I just hope they have the financial strength to survive a year plus delay in releasing on MSFS.  More disappointing then the delay would be PMDG failing as a business all together.

16 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Hmmm, I think I'll take my clues from this guy. Then, again, what does he know, he's only "a real world Airbus pilot with thousands of hours flying the real aircraft."😄

This sorta reminds me of a split-screen video skit I saw where a guy was chatting-up one of those sexy voices at a 1-900 service...the sexy voice on the other end was coming from a 300 pound 50ish tattooed pierced biker mama.

I can't count the number of times a "real world xxxx pilot" has been thrown out as justification for us to believe the unbelievable. 

"Beware of internet testimonials--sometimes those people aren't who they say they are"  -Thomas Jefferson

Just now, odourboy said:

I just hope they have the financial strength to survive a year plus delay in releasing on MSFS.  More disappointing then the delay would be PMDG failing as a business all together.

Yes, I was not looking on this side but your are quite right.

With a falling number of P3D users, it might be hard on them to stay afloat for a long time

3 hours ago, highflyer2020 said:

Kind of tired of this moaning by developers on the SDK when you see the progress being made FBW, Working Title etc. they are all just quietly getting on with it and delivering.

Hmmm, do you honestly assume that these mentioned products are in any way comparable to somewhat professional simulation aircraft!?

Okay, if you just like playing, then you may see it differently. 

6 minutes ago, bendead said:

With a falling number of P3D users, it might be hard on them to stay afloat for a long time

Why not make "study level" DHC-6 or DHC-2 just to survive?

I've said it before and I'll say it again,

If the developers would use the tools at their disposal, mainly, the javascript API, they would find that there are really no missing features from which to build a fully functional aircraft with full systems depth.

Between what is available in JS and WASM today,  I can see no barriers to developing a "study level" (though I'm starting to hate that term) aircraft. The issue is that the developers are refusing to use what's available to them and instead waiting for everything that's already available in more modern tooling to be shipped to the C++ experience.

I dare say you'll see systems depth rivaling the big players before too long here.

-Matt

17 minutes ago, odourboy said:

I just hope they have the financial strength to survive a year plus delay in releasing on MSFS.

I think (or want to think) they do. If it wasn't the case I would have expected the anouncement of some "basic" version, like Aerosoft with their Airbus'es: suited for daily operation. And the more complex simulations as upgrades.

Edited November 22, 20205 yr by Tom_L

16 minutes ago, odourboy said:

I just hope they have the financial strength to survive a year plus delay in releasing on MSFS.  More disappointing then the delay would be PMDG failing as a business all together.

So what do you suggest they do to speed up the process?

It is great that PMDG and others such as Leonardo are communicating with us about the development timeline regarding the SDK.

Edited November 22, 20205 yr by Pugilist2

1 minute ago, OSM said:

Why not make "study level" DHC-6 or DHC-2 just to survive?

I would buy that,

But the issue will be on working on the plane from scratch, 3D inside/outside model, sounds, control, etc... I will take time to make it great.

As for the 737, 777 and 747 they can reuse a lot of assets

10 minutes ago, Pegaso said:

Hmmm, do you honestly assume that these mentioned products are in any way comparable to somewhat professional simulation aircraft!?

Okay, if you just like playing, then you may see it differently. 

If you follow the next releases of these aircraft (big things around the corner for both), I think you'll find that these types of replies are somewhat silly.

Paid or free has very little to do with systems depth, accuracy, and quality.

-Matt

6 minutes ago, bendead said:

With a falling number of P3D users, it might be hard on them to stay afloat for a long time

I think the customer bases of developers like PMDG and FSL will largely follow them to whatever platforms they produce for.  Those of us who aren't shy about paying $100-200 for a high-fidelity add-on aren't going to give up what we gain with their add-ons in favor of default acft, however nicely modded, on a different platform.

In the meantime, they can stay afloat by regaling their devoted customer base with new products on the platforms they can currently work with.  They can do more than just the one thing--nothing stopping them from operating where they're established now while simultaneously working towards a functional SDK for MSFS.

8 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again,

If the developers would use the tools at their disposal, mainly, the javascript API, they would find that there are really no missing features from which to build a fully functional aircraft with full systems depth.

Between what is available in JS and WASM today,  I can see no barriers to developing a "study level" (though I'm starting to hate that term) aircraft. The issue is that the developers are refusing to use what's available to them and instead waiting for everything that's already available in more modern tooling to be shipped to the C++ experience.

I dare say you'll see systems depth rivaling the big players before too long here.

-Matt

WOW! I am not only one who knows the truth about famous developers "SDK" mystery!!! 😄

Edited November 22, 20205 yr by OSM

5 minutes ago, bendead said:

I would buy that,

But the issue will be on working on the plane from scratch, 3D inside/outside model, sounds, control, etc... I will take time to make it great.

As for the 737, 777 and 747 they can reuse a lot of assets

Other words they are simply lazy!😄

2 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I think the customer bases of developers like PMDG and FSL will largely follow them to whatever platforms they produce for.  Those of us who aren't shy about paying $100-200 for a high-fidelity add-on aren't going to give up what we gain with their add-ons in favor of default acft, however nicely modded, on a different platform.

In the meantime, they can stay afloat by regaling their devoted customer base with new products on the platforms they can currently work with.  They can do more than just the one thing--nothing stopping them from operating where they're established now while simultaneously working towards a functional SDK for MSFS.

Yep, if their base is willing to buy new or updated products from a less used platform and they can reuse a lot of their work on MSFS, that makes perfect sense.