PMDG 737 NG3 delayed to 12+ months

[WestAir 2,522]

30 minutes ago, B777ER said:

Translation: I couldn't take off within 5 minutes of firing up my sim as it was way to complicated for me.

You misinterpreted his comment. He was making fun of people who tried the A320NX addon and disliked it, even though it's only several weeks into its creation.

He's saying people who expect Rome to be built in a day are expecting too much.

[micstatic 4,319]

45 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

The incomplete SDK excuse gets thrown  around a lot. Well, the dev from the A32NX said there is many possibilities with the current sdk, even a study level aircraft. Whats lacking is documentation, so a dev would have to figure out on their own what all this stuff does. Wich is probavly why pmdg is waiting. One to see if the new sim is gonna catch on, and two so they dont have to pay someone decyphering the sdk

I think it gets thrown around because it's a real thing.  While the A32NX has vastly improved the stock A320, it's still a far cry from what we've seen possible in aircraft like the fslabs.  I'll gladly join this way of thought of it being an excuse when we have realistic airliners on par with what we have now.  Ones like the maddog, PMDG, FSLabs, Majestic.  Considering we haven't seen anything to suggest any of these are even remotely close I still consider the SDK excuse to not be one at all.  

[Christopher Low 5,353]

When developers who I trust and admire tell me that the SDK is word not allowed, then it's word not allowed.

[sanh 823]

I never bought pmdg or any other study level aircraft. I dont want to simulate pump failures or spend 45 minutes flipping switches in a plane or programming an fmc and then just sitting there watching the plane do all the work. So this news does not concern me. I think the vast majority of simmers would be happy with medium level addons similar in stature to the a320 airbus produced by Aerosoft. The default planes in msfs are way off that level but I think we will see planes at this level early next year and this is good for me.

Edited October 20, 2020 by sanh

[micstatic 4,319]

6 minutes ago, sanh said:

I never bought pmdg or any other study level aircraft. I dont want to simulate pump failures or spend 45 minutes flipping switches in a plane or programming an fmc and then just sitting there watching the plane do all the work. So this news does not concern me. I think the vast majority of simmers would be happy with medium level addons similar in stature to the a320 airbus produced by airbus. The default planes in msfs are way off that level but I think we will see planes at this level early next year and this is good for me.

Even if you don't do failures the highly detailed aircraft made by PMDG/FSLabs/Maddog etc are still worth it IMO.  In fact these days I usually don't fly with failures since I've found it is not always the best combination with VATSIM.  But it's nice to have the systems and logical fuel burn figures etc.  Which A320 Airbus produced by airbus are you referring to?  I have no idea on sales volume numbers on medium vs study level.  To me there is something thrilling about doing a cold and dark start.  It just is much more enjoyable than hitting control E

Edited October 20, 2020 by micstatic
add line

[WestAir 2,522]

17 minutes ago, sanh said:

I never bought pmdg or any other study level aircraft. I dont want to simulate pump failures or spend 45 minutes flipping switches in a plane or programming an fmc and then just sitting there watching the plane do all the work. So this news does not concern me. I think the vast majority of simmers would be happy with medium level addons similar in stature to the a320 airbus produced by airbus. The default planes in msfs are way off that level but I think we will see planes at this level early next year and this is good for me.

The thing about study level sims is that they usually operate better than medium level addons. Fewer bugs, more fidelity, and more "ease of use", because that's what modern airliners are really designed for.

The bonus to these sims is that when you're feeling up to it, you can do some crazy abnormal stuff like fly over Antarctica and watch the jet-A in the tanks freeze, then give it your best dead-stick landing. There was a study level Super 80 mod that simulated smoke in the cabin and made it really hard to see your instruments. Sort of a fun challenge compared to your typical a to b trip.

[sanh 823]

2 hours ago, micstatic said:

Which A320 Airbus produced by airbus are you referring to?  I have no idea on sales volume numbers on medium vs study level.  To me there is something thrilling about doing a cold and dark start.  It just is much more enjoyable than hitting control E

Sorry I meant the A320 by Aerosoft (was typing on phone and predictive text got in the way).

Fair points. Hopefully there are planes soon that meet everyones needs.

Edited October 20, 2020 by sanh

[Ricardo41 5,949]

11 hours ago, B777ER said:

Translation: I couldn't take off within 5 minutes of firing up my sim as it was way to complicated for me.

What's "complicated" about a fully automated airbus? It's designed to reduce pilot work load, not to "complicate" things (whatever that phrase means anyway).

Get yourself that Russian plane from "Project Tupoleve" and try to get that off the ground. 

[FrankSalo 272]

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

Get yourself that Russian plane from "Project Tupoleve" and try to get that off the ground. 

I wanted to try those but compatibility with 64bit P3D V4/5 not being there and the manuals in Russian kept me away. I do hope that they develop for MSFS as I'd love to see a Tu-204, Tu-144 and modern Superjet SSJ100 and MC-21 to mix things up.

[Ricardo41 5,949]

What I don't understand is why PMDG and FSLabs continue to put development dollars into a legacy and on its way out platform like P3D.

Just look at the preview videos of the BBJ posted on fselite.net. The poorly textured and cartoonish looking interiors are a sad testament to the fact that P3D is a wrung out washcloth.

Cut your losses, and work with the current SDK, build excitement and release product now (with the option of upgrading the product later as more features become available) instead of predicting "that it will take at least 12+ months."

[GSalden 4,656]

23 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

What I don't understand is why PMDG and FSLabs continue to put development dollars into a legacy and on its way out platform like P3D.

Just look at the preview videos of the BBJ posted on fselite.net. The poorly textured and cartoonish looking interiors are a sad testament to the fact that P3D is a wrung out washcloth.

Cut your losses, and work with the current SDK, build excitement and release product now (with the option of upgrading the product later as more features become available) instead of predicting "that it will take at least 12+ months."

Because they probably do not think that P3D is on its way out like you do..

There is so much lacking in the SDK (take a look into the documentation) that complex jetliners are far away if ever..

Asobo stated in one of their vids that they would make a more enhanced SDK but not  as enhanced as P3D has.

I am waiting too much for it and because I use Prosim (cockpit suite) I might be lucky as that is running mainly outside the app.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by GSalden

[webstef68 52]

16 hours ago, odourboy said:

I tried the FSLabs A320 a couple of times back when it was a few weeks old. What a joke. Never again!

Try reconsidering your position when the next update from flybywire is out, the 0.5.0. I 'm confident you will find it "not to bad" at least.

[sanh 823]

57 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

What I don't understand is why PMDG and FSLabs continue to put development dollars into a legacy and on its way out platform like P3D.

 

I think they are putting development dollars into p3d because its guaranteed they can build something with the sdk right now. Yes they may have less sales with a smaller market but its better than doing nothing for 1 year and then hoping msfs comes up good on their SDK. What if the SDK is not up to scratch by end of next year?  There is no guarantee it will be. How long should the multiple teams spend twiddling their thumbs waiting?

[HighTowers 1,434]

Clearly there is a difference of opinion on the state of the SDK depending on your perspective and goals of your simulation model.  PMDG and the like go to the max in systems including failures.  To do that, you need a full complex complete SDK.   Aerosoft on the other hand, with their aircraft have medium systems complexity, and no failures.  Thats a large gap in whats needed.   Reading this comment  puts things in perspective.   Its in regards to the CRJ development.  So pretty sure that there is a larger market for simmers and the gamers out there who dont care for full on systems complexity and failures but are content with a middle of the road aircraft. 

 "The good news is that we currently don't face any immediate roadblocks in MSFS or its SDK that would stop or delay development."- Hans Hartmann

[micstatic 4,319]

3 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

What I don't understand is why PMDG and FSLabs continue to put development dollars into a legacy and on its way out platform like P3D.

Just look at the preview videos of the BBJ posted on fselite.net. The poorly textured and cartoonish looking interiors are a sad testament to the fact that P3D is a wrung out washcloth.

Cut your losses, and work with the current SDK, build excitement and release product now (with the option of upgrading the product later as more features become available) instead of predicting "that it will take at least 12+ months."

There is nothing to work on without a real SDK.  That's why PMDG put their engineers back on P3D.  We are seeing developers and users/customers going back to P3D.  I'm basing that on these forums, publicly available steam usage, and developer comments.  It's far from over for P3D.  Will really be interesting to see if the SDK ever gets finished or if in todays new world Microsoft fully focuses on the xbox crowd.  Asobo and Microsoft are different animals.