21 minutes ago, Pathfinder633 said:

Lighten up fella, twas just a light hearted comment

Whomever is offended by the term should take that same advise..

Anyway back to topic.

 

Edited February 23, 20224 yr by Maxis

38 minutes ago, Mike S KPDX said:

I am really beginning to get curious about the 'depth' of products like PMDG.  Yes, I have owned many in the past and did enjoy them.  However, a very close friend of mine (fly's for Alaska Airlines) and I had a discussion about this.  He is aware of the sims out there and actually provided input on one of them about 6 years ago.  His thought was and is, why don't they make a package that emulates what the pilot does on the aircraft every flight?  He was stating that having things like all the circuit breakers working is kind of a waste.  He has been a commercial airline pilot for 29 years and has had to shut down an engine only twice, and one of those was on the ground.  There are only a few items that come up periodically that require a special process in the cockpit yet we don't see that in the sims.

He has always reiterated to me that 99% of the time, they do not try to trouble shoot anything, it is simply left to maintenance, prior to takeoff or after landing.  This was a hard lesson for his airline.  The last time we spoke about this (a few months ago) he said it would be like seeing a low oxy level/flow on the mask units due to it being tested 5 times a day, once a week it seems he would have to have maint. replace/charge the bottle or a screen goes black about once a year... that type of thing - what a line pilot sees on a day to day basis.

Want to practice V1 cuts at rotate, perfect for PMDG.  Want to sim a day in the life of a line pilot? that would make a good sim plane.

My thoughts exactly. I don't get the obsession with circuit breakers and complex failures. Is it cool? I guess. Do the majority of users actually touch any of that content? I HIGHLY doubt it. If I was a real pilot and wanted to practice that kind of stuff, I guess I might play with it, but even then, I'm not sure I would. I feel the same way about a lot of the features of the HotStart Challenger. Are the live engine/systems schematics cool? Yeah, of course! Are they something I'm going to touch again after looking at them once? Nope. Is having all that fluff worth paying over $100 for the aircraft? IMO, no. I see most of that extra stuff as purely for clout. But that's just me. 

On 2/19/2022 at 3:56 PM, abrams_tank said:

The 777 and 747 are next for PMDG to release to MSFS. Assume for a moment that the 777 comes before the 747 from PMDG for MSFS (from my understanding, PMDG has not made a decision on whether the 777 is next or the 747 is next, but for the sake of this example, assume the 777 comes before the 747).  Then the 777 from PMDG may come in 2023.  And the 747 perhaps in 2024.  Let's assume PMDG does the 757 after releasing the 747, which may not be the case (for all we know, maybe PMDG decides to do a DC3 or some other plane after they release the 747).  That's potentially a 2025 release for the 757, three years from now, from PMDG.

That was A LOT of assumptions. "assume", "from my understanding", not made a decision", "sake of this example", "may come", "perhaps", "lets assume", "may not be the case", "for all we know, maybe", "potentially". 

On 2/19/2022 at 4:41 PM, Keirtt said:

Well, that didn't take long. This screams "Xbox market" when the dev starts making comments like this. 

Well that seems to be where the money and the masses are so guess we’ll have to deal with it!

3 hours ago, Mike S KPDX said:

I am really beginning to get curious about the 'depth' of products like PMDG.  Yes, I have owned many in the past and did enjoy them.  However, a very close friend of mine (fly's for Alaska Airlines) and I had a discussion about this.  He is aware of the sims out there and actually provided input on one of them about 6 years ago.  His thought was and is, why don't they make a package that emulates what the pilot does on the aircraft every flight?

<...>  

Want to sim a day in the life of a line pilot? that would make a good sim plane.

The problem then becomes who will decide what 'normal operations' are. For example, Aerosoft is one of those companies that claims to only simulate the day to day normal operations. Try that on their CRJ and you will run into showstoppers if you used normal day to day procedures. And besides that, one line pilots experience can vary wildly from another.

Anyway, good to see a 757 incoming for MSFS. And to those expecting PMDG level systems simulation... When have you received such fidelity from Just Flight before? I can't really think of anything they have made before that would lead anyone to expect them to suddenly match PMDG.

On 2/19/2022 at 3:41 PM, Keirtt said:

This screams "Xbox market" when the dev starts making comments like this.

Oh please, spare us the bull-pucky.   You make it sound like there haven't always been at least three tiers of aircraft widely available (ctrl-e-and-go, like Carenado;  mid-market, like Aerosoft; and switch-fetishist, like PMDG), with the most complex only ever being a tiny part of the market.   The Xbox has nothing to do with it -- there is still a demand for planes that satisfy the swtich-fetishist, and with folks like PMDG and Fenix around, that demand is being scratched.   Just Flight planes have rarely if ever reached for that level of fidelity before, so is it at unusual if this one does not either?

Nope, not really.

Edited February 23, 20224 yr by DeepestRed

5 hours ago, Mike S KPDX said:

Want to practice V1 cuts at rotate, perfect for PMDG.  Want to sim a day in the life of a line pilot? that would make a good sim plane.

But if the simulation is nearly 1:1, shouldn't the deeper simulation also simulate a day in the life of a line pilot? I understand the concept of diminishing return, but to suggest a deeper simulation becomes less worthwhile as functionality increases is curious. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were implying.

5 hours ago, Adrian123 said:

This why I am not into all this "failures" modeling. Known quite a few Commercial pilots and Air Force Generals. Most say they have never had a failure like engines, gear etc.

https://avherald.com/

This is a site that logs all the reported incidences on commercial aviation. Look how common engine failures, pressurization issues, etc actually are.

A bigger argument for deeper simulations is that it gives you a reason to do the things a line pilot does. Why test the flight controls if you know they can't possibly be jammed? Why do a walk around? Why follow the majority of the checklist, good habits, and flows if the issues they're preventing are impossible?

Edited February 23, 20224 yr by WestAir

757 my favorite....but I'll wait for the QW version.

 

5 hours ago, liamp51 said:

My thoughts exactly. I don't get the obsession with circuit breakers and complex failures. Is it cool? I guess. Do the majority of users actually touch any of that content? I HIGHLY doubt it. If I was a real pilot and wanted to practice that kind of stuff, I guess I might play with it, but even then, I'm not sure I would. I feel the same way about a lot of the features of the HotStart Challenger. Are the live engine/systems schematics cool? Yeah, of course! Are they something I'm going to touch again after looking at them once? Nope. Is having all that fluff worth paying over $100 for the aircraft? IMO, no. I see most of that extra stuff as purely for clout. But that's just me. 

For me it's three things:
1. Study level aircraft are better quality. Comparing PMDG, Maddog and FSLabs   to   Aerosoft, Qualitywings and CaptainSim, there are just many many many bugs in the latter which mostly never get fixed, unless they are critical. And having the approach ruined by some stupid glideslope bug or whatever after a 3 hour flight makes you wonder why you are doing this at all.
2. The immersion of an aircraft where systems are correctly modeled, even if I don't actually "use" them. Between Aerosoft and FSLabs the difference in "feeling" is huge. All too many "inop" switches or "not available" pages in the fmc quickly take you out of the immersion.
3. I try to simulate procedures and flows, and I absolutely need failures (random failures) because otherwise I have to force myself to do a checklist properly (and usually I still end up skipping every "check" item). Oh and custom panel states (i.e. switches as I left them last time), something usually only possible with the study level stuff. Nothing better than doing an emergency descent because you left the pressurization on the 737 in "manual" from last flight, I love it (actually there was a fatal crash of a 737 in Greece a couple of years ago for exactly the same reason, the pilots just forgot to check pre-flight and ended up unconscious)

4 hours ago, DeepestRed said:

Oh please, spare us the bull-pucky.   You make it sound like there haven't always been at least three tiers of aircraft widely available (ctrl-e-and-go, like Carenado;  mid-market, like Aerosoft; and switch-fetishist, like PMDG), with the most complex only ever being a tiny part of the market.   The Xbox has nothing to do with it -- there is still a demand for planes that satisfy the swtich-fetishist, and with folks like PMDG and Fenix around, that demand is being scratched.   Just Flight planes have rarely if ever reached for that level of fidelity before, so is it at unusual if this one does not either?

Nope, not really.

You seem pretty offended by my comment so I'll speak my mind as well because this seems to hit a special nerve with some folks. Whether you agree with my opinion or not, the reality is you're reading my comment in a tone that it wasn't meant for and it's funny, because no one thought to wonder if I own an Xbox? I actually do! And guess what's even better? I have a 12-year old son who uses it for MSFS. Just because I point out that I think a developer is creating a product intended for a specific market doesn't necessarily imply that I think the dev or product is complete garbage. 

So please sir, spare me your bull-pucky by assuming you think that my comment was intended to downplay the work of the dev. I still stand by what I said and I think you'd be foolish to not agree in some respects.... the market is flooded with devs who have their eye on the Xbox crowd because it's an easy sell and a large market. But I digress and ask that you please understand that just because I feel this product is more intended for the Xbox audience doesn't by itself imply I'm trashing it.