but a bit odd in spots, especially when there were a few mentions that seemed to imply that we don’t really care about the 777.

We do. It needs to be updated to get it into Global Flight Operations, much like the 747 needed to be (but guess which one was in development when I started building out Global Flight Ops, making it easier to get the necessary changes into it). Keeping in mind that we tend to update more than exactly what is necessary and add a couple features when we do that, I don’t think it’s too hard to imagine that it’ll be gotten to in due time.

As you have all seen, we’re quite clear about when things cease (note the x86 announcement, for example). The 777 has gotten a few updates since release, and we haven’t explicitly stated we’re done with it. In fact, we’ve stated here and there that it’ll need updating to get into Global Flight Operations. Just because it’s not in the limelight at the moment doesn’t mean that it’s dead, or will be.

Cheers for the info 

[Mace 1,896]

57 minutes ago, UAL4life said:

I’m really bummed the 777 won’t get the rainmaker either. Oh well. 

Where did you hear that?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

4 hours ago, UAL4life said:

I’m really bummed the 777 won’t get the rainmaker either. Oh well. 

It won't? That's interesting. I'd be curious to see the source of that information...

[Adrian123 1,015]

3 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

It won't? That's interesting. I'd be curious to see the source of that information... 

You tell us?