26 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I would almost guarantee that 6K hours is only the MSFS portion of the work and doesn't include all the costs for the tons of code that already existed (as we've mentioned, the NXi is over 10K hours at this point). If you estimate devs at $120K + 20% overhead per person (insurance, benefits, equipment), plus company and infrastructure fixed costs, the given estimate total is not very far (if at all) off, and maybe conservative.

That's interesting.  I think another 3rd party developer here in Avsim, said that not many products for MSFS will sell over $1 million USD in revenue. I think that developer was implying that products that sell over $1 million USD would be like PMDG type products.  Working some quick math, assuming that credits were not used to buy the PMDG 737-700 for MSFS, PMDG would have had to sell ($1 million USD/$70 USD) = 14,286 copies of the PMDG 737-700, to reach a revenue of $1 million USD (that's just for the 700 variant of course, it doesn't include sales for the 600, 800, or 900 variant).

So if it takes iFly just as long as PMDG to port one airliner to MSFS, would iFly have to spend around $1 million USD as well in business costs to port their 737 MAX over to MSFS? Then iFly would also have to sell around some 14,286 copies of their 737 MAX to break even, assuming they priced their 737 MAX at $70 USD.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by abrams_tank

4 minutes ago, Mike T said:

Can we add "study-level" to the "word not allowed" list? PLEASE?

I get that the term seems to be a trigger for some, but to me it's still a useful term.  Yes there are different shades in the spectrum of "study level"  

But I'm still not aware of any term that accomplishes anything better.  We all know what it means.  

14 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I get that the term seems to be a trigger for some, but to me it's still a useful term.  Yes there are different shades in the spectrum of "study level"  

But I'm still not aware of any term that accomplishes anything better.  We all know what it means.  

Everyone knows what it means to then but as far as I can tell, no two people have the same definition making it a pretty useless term when it comes to discussing things.

12 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I get that the term seems to be a trigger for some, but to me it's still a useful term.  Yes there are different shades in the spectrum of "study level"  

But I'm still not aware of any term that accomplishes anything better.  We all know what it means.  

The term that accomplishes that is "fidelity" Fidelity: the degree to which the detail and quality of an original, such as a picture, sound, or story, is copied exactly. Therefore, flight simulator aircraft are developed with varying degrees of "fidelity". PMDG would be a high fidelity aircraft vs QW 757 which might be seen as a medium fidelity aircraft, etc.

22 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I get that the term seems to be a trigger for some, but to me it's still a useful term.  Yes there are different shades in the spectrum of "study level"  

But I'm still not aware of any term that accomplishes anything better.  We all know what it means.  

Did PMDG invent the term "study level" in flight simulation to describe their line of products? This Reddit comment here suggests that it was PMDG that first used the term "study level" to describe their products.  I was out of flight simulation for about 10 years after FSX, until MSFS was released, so I have no idea when the term "study level" started to be used widely in the flight simulation market (I don't recall hearing of this term when I was using FSX and reading/discussing in the FSX forums over 10 years ago).

If it's true that it was PMDG that first used the term "study level" to describe their products, then for me, I would say any airliner that matches PMDG's level of fidelity, or exceeds PMDG's level of fidelity, would qualify as "study level," since it was PMDG that first coined the term (if they did in fact, coin the term first). Anyways, I would be curious to know if that Reddit comment is accurate, that PMDG was the first to use the term "study level."

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by abrams_tank

8 minutes ago, Mike T said:

The term that accomplishes that is "fidelity" Fidelity: the degree to which the detail and quality of an original, such as a picture, sound, or story, is copied exactly. Therefore, flight simulator aircraft are developed with varying degrees of "fidelity". PMDG would be a high fidelity aircraft vs QW 757 which might be seen as a medium fidelity aircraft, etc.

You can also break that down to individual aspects of a module - a flight-model is high fidelity, avionics are medium fidelity etc.

It's a MUCH better term all-round IMHO

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by Matchstick

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Well the Ifly has no failures and certain systems are rather basic (though you'll only notice when you dig into them and compare with PMDG), that sounds much like the Aerosoft QualityWings-level to me (well maybe with a much better support, but I'm talking about the aircraft). Proper failure modelling is necessary for "study level", whatever you think of that term. Missing failure modelling is also a pretty good indicator that most systems are just not well/deeply enough modeled to support that. Or can anyone of you say any top-notch ("study level") aircraft on any sim that had NO failures? I can't. Therefore in my book missing failures is a 100% indicator of a non-study-level aircraft, whatever subjective meaning that might have.

The iFly 737NG for P3D v.5 has a long list of failures. I would say it is very competitive with the PMDG on that front if not better in some ways -- e.g., iFly actually includes a QRH which PMDG doesn't do anymore. I was very pleased with it in P3D, except I didn't like the external setup application.  

6 minutes ago, Iadbound said:

The iFly 737NG for P3D v.5 has a long list of failures. I would say it is very competitive with the PMDG on that front if not better in some ways -- e.g., iFly actually includes a QRH which PMDG doesn't do anymore. I was very pleased with it in P3D, except I didn't like the external setup application.  

It does have failures? Wow I must have got that totally wrong. In this case I take back all I said and apologize for the misinformation.

High fidelity or high detail would be my go to phrases.  Rarely have I studied for anything in MSFS/FSX/P3D.  DCS perhaps.

26 minutes ago, Iadbound said:

The iFly 737NG for P3D v.5 has a long list of failures. I would say it is very competitive with the PMDG on that front if not better in some ways -- e.g., iFly actually includes a QRH which PMDG doesn't do anymore. I was very pleased with it in P3D, except I didn't like the external setup application.  

I remember suggesting what seems like decades ago that the Ariandesign 737 line was in some ways more advanced than what PMDG had to offer at the time. 

Oh, boy, you should have seen the reaction. 

Like I had written a book desecrating the memory of Mother Teresa --> oh, wait, someone already wrote that book......😄

20 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

It does have failures? Wow I must have got that totally wrong. In this case I take back all I said and apologize for the misinformation.

No worries.  Just wanted to make sure people were aware.  It is really is a solid product. 

There is actually one huge difference between the PMDG 737 and the iFly 737 in P3D: PMDG use external, custom code to simulate many systems in order to overcome platform limitations, whereas iFly do not. As examples, the iFly 737 in P3D has unrealistic engine behavior, especially the spooling of the engines is far from the real airplane. PMDG's simulation is not perfect either as their CFM's spool up a little too quickly below about 30% N1 (while the real one is slower to reach that target) and it also lacks EGT rollback after stabilizing the engines at 40% N1, but PMDG's implementation is still far more realistic because it doesn't use the native P3D model.

Another example is the taxi behavior. iFly use the default P3D ground friction model and so taxiing feels like trying to wade through the Everglades with constant, significant application of thrust above idle needed to keep the aircraft going. PMDG simulate this too outside of the simulator and can therefore make the aircraft behave like the real one, where only a slight application of thrust above idle is needed to get going and after that idle is enough to keep it going (on a surface with no upward slope).

Sticking to the simulator's models for these things is FSX 2006. I'm not saying this to hate on the iFly, but virtually every advanced aircraft addon developer (which includes iFly) has been using external, custom models to evade platform limitations for nearly a decade, so this is what I always found disappointing about the iFly. It's also strange how this never comes up when people debate about which one is more complex, more study level, etc. because while the iFly simulates a lot of systems very well, it falls very short when it comes to the things that are still using default P3D/FSX models.

What's going to be interesting is to see is how this plays out in MSFS: Whether iFly are now using custom models outside of the simulator or are still using default MSFS models like ground friction and how/if this will limit the simulation of these systems. Since PMDG are anticipating to sell on the marketplace too, they seem to have found a way to create custom models in a way that still counts as 'in the sim' so it can be approved for the marketplace.

Edit: iFly have actually said when the NG for P3Dv5 was released that they wouldn't start using external models and stick to the platform's default ones. Perhaps this may change with the decision to go MSFS as well.

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by threegreen

15 minutes ago, threegreen said:

There is actually one huge difference between the PMDG 737 and the iFly 737 in P3D: PMDG use external, custom code to simulate many systems in order to overcome platform limitations, whereas iFly do not. As examples, the iFly 737 in P3D has unrealistic engine behavior, especially the spooling of the engines is far from the real airplane. PMDG's simulation is not perfect either as their CFM's spool up a little too quickly below about 30% N1 (while the real one is slower to reach that target) and it also lacks EGT rollback after stabilizing the engines at 40% N1, but PMDG's implementation is still far more realistic because it doesn't use the native P3D model.

Another example is the taxi behavior. iFly use the default P3D ground friction model and so taxiing feels like trying to wade through the Everglades with constant, significant application of thrust above idle needed to keep the aircraft going. PMDG simulate this too outside of the simulator and can therefore make the aircraft behave like the real one, where only a slight application of thrust above idle is needed to get going and after that idle is enough to keep it going (on a surface with no upward slope).

Sticking to the simulator's models for these things is FSX 2006. I'm not saying this to hate on the iFly, but virtually every advanced aircraft addon developer (which includes iFly) has been using external, custom models to evade platform limitations for nearly a decade, so this is what I always found disappointing about the iFly. It's also strange how this never comes up when people debate about which one is more complex, more study level, etc. because while the iFly simulates a lot of systems very well, it falls very short when it comes to the things that are still using default P3D/FSX models.

What's going to be interesting is to see is how this plays out in MSFS: Whether iFly are now using custom models outside of the simulator or are still using default MSFS models like ground friction and how/if this will limit the simulation of these systems. Since PMDG are anticipating to sell on the marketplace too, they seem to have found a way to create custom models in a way that still counts as 'in the sim' so it can be approved for the marketplace.

Edit: iFly have actually said when the NG for P3Dv5 was released that they wouldn't start using external models and stick to the platform's default ones. Perhaps this may change with the decision to go MSFS as well.

From my understanding, PMDG isn't using any external, custom code, for their MSFS 737, right?  I know Fenix is using external custom code, because there is a Fenix process running in Task Manager when you run the Fenix.

But for PMDG, when you fly the PMDG 737 in MSFS, no external code is run because there isn't a PMDG process running in Task Manager.  This would make sense though that PMDG isn't running any external code, because they plan to release their PMDG 737 on X-Box, and no external code on an external process can be run on X-Box. This would also explain why PMDG constantly complained about the MSFS SDK, because they relied heavily on the MSFS SDK (because PMDG wasn't running any external code).  Meanwhile, Fenix, who weren't really relying on the MSFS SDK as much but were running a lot of their custom code in their external Fenix process, rarely complained about the MSFS SDK.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but if other people are knowledgeable about this, maybe they can chyme in. 

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by abrams_tank

Just now, abrams_tank said:

I'm not 100% sure of this, but if other people are knowledgeable about this, maybe they can chyme in.

I never checked the task manager to look for any PMDG processes, but they do use external simulations outside of the simulator in P3D. As for MSFS, that's why I said they seem to have a way to create custom code to evade platform limitations that still run inside the simulator or at least aren't entirely disconnected from it so they can still sell it in the marketplace. Perhaps MSFS even natively allows for this type of solution without the need to go external unlike P3D/FSX. Fenix have to go partly external because of ProSim AFAIK.

14 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

From my understanding, PMDG isn't using any external, custom code, for their MSFS 737, right?  I know Fenix is using external custom code, because there is a Fenix process running in Task Manager when you run the Fenix.

But for PMDG, when you fly the PMDG 737 in MSFS, no external code is run because there isn't a PMDG process running in Task Manager.  This would make sense though that PMDG isn't running any external code, because they plan to release their PMDG 737 on X-Box, and no external code on an external process can be run on X-Box. This would also explain why PMDG constantly complained about the MSFS SDK, because they relied heavily on the MSFS SDK (because PMDG wasn't running any external code).  Meanwhile, Fenix, who weren't really relying on the MSFS SDK as much but were running a lot of their custom code in their external Fenix process, rarely complained about the MSFS SDK.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but if other people are knowledgeable about this, maybe they can chyme in. 

You have to differentiat between using external code and using custom code. External code means using an external application that feeds into the sim, like the Fenix. Custom code means you overwrite sim code with your own, but still inside the sim technically.
For the IFly example that means: On P3D PMDG had custom code for the ground friction and engine model, the IFLY used the P3D code instead for both. But both were not run externally, that's something else.

Correct me if I'm wrong.