1 minute ago, dtrjones said:

Maybe you meant this as a throw away comment. MFS at 119 dollars as you rightly say though is fantastic value for money especially with the streamed imagery, weather rendering and regular updates to navigational data, however don't for one second think you are getting a PDMG level of airplane, all you are doing is setting people up for failure.

For the casual simmer like me, it’s good enough. Program the FMC, set the vertical and cruising speeds, flaps 20, taxi to the runway, full thrust, up in the air, auto pilot, descend towards the runaway and land. In the process drink your beers and play with the dog. 
 

 

 

2 hours ago, Huascar said:

As for the wealth comments - The notion that a person who complains about price gauging ought to be categorized as poor or a member of the underclass is ridiculous. In the interest of not coming across as a blowhard, I refuse to talk about my wealth except to say I can’t complain.

 

No one claimed you were poor or underclass. You admitted to paying $120 for the new software which you will play on your multi $100's of dollars computer using your, at a minimum $30 a month, internet connection, probably with another couple hundred dollars in flight controls. With just a computer and an internet connection, you are already doing better than half the world. This is really a silly first world problem here.

 

You claim that PMDG is price gouging you and your "principals" keep you from giving them more money. What if they charged you 1 cent to have their aircraft in the new flight simulator? Would you buy it? I am betting you would and we wouldn't have this post. That means that your "principals" have a price point at which they can be bought out. Which means, like I said originally, that this is all really about the price you feel you can afford or are willing to pay for something.

 

To put the price into perspective, for the cost of flying the Cirrus SR22 for one hour in the real world, you could buy two PMDG aircraft and enjoy them for hundreds of hours.

PMDG truly has an army of loyalists here.
 

As I noted earlier, I purchased the NGX 737 and 747 back in 2012 when I had FSX installed. They’re not bad planes, just not worth $135, especially if you have to buy them multiple times over, across different sim platforms.

PMDG would be perfectly happy with the release of a new sim every year in order to charge the same customers full price to unlock the same plane. It cost them virtually nothing to migrate their planes to a new platform. It could be a very different story with MSFS 2020. 

Thank you all for your comments. I take nothing personal. I really wish you all the best in your sim adventures. It’s a fun hobby. Look forward to your comments in late August regarding MSFS. I think it’ll be an amazing experience for all of us.

Edited July 17, 20205 yr by Huascar

Quick comment on payware aircraft. I flew and loved the FlightFactor A320 in Xplane. Since I flew for a Virtual Airlines, I turned off all failures as I needed to complete the flight to get credit. So all those fire warnings and such went unused. How many of you actually used the failures while flying? 

It would suit me fine if they simulated only normal running operations and didn't simulate the failures. It would seem that would greatly decrease the complexity and cost of the software.

Anyone feel the same?

I am certainly not a PMDG loyalist.  I have no interest in modern jet airliners.  I just respect what they are doing and happen to believe based on everything I've read they they are priced fairly, including charging full price when they have to remake parts of an aircraft to upgrade it for a new sim.

Prepra3D has two Constellations included as default.  I've never touched either of them.  On the other hand, I bought and flew the A2A Constellation a lot and expect to buy it again for MSFS... at full price, and be damned happy it is available for that sim.  I waited a LONG time for the A2A J3 Cub to be upgraded for P3Dv4.

I wouldn't bother to fly an A2A aircraft without full damage and failure mode, but then I don't fly for a virtual airline either.  If I'd ever flown them in FSEconomy I'd have failures turned off as well.

There is nothing wrong with deciding not to buy some article because you believe the price is too high. Complaining about it, perhaps in hopes that you can change their pricing policy, is something else.  Prices aren't set in accordance with complaints from potential customers.

Hook

14 minutes ago, LHookins said:

I wouldn't bother to fly an A2A aircraft without full damage and failure mode,

I had an A2A aircraft and it was great taking care of the engine to prevent failures. Makes you fly more carefully. 

Good memories of the Connie. Just starting the engines was a blast. I would definitely pick it up if it comes to MSFS 2020. 

Seems the FlightFactor would inject a failure (if enabled) no matter how you handled the aircraft. A real world pilot once said to simulate real world conditions, turn off failures. He had never had a major failure in his career. 

Just now, lancealotg said:

A real world pilot once said to simulate real world conditions, turn off failures. He had never had a major failure in his career. 

I've been re-reading Bob Buck's "North Star over my Shoulder" and while he had a number of failures in piston aircraft, when he started flying jets (starting with the 707 which he loved) engine failures pretty much went away.

One notable failure he mentioned was a Connie engine catching fire shortly after takeoff.  He got it landed OK but was worried about the wing burning off.  

The FSX-based failure system doesn't seem very useful to me unless you want to experience a specific failure.  Nothing to do with how you treat the aircraft.  I've never used it.  A2A bases its failures on how the aircraft is treated, but also on the Connie and Stratocruiser it can inject emergencies like a sick passenger or a pressurization failure.  I've had both.

Hook

2 hours ago, lancealotg said:

it would suit me fine if they simulated only normal running operations and didn't simulate the failures. It would seem that would greatly decrease the complexity and cost of the software.

Anyone feel the same?

Yeah, I think you are onto something, no failures, no abnormal conditions, etc. It should simplify development a lot.

Edited July 17, 20205 yr by michal

Never been a fan of failures in my simcraft. But there are simmers interested, we are a motley crew in this community, and furthermore I like the idea of developers willing to do the very best they think possible. Working on structurals or engine failures helps, I suppose, to understand better the normal conditions of flight. Cf PMDG but also A2A. At the end, even if you turn off the failure system, your aircraft is better.

Aren't they all in each others pockets, Microsoft produce a good but not complete plane, PMDG make a better one, charge the earth, give microsoft a cut for the business, easy peasy.

and I think there's more than 10 people at PDMG, this is on their website. PMDG is a global business with employees and contractors working in Canada, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Russia, South Africa and the United States.

9 minutes ago, ozzyneil said:

Aren't they all in each others pockets, Microsoft produce a good but not complete plane, PMDG make a better one, charge the earth, give microsoft a cut for the business, easy peasy.

Yes ! Thank you for opening our eyes.  All this is nothing but a vast conspiracy. You should write a letter to the Federal Trade Commission detailing these illegal practices. With a copy to Dan Brown. He may be interested for his next book on the Illuminati.

Lol, your'e funny!

4 minutes ago, ozzyneil said:

Lol, your'e funny!

😉

5 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Never been a fan of failures in my simcraft. But there are simmers interested, we are a motley crew in this community, and furthermore I like the idea of developers willing to do the very best they think possible. Working on structurals or engine failures helps, I suppose, to understand better the normal conditions of flight. Cf PMDG but also A2A. At the end, even if you turn off the failure system, your aircraft is better.

I quite like the idea of failures provided the aircraft is supplied with a QRH or POH with the relevant emergency drills. On an SEP type this is pretty simple for both user and developer, not so much for a modern airliner.

Something I learned a while ago is that when you start trying to do things like operate simulated airliners according to real world safety rules, you very quickly begin to see the limitations of the models, modelling and physics engines current sims use. Really a lot of addons need to be put through a certification-style test programme to gather accurate data on parameters like fuel burn, accelerate-stop distance and engine out behaviour.

22 hours ago, Huascar said:

But look,  whether the plane’s flaps go into stress or not, it’s not really relevant for most consumers. The average simmer cares more about visuals than they do about aerodynamics.

Then why start a thread with a 'baity' title to complain about the price of a product you have no use for/are not interested in? You can get the excellent iFly 737 or 747 which doesn't simulate failures and doesn't go into as much depth for less money, for example.

Edited July 17, 20205 yr by threegreen