On 6/18/2023 at 8:35 PM, Bob Scott said:

About 18 months ago I decided not to keep waiting for some of my favorite aircraft on my preferred platform (P3D v4/v5)...I waited for years for a decent 767, 747-200, 727, MD-11, A300, A340 and medium modern business jet to materialize in P3D, and I finally gave up and started looking around.  I found nice options existed for all of those in XPlane.  If I want a plane with a well-developed Garmin 3000/5000 glass panel, I can go fly one of the WT-enhanced birds in MSFS.

Same thing for scenery--if I want to fly in Alaska, P3D with Orbx enhancements beats MSFS with its patches of fluorescent lime-green terrain where it's apparently trying to render snow and grass simultaneously.  If I want to fly into a smaller airport for which there is no decent commercial add-on scenery, it depends on if it's covered by one of hundreds of vetted add-ons in the XP scenery gateway or if there's an enhanced airport out there for MSFS.  If I want to do VFR pilotage via ground references, it's MSFS.

Same x 2 for seasons and weather--if I want to fly with historical weather or with visibility set to near minimums, it has to be P3D or XPlane with ActiveSky.  Same-o if I want to fly a snowy winter leg in April or see fall foliage on a flight during autumn.

And then there's flight profiles--I can condense a long international flight to a couple hours in P3D by leaping ahead, whereas it's very difficult (impossible in some acft) to teleport ahead in XP.  It's also possible in MSFS, but extremely limited by lack of high-fidelity heavy aircraft options.  If I want to fly cargo with appropriate loading and ground-handling, it's P3D aided by GSX. 

So I pick and choose between platforms depending on what I'm trying to accomplish on a particular leg.  None of the platforms together with their associated ecosystems answers the mail on everything, so I use whichever is the best fit today instead of pining away for options that do not (and may never) exist.

I'm with you on this and have already b3gan the process. It sucks because, I know an A340 on MSFS would be stupendous. Really I would die and go to heaven lol. But at the rate of which heavy airliners are being developed, not to mention some of the odd, niche choices such as th3 A300/A310 by multiple devs at the sane time...it is looking less and less likely that we would ever get some of these wonderful modern classics. 

 

Oh well, X-Plane 12, here I come.

On 6/18/2023 at 9:34 PM, Nuno Pinto said:

Why on earth would this even be an argument? People like what people like. I would much rather see an A340 than an A350 or a 787, boring new planes.

OMG, you exist. Another decent, non bitter, non-kill joy, helpful person on this forum actually exists. Could hug you dude haha

 

Yes. I fully agree. I have read posts where people have a strong affinity for certain aircraft that I personally do not like and never have I been tempted to shoot it down by saying it "should not" be developed and that it would be a waste of time.

 

And these dudes contradict themselves by claiming "it no longer flies" or that "it was a failure" (A340s are still in the air in small numbers actually) when some of the planes that they request and yearn for are literal, vintage aircraft that are so niche, the likelihood a dev could even break even would be next to non given how small the customer base for these planes would be.

 

Much rather a quad jet than a twin 787 or a350...although, I really wouldn't mind either. I can't discriminate, they're all beautiful and needed within the sim imho🫡

Edited June 24, 20232 yr by Coolieboy

On 6/19/2023 at 4:31 AM, CapnOz said:

A340 is pretty boring indeed. Set it and 11 hours come back and fly the last two minutes. Personally, a A350 is going to be the same, but at least we have the latest technology to play around with. Not to mention the larger diplays that display ALOT more useful info than the A340 ever could

Whaaaat? Do you wanna read what you wrote again?

 

Let me get this straight...

 

-A340 is boring to you bcus you set it to fly a LH route to come back and land in its final 30minutes?

-but you then go on to speak about having an A350 due to the latest technological advancement (basically and updated flightdeck)?

 

Oh boy...

 

Why are you even messaging on a topic you have no interests in then? How many negative, bitter people are there on here? I don't understand you...if YOU don't like LH planes...why are you telling others they should not have it in the same sim or that YOU think LH simulation is boring because the tech is older than the latest airbus heavies?

 

By you own very logic, we should not have the A320s then since they share the same tech as the A340s. By your own logic, The only aircraft the sim should have are 737 and A320NEOs.

 

This is exactly why newcomers do not bother contributing on here. The toxicity is too much. Please find a thread to contribute in a positive manner rather than contradicting yourself on one you have little to no interest on. 

The A340 is actually a benchmark, it never killed anybody during its operations. Not yet, let's hope it stays that way while it still flies.

On 6/19/2023 at 8:09 AM, Christopher Low said:

Developing an accurate simulation of the A340 family may not be all that profitable, but that is not really the issue here. For a large number of flight simmers, whether or not the plane was a massive hit in the real world/ceased production a decade ago/has modern FBW technology/large screens etc is irrelevant. There is a market for classic airliners, so I am betting that there is a market for the A340. Of course, how large that market is is open to speculation, but the world of flight simulation would be rather boring to a lot of people if payware and freeware developers restricted themselves to current real world operations only.

Another person with human adult levels of common sense and courtesy. Thank you for your post man, much appreciated. 

 

I agree. We don't know how big the market would be, however it would be pretty boring if the only heavy jets in sim would be the 777. Or 777 and 747 from PMDG, whenever that may be. 

 

So grateful towards FBW and I am over the moon that they have the guts to do what other devs refused to do for so long with the A380 and it will be pure perfection, I'm sure. But if there is a large market for the A333 RR variant and the A339...then there is no doubt, the many aviation needs like me who miss the quads will support an A340 project. There are FOUR of the darn things and all have their own unique characteristics.

 

Lufthansa still flies a handful of theirs both on LH and SH routes but as you mentioned, this silly argument the killjoys love to regurgitate that about it not being as successful or it not flying any longer etc etc etc is absurd and a whole hypocrisy when you ask them which planes THEY are passionate about.

 

On 6/21/2023 at 6:56 PM, kingm56 said:

The viewpoint is predicated on explicit comments made by SEVERAL developers; for example, PMDG stated they lost money developing and selling the renowned MD-11.   They unequivocally stated simmers are less apt to purchase aircraft they cannot see at thier home airports, which is why they explicitly chose not to port the MD11 to P3D.  Also, you have no idea how well the aircraft you listed are selling...that's pure speculation on your end.  If the DC-6 was a commercial success, why doesn't PMDG develop other aircraft from the same era?  Instead, they seem fixated on developing commercially successful modern aircraft.  The same is true for Aerosoft and Fenix.  For the former two, they've been in this business for multiple decades and have copious amounts of market data.  Obviously, they're going to chose to develop aircraft to achieve the highest profit margins.  So, while the DC-6 may have sold well, there's no way it approached the PMDG 737 profit margins.  I suspect the same is true for the BAe146 relative to the Fenix A320. Ditto FSL A320 vs Concord. 

Clearly there is no profit associated with flying simulated aircraft; what's odd is that you came to that conclusion...how bizarre.  Profit, in this context, is clearly related to the topic and refers to the developers ability to model, market and sell thier aircraft to simmers; in that regard, the A320 and A350 are likely to be more profitable than the A340, based on explicit comments from PMDG, Aerosoft, etc.  To my point, it's not about 'selling well', it's about profit margins.   History has shown simulating a modern, commercially successful aircraft is going to outsell an aircraft that's considered a commercial failure, which is why the industry giants focus on the former.   

1. You ate NOT the devs. I cannot stand people on avsim and pmdg forums who continue to talk as though they have an ounce of insight and authority. Please...stop.

 

2. Your standpoint is biased based on an inaccurate interpretation of what some of these devs said.

 

3. An MD11......is in no way shape or form, nor even remotely close to an entire four member family of quad powered flying pencils. Unlike the MD11, we actually saw A340s flying through the skies above us several times a day. They were extremely common. Unlike the MD11. People are less familiar with the MD11 which is basically a stretched DC10. The flightdeck is different also and would take more effort to learn.

 

Iz personally would LOVE an MD11 but it is near the bottom of mine and many people's wishlist while the A340s were direct competitors of the 777. Oil prices is what sent the A340s and 747s to an early grave. Had the industry not been affected by high oil prices, they would be as popular if not more popular than twin jets due to safety and other reasons which I don't care to elaborate on.

 

So you are simply making excuses for other not to have their favourite quad jets despite being someone who has owned the PMDG 747 in the past. They too fall into your own argument. And as others (thank goodness) have said, just because a plane is not longer flying, it doesn't mean we no longer want it. In fact, quite the contrary. We want them even more since we can no longer see and gear them in the skies.

 

I don't mean to appear rude but please stop posting on topics you have no interest in. You clearly do not like the A340s which is okay. But be nice and stop shooting down the demand from others for these aircraft. Please and thanks.

On 6/21/2023 at 7:35 PM, anden145 said:

You do realise, that someone would need to make money of off such an addon, right? Hence profit. While I can understand, that some niche planes would be developed, any company undertaking developing an addon, would have to assess whether or not is financially viable - or even makes sense. Is there a real market for it, which deems it profitable in the end. When it comes to addon developing, this issue is more than "a simulation". 

The A340 is NOT..I repeat...it is NOT a "niche" aircraft!

 

Is the 777 niche? No.

Is the A380 "niche" NO. 

Is the 757 and 767 niche? NO.

 

There are four A340 variants also.

There were only 3 quad jets for the past 20 years. Have you any idea how many people love and prefer them over twin jets?

 

They all share similarities with the A340. Not many are still in operation. 

 

If PMDGs DC6 is "niche" yet there was still a decent sized market for it, then your argument is null and you need to acknowledge this so we can move on with or without your support.

 

And I will have you know...a niche L1101 classic heavy tri-jet would be much welcomed. All it takes is a little bit of common sense. That's all. Just a little.

On 6/22/2023 at 10:04 AM, fluffyflops said:

couldnt agree more.

Then this post was not for you. Please find ones you like and support to add positive contributions to. This thread is for those in support of having A340s. Imagine how toxic the forum would be if everyone chose topics about planes they don't like to comment that they don't want them to be developed. What an odd thing for one to do.

On 6/19/2023 at 9:18 AM, C2615 said:

We don't even have a nice A330 to start with... which is more popular IRL....

Rather the Toliss A346 is the best widebody FBW bus we have for now.

I don't know, but I'm somehow quite like A340 for no reason, especially -300

BlackBox widebody is somewhat...flyable? NO, DON'T BUY IT. I bought it knowing it's not been update for ages and think at least it work as it is and should be at least better than old Wilco bus V2 in FS9? No it can't be flare manually.....

I came (back) to XP few years ago because the FF350, and then it opens the door for 727,732,742, A306, MD11 and A340 etc.....a good win for me, and I have no problem switch between P3D and XP daily. I didn't even try to match the keyboard config

I am referring to MSFS not X-Plane my friend.

 

The A330 is only more popular due to oil prices. As customers and passengers, with oil not being an issue, I assure you commercial aviation lovers prefer the A340s over the A330s.

 

This is not the airline industry. This is the simulator community and we should all be entitled to purchase our favourite planes.

1 hour ago, Coolieboy said:

1. I am already making that transition as I've just bought a new SSD and will delve into it before the month is over.

 

Well that is good to know and let us know in the other forum if you have any question on any resources that make you transitions smooth. But please, take your time get to know the sim before you dive in too deep. There is some excellent resources that will help you get familiar with the sim. 

 

1 hour ago, Coolieboy said:

2. I am beginning to think certain devs make anonymous accounts just to shoot down the A340 idea. You don't have any other input that may be helpful? Nothing? Just...that I should go if I don't have it in MSFS? 

I never understood the mindset of some users who will say things like "we don't need a A340 that doesn't sell well irl" or "we don't need papi lights and ILS" as recently as yesterday" (even if its was a joke) will send a message to more users who are those hard core  simmers  that will drive them away from MSFS and more toward where they feel that passion of flight is taken more seriously.

 

1 hour ago, Coolieboy said:

Ofc I prefer the graphics within MSFD and all I am saying is that we have never had a proper A340...your only contribu is, well...go to X Plane then?

A lot of a folks prefer MSFS for its graphic but have the desires of wanting the best flying experience and are not finding it when it comes to specific aircrafts while they have handcuff themselves to the sim. All I am saying is why wait to see and wish for something to come true. While you're hopes of fixes will come in the order of having to buy a new sim and wait again for another year when there are alternatives that are available?   As I said before, you have to determined what is important to you.

I may seem blunt about it, but I have made that determination to get off the merry go round along time ago when I didn't see things going in the direction that satisfy me.  I don't come with nine live to wait for some "gee wezz", "oooh and ahhh" announcements that may disappointment me or have me hoping and wish for something that is low on the totem poll of priority because  it does fit some gamers and casual user interest or a business case. 

I went where I think the development of aircrafts from those developers who like to build their aircraft out of passion and show it in the results in their work more so in X Plane and that is what I suggest. 

Edited June 24, 20232 yr by BobFS88

I have no interest in modern airliners, but I'd never say a developer shouldn't "waste resources" making an aircraft I wasn't interested in.  I'm *glad* PMDG caters to that community very well.

I prefer pistons, propellers, analog gauges, no autopilot and no GPS. I navigate mostly by some form of dead reckoning (especially over long ocean flights), occasionally VOR and NDB (very useful after that long ocean flight!).

Some people prefer to program a Flight Management System, go to autopilot early in the flight and set the sim to pause on top of descent.  Set-it-and-forget-it then go out to dinner and a movie.  I have no problem with that, but I'm in a flight sim because I want to FLY, not operate a flying computer.  And I'm *still* glad PMDG and others make modern airliners. 🙂

I hope someone eventually makes your 340 for MSFS, and given the size of the market, someone probably will.  Remember that some developers make aircraft purely as a labor of love rather than for the sole purpose of making money, so profit may not be the major motive.  And thank goodness for that.

Hook

 

On 6/19/2023 at 2:09 AM, Nuno Pinto said:

You wrote the exact same thing i wrote. To each his own, thus arguments like this are useless.

I didnt intend it to be an argument. just adding my two cents. I dont see how that is useless on a public forum such as this.

11 hours ago, BobFS88 said:

Well that is good to know and let us know in the other forum if you have any question on any resources that make you transitions smooth. But please, take your time get to know the sim before you dive in too deep. There is some excellent resources that will help you get familiar with the sim. 

 

I never understood the mindset of some users who will say things like "we don't need a A340 that doesn't sell well irl" or "we don't need papi lights and ILS" as recently as yesterday" (even if its was a joke) will send a message to more users who are those hard core  simmers  that will drive them away from MSFS and more toward where they feel that passion of flight is taken more seriously.

 

A lot of a folks prefer MSFS for its graphic but have the desires of wanting the best flying experience and are not finding it when it comes to specific aircrafts while they have handcuff themselves to the sim. All I am saying is why wait to see and wish for something to come true. While you're hopes of fixes will come in the order of having to buy a new sim and wait again for another year when there are alternatives that are available?   As I said before, you have to determined what is important to you.

I may seem blunt about it, but I have made that determination to get off the merry go round along time ago when I didn't see things going in the direction that satisfy me.  I don't come with nine live to wait for some "gee wezz", "oooh and ahhh" announcements that may disappointment me or have me hoping and wish for something that is low on the totem poll of priority because  it does fit some gamers and casual user interest or a business case. 

I went where I think the development of aircrafts from those developers who like to build their aircraft out of passion and show it in the results in their work more so in X Plane and that is what I suggest. 

Haha I totally with you and yes I will let you know. I dont understand them neither brother but I'll tell you one thing. I am very grateful that true, passionate and kind-natured, informative simmers like yourself still exist on these platforms to welcome more fellow aviation loves into the community!

17 hours ago, Coolieboy said:

1. You ate NOT the devs. I cannot stand people on avsim and pmdg forums who continue to talk as though they have an ounce of insight and authority. Please...stop.

 

2. Your standpoint is biased based on an inaccurate interpretation of what some of these devs said.

 

3. An MD11......is in no way shape or form, nor even remotely close to an entire four member family of quad powered flying pencils. Unlike the MD11, we actually saw A340s flying through the skies above us several times a day. They were extremely common. Unlike the MD11. People are less familiar with the MD11 which is basically a stretched DC10. The flightdeck is different also and would take more effort to learn.

 

Iz personally would LOVE an MD11 but it is near the bottom of mine and many people's wishlist while the A340s were direct competitors of the 777. Oil prices is what sent the A340s and 747s to an early grave. Had the industry not been affected by high oil prices, they would be as popular if not more popular than twin jets due to safety and other reasons which I don't care to elaborate on.

 

So you are simply making excuses for other not to have their favourite quad jets despite being someone who has owned the PMDG 747 in the past. They too fall into your own argument. And as others (thank goodness) have said, just because a plane is not longer flying, it doesn't mean we no longer want it. In fact, quite the contrary. We want them even more since we can no longer see and gear them in the skies.

 

I don't mean to appear rude but please stop posting on topics you have no interest in. You clearly do not like the A340s which is okay. But be nice and stop shooting down the demand from others for these aircraft. Please and thanks.

You made assumptions that are inaccurate. I am a developer and my market data supports PMDGs, aerosofts, etc comments. Everything I stated is factually accurate.  

Why are you so overly emotional on this subject?  The emotion is not necessary as the large companies (eg PMDG, Aerosoft, etc) are unlikely to develop an eight 340 based on previous stated comments. However, a smaller company could develop the  340 to catch 100% of that market as there’s no competition. Additionally, a freeware developer could choose to mimic the A340. Thus, any discussion within this thread is not going to alter the trajectory of said developers. In short, our discussion will not determine whether or not they develop an A340.  Therefore, there’s no need to stifle the discussion. 

Edited June 25, 20232 yr by kingm56

18 hours ago, kingm56 said:

You made assumptions that are inaccurate. I am a developer and my market data supports PMDGs, aerosofts, etc comments. Everything I stated is factually accurate. 

Why are you so overly emotional on this subject?  The emotion is not necessary as the large companies (eg PMDG, Aerosoft, etc) are unlikely to develop an eight 340 based on previous stated comments. 

The emotion is frustration. If I'm not correct, I am a human being just like you. While I may admittedly not be the most stoic man alive, I am sure you have had your moments of frustration which you were well in your right to express while still remaining civil and respectful enough. I did not throw insults nor have I berated anyone.

 

That aside. I will in no way shape or form pretend to be anything else within the world of flight simming other than a fellow, super-passionate simmer.

 

My frustration comes from the most popular airliners, having never been developed in FSX and then P3D. I waited 3 years before I bought a brand new, high-end FS rig, in order to maximise my experience within MSFS and practice for my pursuit of my Commercial Pilots Licence in 3-6 years time. I assumed...at least ONE, LH, HEAVY (not a private BBJ) would have been completed and ready for purchase by now. The only two developers giving regular and realistic, transparent update are FBW and Bluebird Simulations. Everyone else are very discreet and cryptic.

 

I don't think I am being unreasonable being frustrated that no one has announced an A340. Nor do I think I am being over-emotional when the usual killjoys go onto posts regarding a/c they are not interested in, go out of their way to try and shoot-down the idea of one of the most popular heavy airliner, which was the staple in many, many airlines over the past 30 years, saying it should "not have resources wasted" on it.

 

When you type in on Google, "wishlist MSFS", the A340 comes up a lot. Know what does NOT come up? A300s. A330s are barely mentioned and as for the NEO variant...

 

So pardon my frustration and please, I don't intend to offend anyone. I just want to represent the vast majority of simmers who do not bother making FS forum accounts that are all eagerly anticipating the planes we ACTUALLYz desperately need and have been asking for.

That's all my friend.

Edited June 26, 20232 yr by Coolieboy
Grammer/trimming down quote