Who Should Make a B767 for P3Dv4+

[David Vega 348]

There are several posts lamenting the fact we don't have a study level B767 simulation for P3Dv4+.  Best B767 simulation IMHO is Level-D's but they're not upgrading it to P3Dv4.  Some have even doubt Level-D still exits.  In other posts I've suggested reputable developers approach Level-D (if they're still around) and propose a partnership to bring the B767 to P3Dv4.  Clearly most would think PMDG first, but it doesn't have to be just them.  I've suggested MilViz because they could also offer the USAF's KC-46 tanker.  Who do you think could do it?  Aerosoft?  Just Flight?  Would you buy it?

[abarter 28]

I'd buy it. The LevelD one was one of my all time favourites. JustFlight offers the 200/300 and their lite series of aircraft are ok. I think they could handle the quality of a LevelD one. It'd be a step up but a success. Majestic is another who would be good. The Q400 is amazing. PMDG would do a good job but it would be out of my price range with their level of workmanship. Aerosoft is an interesting suggestion though. Their 320 series is good and the 330 is good too. Nice balance of quality and affordability.

[rmeier 473]

I think most people (who still remember) the Level-D 767 will recall the FMC programming and the flight dynamics...the aircraft really was ahead of it's time.

Today's reality, both the internal and external models of the LDS 767 would have to be remodeled to current standards, I don't think anyone would be inclined to "accept" the "old" flat VC panel of the 10-15 y/o LDS today. The external model would likely require a "freighter" variant to meet today's buyer's expectations. All that's left is the flight dynamics and FMC...if the latter is even transferable to the 64 bit sim.

I think a 767 would require a "fresh start" for P3D 64 bit...that would be a big undertaking for any developer (IMHO) considering competitive products already available for heavy tubeliners.

I would likely buy another "quality" 767, but, I'm not optimistic that anyone would be interested in taking it on...sadly. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by rmeier

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, SAX702 said:

Would you buy it?

Probably too few people to make developing one worth the considerable effort required to produce one. Creating a study-level 767 would take about six years of development time. But, let's say you started that tomorrow morning; you'd be done in six years, so, late 2026, by which time in the real world, the B787, the A330 and the A350 will almost certainly have completely eclipsed the B767 (which let's not forget, is prone to airframe corrosion) and it will be a rare sight at airports, which does not exactly make it the must have sim plane everyone is going to want in 2027.

Now it is true that Boeing do occasionally moot the idea of souping up the 767 and making a re-engined new version, allegedly for some time around 2025, but can you imagine how popular the suggestion of tarting up an old airframe and adding a new engine would be at Boeing's HQ right now, in light of what just occurred when they tried it with the 737? Sure, if they pulled it off, then great, but if it went pear-shaped it'd finish Boeing for sure. I am inclined to think Boeing will be all for new types from now on because of that.

So, back with our sim version development scenario, would you, in all honesty, greenlight developing an FS aeroplane over a six-year period of time, based on the dubious gamble that Boeing might put a revamped 767 into production?

Unfortunately, there is a big difference between a few hardcore simmers on forums who wish for their old favourite, and a potentially more commercially successful product with a guaranteed wide appeal based on buyer expectations and desires for a larger and more predictable demographic. It's a shame if it happens to be your favourite aeroplane which falls foul of this, but it is the same reason why we don't see a study-level Convair 990, or Boeing 707, 727 or DC-8, as much as I should really like one. I and I'm sure a few other people think those are classics and would buy a study level version in a heartbeat, but we aren't in great enough numbers, so there just is never going to be one. Thus we have to content ourselves with the mid-level realism efforts which are able to justify the expected sales against the time spent developing them. This is why the somewhat limited in realism SkySim MD-11 was greenlit, but PMDG said no to reviving theirs.

Jetliners like that just don't have the same mass appeal that a current production new type of airliner will always have with the broadest section of flight simmers, they are always going to want either the latest airliners or the latest warplanes, so that dictates where the developers are wisest to invest their time, lest they get their fingers burned with a more rose-tinted approach to what they create. PMDG found that one out to their cost with the MD-11; yes hardcore simmers lament its passing, but Joe Average Simmer couldn't care less about the MD-11 unless it is a comparatively cheap one which is easy to fly (cue the SkySim MD-11's reason for existence). PMDG's sales of the greatly detailed MD-11 they made reflected that, so I seriously doubt they or any other major developer will be anything other than once bitten and twice shy with old airliners in their twilight years, or the gratefully distant observers of such a salutory tale.

It's a bummer, but it's probably the way developers will look at it.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Chock

[Patco Lch 1,465]

So, in my South Carolina red neck vernacular, "ain't gonna happen."

[JustanotherPilot 241]

I think now Developers will be leaning towards MFS2020, they'll complete those current projects intended for P3D/FSX and tool up for the next generation of Flight Simulations. That being said, I miss the LevelD 767, years ahead of it's time with it's detailed VC and functional FMC. I had the FS2004 then the FSX version, even upgraded to the P3Dv3 release. I could never understand why no other Developer wanted to produce this popular real world airliner.

[Quasimodo 505]

It might happen for Microsoft Flight Simulator. One would hope that the SDK would be designed to make the development of Study level aircraft a lot more streamlined. I doubt if Aces thought that addon aircraft for FSX would have gotten as sophisticated as they are and I'll hazard a guess that those aircraft went way beyond what the SDK could accommodate. It's not a guess. It's a fact that they did.

[David Vega 348]

Nice chat, thank you for all your inputs.  Do you think that given Level-D's existing source code for all the gauges and model, the major effort would be in the visuals (inside and out) thus reducing the developing cycle?  One would think it would be less than 6 years.  I agree that a porting to FS2020 would make sense after a P3D version, but I'm betting it won't be that much of an effort.  Thoughts?

 

EDIT:  Has anybody bought X-Plane just to have a good B767?

Edited March 10, 2020 by SAX702

[C2615 319]

I don't think a re-mastered 767 with it's source code would keep up with modern standard on system dynamic and avionics simulations....
I would rebuy one for P3Dv4 even if it's another 55USD, even without rebuilt exterior/VC model, only because I love 757/767 and I know what to expect if that's the case.

 

BTW, speaking about modern platform 75/67, how is FF757/767 on XP going?

BTW the CS757 is not bad but not to study level, the level is close to, and might be better than QW787 IMO, but far better than QW757.

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, SAX702 said:

Do you think that given Level-D's existing source code for all the gauges and model, the major effort would be in the visuals (inside and out) thus reducing the developing cycle?

I daresay some of the coding for the operation of the gauges could be used, but it would need to have 3D gauges themselves modeled, since the old one had a 2D VC as far as I recall. The textures for the gauges might possibly be usable, but again I should think they are not of a sufficiently high resolution and would therefore probably require at the very least re-outputting at a higher resolution from the vector graphics, if indeed they were originally done as vector graphics and then converted to bitmaps, if not and the originals were produced straight as bitmaps, it'd probably mean doing those from scratch too.

The chances are the models are of a lower polygon count than would be deemed acceptable these days, since I daresay they were created with the limitations of a 32 Bit program's ability to handle a smaller amount of memory in mind. Of course anything which is a basic box shape could be used, and dimensions-wise you could use a lower polygon model as a guide for creating a newer model, but it would only lessen the work involved a little bit if that were a working method.

The exterior textures too would be of a lower resolution, so the same thing applies for those. similarly, the sounds will have been produced with a 32 Bit memory limitation in mind too, so unless they were downsampled to that size and better fidelity sound files exist, they'd have to be redone as well.

In short, if a developer could be handed all of the source stuff Level D had, some of it might be useful, but a good deal of it would not be.

You also have to bear in mind that fond memories of things from years ago are inclined to make one suppose that they were on par with things we have today in terms of simulation fidelity, when the chances are it's a bit of a case or rose-tinted spectacles based on the fact that yes, it was amongst the best when compared with its contemporaries, but I doubt people would think that of it if it were released today. Consider how you think the original PMDG 737 for FS2004 would stack up against their most recent iteration of a 737 these days with its collimated HGS and complex failure modeling etc, not to mention the much improved skills of the developers from their years of experience. Sure those add-ons were great at the time, but they'd be unlikely to stack up well against things developed more recently for all they impressed us fifteen years ago.

[Ian S 214]

A freeware enthusiast with affection for the 767, along the lines of Thomas Ruth, may be tempted if such a person exists. I think any commercial vendor that does a feasibility study will quickly have their head turned by the wider appeal, future proofing and commercial viability of a A350 project instead.

[regis9 4,014]

A high quality 767 is, IMHO, the biggest gap for airliners in P3D.

I expected that captainsim would naturally move from their 757 to 767 given their history with that aircraft and given the similarities between the two.  Maybe they still will.  I know captainsim is not everyone’s cup of tea but I’d happily buy a 767 from them, even if it cost $76.70.

It’s a bit frustrating when we have multiple options to purchase some airliners, but no options to purchase an airliner as widely used as the 767.  Somebody take my money, please!

[Chock 17,769]

That is of course an option since the 757 shares a good deal of commonalities with the 757. It presumably would involve a bit less work for Captain sim to make one, thus making doing so feasible.

[David Vega 348]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

It presumably would involve a bit less work for Captain sim to make one, thus making doing so feasible.

It just happens CaptSim makes a B767 for FSX and earlier P3D versions.  Maybe they're the best ones positioned to offer a B767 for P3Dv4.