Another lump of coal: PMDG Update [24DEC22]

[Gazzareth 808]

8 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I really fail to see how this strengthens your point of view. For me it makes a huge difference interacting with a well-designed EFB vs navigating the menus of the CDU. 

Funnily enough people don't need to strengthen their point of view, or for that matter their opinion.

I find absolutely no issue doing it through the CDU, performance calculator would be good to have, but not an essential item for me, V speeds from CDU is what I "need".

Can understand why people want it though, and PMDG do seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time over it. Certainly seems odd we're not even seeing previews..

 

G

[V1ROTA7E 718]

3 hours ago, jrw4 said:

Then we can argue about wing flex.

This made me chuckle. Even though you’re being facetious, you bring up an interesting point. 
 

Remember back in FSX and P3D when we complained about the “blockyness” of PMDG’s animations? The yoke, wings, windshield wipers, etc. What’d PMDG say? Basically ‘It is what it is, deal with it.’

What did the first round of updates consist of for the -700 in MSFS? Animations! Why though? They’ve got 20+ years of developing planes for flight sim…if they said ‘it is what it is’ we’d say ‘of course, you’re the bestest virtual plane makers in the world.’

Maybe, it’s possibly due to the sheer number of people that are using MSFS compared to FSX and P3D. These new folks don’t know them, and frankly, don’t care. The tide has turned. The customer is demanding innovation, which means our comments, and criticisms are literally changing PMDG’s workflow. We’ve never really seen this before. 
 

We don’t know what developers are silently working on other Boeing products, reading these comments, and creating a product that will not only sell, but demolish any competitor. 
 

I think part of the ‘PMDG can do no wrong’ attitude comes from having been a small, niche community, and potentially losing the only developer of these kinds of planes if we’re rude or seem ungrateful. And I think the ‘RSR is always wrong’ attitude comes as a kind of retaliation to the old ‘PMDG can do no wrong.’ Sort of, throwing a temper tantrum in the opposite direction. I have small kids, I see this type of behavior often 😂. 
 

Even though threads like these can seem whiny and incessant, they’re necessary. They quite literally guide the development of these products, and give real feedback to developers which allows for innovation. 

[threexgreen 3,142]

I don't see why some seem to think the EFB is being a priority over stuff that's actually needed to fly the plane. In several of the 737 updates were refinements to things like flight model, autoflight systems, now stall speeds have been refined among other things like AOA computations and the list goes on. LNAV has also received an update making it substantially more reliable. There's still room like for RF legs for example, but the tech stuff is being worked on just as much if not more than the EFB and two other aircraft are also being worked on at the same time. Plus the lengthy delay of the EFB would suggest it's not being bombarded with man power to overcome the obstacles RSR talks about at a speed the community would prefer.

I want an EFB a lot as I fly in VR but I don't believe it's coming at the expense of the stuff under the hood.

[Brocky120 64]

I want the EFB purely for ease of Simbrief integration, I don't want to be messing about dragging files for flight plans, and for that reason I rarely fly the 737, however I'm not going to moan about how long it's taking, although I will say it better be bloody good!

[Cpt_Piett 4,701]

1 hour ago, Nixoq said:

I don't see why some seem to think the EFB is being a priority over stuff that's actually needed to fly the plane.

I think partly the point is that Fenix and FBW has managed to have both an EFB as well as stuff needed to fly the plane. It shouldn’t have to be an either/or thing.

[mspencer 432]

6 hours ago, bendead said:

I agree that the function are the same, But the EFB is so much better to use.

You get a neat interface and the flow is better, if you want to remove the FLS functionality and close the main door of the plane for exemple, on the Fenix it's a couple of clicks, on the 737 you need to navigate through dozens of pages and menu to do something similar. The DC-6 would be less fun to fly, if the EFB was a text based CDU interface.

I used to fly on FSX and had no issue with the absence of an EFB. But FBW and Fenix spoiled us and now getting a liner without it, feels like a big step backward.

 

Agree 100%

Go do 5 flights in the Fenix A320, and then go back to the CDU preflight in the 737 to load the fuel and the pax, and it's lacking.

None of this happens in a vacuum either - PMDG has had significant innovation pressure on them, I would say most notably by FSLabs, who have produced an incredibly friendly load/fuel interface that feels like flying the line. 

First it seemed like GFO was PMDG's answer, now I don't know if they even have an answer or feel like it's necessary.

[Stearmandriver 2,304]

9 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Its Almost 2023 No airliner (credible) flies without it anymore.

There are a lot of airliners in the world - a LOT - that fly without tablets in the cockpit.  Using paper charts.  Every day.  Shocking, I know... But true.  There's a reason Jeppesen is still a large printing business.  😉

I agree that since PMDG said the EFB was coming, it should come eventually.  But they also said that Airinc-424 support was coming.  They also said working runway outlines in AIII was coming.  Prioritizing what is simply an alternate way to view data and click menus over actual functionality is what doesn't make sense to me.

Now, are the same resources actually needing to choose between these various issues to work on?  That's a good question.  The latest update does indeed make it sound that way to me, with Rob stating that progress on the tablet and -900 was slowed because resources needed to be re-allocated to work on how the aircraft interacts with sim weather (which does feel pretty nice, now.). 

 

[kdfw__ 542]

another whining about pmdg christmas classic.  happy holidays.

[DD_Arthur 1,062]

14 minutes ago, mspencer said:

None of this happens in a vacuum either - PMDG has had significant innovation pressure on them, I would say most notably by FSLabs, who have produced an incredibly friendly load/fuel interface that feels like flying the line. 

Under significant pressure? From FSL?
Interesting perspective.  

[mspencer 432]

1 minute ago, DD_Arthur said:

Under significant pressure? From FSL?
Interesting perspective.  

Well, they should have been, because the FSLabs offerings felt like a superior experience to PMDG every time. Airplane felt more alive.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they probably didn't view it as a pressure though. There's no question in my mind that FSL has been significantly more innovative in the last five years than PMDG.

[Cognita 1,089]

7 minutes ago, mspencer said:

now I don't know if they even have an answer or feel like it's necessary

The impression I get, whether it is what PMDG intends or not, is that they don't feel it is particularly necessary. When I stop and think about it I am not convinced that is actually true, but it is the message I get from their communication and actions.

 

4 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

There are a lot of airliners in the world - a LOT - that fly without tablets in the cockpit.

I think everyone agrees with this statement. What is being said is that the work of managing payload, dispatch, and interaction with the aircraft could be made much easier, more intuitive -- more modern, dare I say -- that what PMDG has provided, and many of us would very much appreciate a better-designed interface and are disappointed in the length of time it has taken since we purchased the aircraft in the spring.

 

6 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Now, are the same resources actually needing to choose between these various issues to work on? 

This is the crux of the matter. As I said earlier, I think PMDG is a relatively small core team, the stack developers that really have their mind around the whole development process, not the contract model makers, painters and testers. And here I sympathize with them as developing a relatively complex piece of software on an active platform that is itself going through significant development is really not easy. So I understand the shifting priorities and delays and I think Robert in that last post was, in his own way, trying to help us understand this and to ask us to be patient. On the one hand, I think that is a good approach, particularly given how much PMDG has contributed to this hobby over time. I know I appreciate their presence in our hobby and I do not feel any desire to be overly critical. On the other hand, I tend to think sacrificing some profit and bringing on some additional staff to enable them to innovate and actually bring out the features they say they are working on may in fact pay off for them in the medium to long run.

 

 

[DD_Arthur 1,062]

4 minutes ago, mspencer said:

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they probably didn't view it as a pressure though. 

I don’t suppose they did either.

 I wonder when FSL will ‘innovate’ their way into MSFS?

[Cpt_Piett 4,701]

27 minutes ago, mspencer said:

None of this happens in a vacuum either - PMDG has had significant innovation pressure on them, I would say most notably by FSLabs, who have produced an incredibly friendly load/fuel interface that feels like flying the line. 

Are you referring to their Concorde which is apparently coming to MSFS? Or perhaps competition within the P3D market?

[Cognita 1,089]

28 minutes ago, mspencer said:

First it seemed like GFO was PMDG's answer,

I am pretty sure this is dead, at least from the short to medium term. They might return and revive it but there has been no discussion GFO -- which was an overly ambitious project -- for years. Given how much they have on their plate, I just do not see it in the near to medium future.

[Ricardo41 5,955]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I think partly the point is that Fenix and FBW has managed to have both an EFB as well as stuff needed to fly the plane. It shouldn’t have to be an either/or thing.

The free A310 from inibuilds delivers on both counts. In the beginning it'll take you a long time to get through the many checklists, program the flight management system, etc. The textures are also great inside and out. 

Oh, and you can actually open the cockpit door.