PMDG Update - A quick round of updates on various topics acr

[jcjimmy 150]

Re: MarchHare - "They never intended to do study-level aircraft -- a corporate decision -- to leave it up to the well-established third-party community."

I never expected MSFS to produce "study level" airliners. However, I do expect them to produce functional simulations without the intervention of third parties. MSFS dropped the ball in this regard and have short-changed purchasers of their flight simulator. While many of us have been exposed to the vagaries of software, I especially feel for the newcomers who must get really confused and frustrated by incomplete simulator aircraft. I hope, in the long run, that MSFS succeeds in producing the first rate flight simulator that it promised at the launch.

[March Hare 720]

58 minutes ago, jcjimmy said:

Re: MarchHare - "They never intended to do study-level aircraft -- a corporate decision -- to leave it up to the well-established third-party community."

I never expected MSFS to produce "study level" airliners. However, I do expect them to produce functional simulations without the intervention of third parties. MSFS dropped the ball in this regard and have short-changed purchasers of their flight simulator. While many of us have been exposed to the vagaries of software, I especially feel for the newcomers who must get really confused and frustrated by incomplete simulator aircraft. I hope, in the long run, that MSFS succeeds in producing the first rate flight simulator that it promised at the launch.

I was replying to Noel's comment specifically, however, not whether the implemented features function correctly. Agree that features they intended to have working should actually work.

[JBDB-MD80 1,470]

1 hour ago, jcjimmy said:

Re: MarchHare - "They never intended to do study-level aircraft -- a corporate decision -- to leave it up to the well-established third-party community."

I never expected MSFS to produce "study level" airliners. However, I do expect them to produce functional simulations without the intervention of third parties. MSFS dropped the ball in this regard and have short-changed purchasers of their flight simulator. While many of us have been exposed to the vagaries of software, I especially feel for the newcomers who must get really confused and frustrated by incomplete simulator aircraft. I hope, in the long run, that MSFS succeeds in producing the first rate flight simulator that it promised at the launch.

They made a lot of promises but one thing they CLEARLY stated that the default aircraft would not be Study Level but flyable functions. Working title is redoing the flight planner with AP so at least there is some effort on their part.

[JBDB-MD80 1,470]

3 hours ago, Manny said:

Did you fly above 40K feet?

 

Service Ceiling in a 787 is 43000 ft. No reason really to go over FL390 in most cases.

Edited December 10, 2021 by jbdbow1970

[Manny 1,293]

How about 35K? Somewhere above 30K I forget which one, the speedometer, Goes have wire.

[threexgreen 3,135]

2 hours ago, March Hare said:

At least on that point, Jorg answered that question in possibly the first ever Q&A they did. They never intended to do study-level aircraft -- a corporate decision -- to leave it up to the well-established third-party community.

I clearly remember that remark too. But if they want to stick to that they should make it a little easier for devs to do just that. With the exception of the Fenix A320, which uses ProSim for much of the systems, it seems it's still a pain to develop an aircraft that complex with the SDK.

Edited December 10, 2021 by threegreen

[Noel 4,486]

32 minutes ago, Manny said:

How about 35K? Somewhere above 30K I forget which one, the speedometer, Goes have wire.

Manny, perhaps this was the very recent temp bug?  Have you tried the HD mod?  It's fine, and you can now use the so called 'stable version' which released recently to accommodate SU7.

[Manny 1,293]

1 minute ago, Noel said:

Manny, perhaps this was the very recent temp bug?  Have you tried the HD mod?  It's fine, and you can now use the so called 'stable version' which released recently to accommodate SU7.

Hmmm... OK

I don't use any mods;.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Manny

[Noel 4,486]

1 minute ago, Manny said:

Hmmm... OK

I don't use any mods;.

I didn't either for the longest time, began using the 787, liked it for a default plane, then took a chance on the Heavy Division mod which is continually updated to cope with changes in MSFS as needed.  This is the current stable version and if you're familiar w/ Boeing craft you should be able to fly it flawlessly, after a little exposure:

https://github.com/Heavy-Division/B78XH/releases/download/v0.1.11/B78XH-v0.1.11.zip

After unzipping just drop the subfolder into the Community Folder and you will be good to go.

[Adrian123 1,015]

1 minute ago, Noel said:

I didn't either for the longest time, began using the 787, liked it for a default plane, then took a chance on the Heavy Division mod which is continually updated to cope with changes in MSFS as needed.  This is the current stable version and if you're familiar w/ Boeing craft you should be able to fly it flawlessly, after a little exposure:

https://github.com/Heavy-Division/B78XH/releases/download/v0.1.11/B78XH-v0.1.11.zip

After unzipping just drop the subfolder into the Community Folder and you will be good to go.

Thought I would give this a try. Quite impressed with the Mod and I'm a stickler on fidelity. Vnav worked. !

[Noel 4,486]

It seems to work fine and has all along, even the prior Dev Versions did.  In reality, flying it is not hugely different from the NGXu, esp when you assign a controller to ground steer--I really liked that in the NGXu and it works identically in the 787 except at 20knots it doesn't disconnect--I'm using an old Cessna Trim Wheel for ground steering and it's lovely!  Sure, the doors don't open and close, you can't configure every possible detail in the FMC that really are a one-time operation anyway, but all the basics of navigation and flight are decent in their own right, for free. 

[JDWalley 354]

On 12/9/2021 at 10:06 AM, pmplayer said:

Maybe in another year..😜

cheers 😉

Let's put it this way: it'll come out around the time that new GPU you'll need to properly run it will be available at MSRP.  😈

[Moria15 950]

16 hours ago, threegreen said:

I clearly remember that remark too. But if they want to stick to that they should make it a little easier for devs to do just that. With the exception of the Fenix A320, which uses ProSim for much of the systems, it seems it's still a pain to develop an aircraft that complex with the SDK.

I think half the problem here is developers want to stick with methods they already know (no issue with that) in the same way that on release lots of repaints were done which used the same methods as previous sims and so resulted in mirroring because they were not using the new techniques of decals, which this engine uses.

You state that by using prosim, it's much easier to do all the development, and that is true, so you have two choices..  either get out of the rut of developing for previous sims and learn new techniques which don't have those issues, or wait and the SDK will catch up at some point, but it's no good complaining that you can't get the sim to do x,y,z because of the SDK when x,y,z is actually possible, but not by the old methods.  It's a trade..  either learn a new way or wait for catchup.

At least there is an SDK and it's moving forward..  when FSX was released, it was over 6 months before even a basic sdk was released and even that required you to have the de-luxe version of FSX to install it.. if you only had the basic version you were SOL.