45 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

They're the kings of Boeings because there is no one else, no matter the quality.

Working title? 

Their LNAV in the 78 is now more realistic than PMDGs 737. If PMDG  don’t improve it for the 777 (which is what started all the hoo ha on the PMDG forum) it will also be more realistic than that. WT have done what PMDG haven’t managed to do in 8 years. Produce a decent LNAV. 
 

I find operating the WT 78 a more realistic experience operationally on the line than any PMDG at the moment. Although the PMDGs do have more switches that work etc, if that’s what’s most important to you. 

It  all depends which aspects of the aircraft you want to be replicated in the most detail. Personally I’m not bothered about CBs and cabins or fire extinguishers or no smoking signs etc, I’m more into replicating approaches I do at work and in the work sim and that’s all about the LNAV and VNAV and how the AFDS works etc. 

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by g-liner

The cockpit of my PMDG 737-600 looks wonderful, with really crisp and clear textures. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to why PMDG would think that reducing the quality of the textures for the 777 cockpit would in any way be a bright idea? The answer of course is that they would not.

I think that entire exchange with RSR and Marc went south when Marc called the lack of a feature "embarrassing." If you don't like the company or the products they make then move on. No need to be a troll. 

16 minutes ago, RobJC said:

I think that entire exchange with RSR and Marc went south when Marc called the lack of a feature "embarrassing." If you don't like the company or the products they make then move on. No need to be a troll. 

I’m not sure I’d call LNAV functionality a ‘feature’ for a company that markets their add-ons in the way they do….

Literally entire simulators have been built since the LNAV issues were first raised. 

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by 2reds2whites

48 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

I’m not sure I’d call LNAV functionality a ‘feature’ for a company that markets their add-ons in the way they do….

Literally entire simulators have been built since the LNAV issues were first raised. 

And I believe there is a good reason for it not being fixed. Priorities, resources, technical issues, etc. And with everything they are working on calling this issue embarrassing is just an unnecessary slam imo. 

I think it's all a storm in a tea cup if I'm honest. What are we now, 10 pages into this and we're still going around the ring road?

Although I agree the response to the comment was probably uncalled for I can also see the merit in the "embarrassing" comment considering a "lesser" team have no problem implementing this LNAV feature when the one with reputation not only can't but have failed to communicate why they can't, after promising it. It's important to be humble and courteous when using online forums and sometimes you need thick skin but sometimes people have a bad day, it's not the end of the world.

It seems far too easy for people to lose sight of the incredible access and quality we all have in flight sim these days. People complaining about textures in screenshots and whether or not a certain version will be released first or not. It all makes me scratch my head.

I can't wait for this 777 by the way, if I have to wait for the preferred 300ER then so be it. I'm entirely appreciative to any team that busts their behind, through payware or freeware, to enhance my experience. My mind is blown every time I jump in the cockpit, it never gets old.

FWIW Robert responded to some subsequent posts on their thread.. I'm gonna skip the ones related to the back & forth between him and the guy who called the issue "embarrassing", but on the specific topic of RF legs:

https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/281875-27jan24-we-have-been-busy-and-travelling-but-we-are-hard-at-work?p=282403#post282403
"Wotjek- You are correct here with respect to the importance of RF legs and the value in their implementation. There has been a lengthy presentation made here (numerous times, actually) describing that they will appear with our conversion of all of the MSFS products to Navigraphs modern data format. Like most things- I won't put an ETA on such a sub-project because it isn't simply a matter of drop-in code and release. There is a TON of testing that has to be finished in the back end to be sure we don't break the user experience outright. This *should* have happened back in 2014- but for reasons outlined in many of the previous presentations- this sub project gets bumped over and over- until recently. When we feel it is working as it should- we'll roll it right into the live production- just like we do with other major changes. 🙂 - RSR"
 

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by lwt1971

2 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

I’m not sure I’d call LNAV functionality a ‘feature’ for a company that markets their add-ons in the way they do….

Literally entire simulators have been built since the LNAV issues were first raised. 

Quite. They constantly bang on about high fidelity and people like Working title have managed a realistic lnav logic in the last year  which PMDG have been promising for 8 years and are now trying to dismiss as a ‘sub project’ 

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

And I believe there is a good reason for it not being fixed. Priorities, resources, technical issues, etc. And with everything they are working on calling this issue embarrassing is just an unnecessary slam imo. 

I think it is embarrassing for them and that’s why RSR is getting so salty when people are now constantly calling him out over their lack of progress. PMDG used to be great but they haven’t innovated for years now. It’s just the same old aircraft with the same faults and missing features being passed on to each new sim. Great for them if people don’t realise these things are missing and keep buying their aircraft but it seems to be causing them more and more issues as time goes on. 
 

33 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

FWIW Robert's responded to some subsequent posts on their thread.. I'm gonna skip the ones related to the back & forth between him and the guy who called the issue "embarrassing", but on the specific topic of RF legs:

https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/281875-27jan24-we-have-been-busy-and-travelling-but-we-are-hard-at-work?p=282403#post282403
"Wotjek- You are correct here with respect to the importance of RF legs and the value in their implementation. There has been a lengthy presentation made here (numerous times, actually) describing that they will appear with our conversion of all of the MSFS products to Navigraphs modern data format. Like most things- I won't put an ETA on such a sub-project because it isn't simply a matter of drop-in code and release. There is a TON of testing that has to be finished in the back end to be sure we don't break the user experience outright. This *should* have happened back in 2014- but for reasons outlined in many of the previous presentations- this sub project gets bumped over and over- until recently. When we feel it is working as it should- we'll roll it right into the live production- just like we do with other major changes. 🙂 - RSR"
 

Thanks for this comment from Randazzo!

Anyways, I already mentioned this in a previous comment, but from a business standpoint, PMDG can make more money by focusing on releasing the 777 and 737-Max first, before fixing the RF legs and doing a better version of LNAV.  And PMDG is in a race against iFly to release the 737-Max. So this comment from Randazzo pretty much confirms what I suspected, that he is not going to prioritize RF legs or the enhanced LNAV in the near term. Obviously, this RF legs issue has been something that PMDG wanted to fix 10 years ago, but they are still "dragging their feet." Having said that, If I ran PMDG, I wouldn't prioritize RF legs either, knowing that whoever releases the 737-Max first, stands to make a nice sum of money. And it is a business after all, and Randazzo has to pay his employees. Furthermore, my understanding is that Randazzo hired more developers and more employees at PMDG over the last year or two years.  So if Randazzo wants to pay the salaries of these new employees, his best course of action is to get the 777 and 737-Max out the door, and preferably beat iFly with the 737-Max.

From a business standpoint, fixing the RF legs and doing a better LNAV version would bring in very little revenue. Releasing the 777 and 737-Max will bring in a lot of revenue.

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by abrams_tank

28 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Thanks for this comment from Randazzo!

Anyways, I already mentioned this in a previous comment, but from a business standpoint, PMDG can make more money by focusing on releasing the 777 and 737-Max first, before fixing the RF legs and doing a better version of LNAV.  And PMDG is in a race against iFly to release the 737-Max. So this comment from Randazzo pretty much confirms what I suspected, that he is not going to prioritize RF legs or the enhanced LNAV in the near term. Obviously, this RF legs issue has been something that PMDG wanted to fix 10 years ago, but they are still "dragging their feet." Having said that, If I ran PMDG, I wouldn't prioritize RF legs either, knowing that whoever releases the 737-Max first, stands to make a nice sum of money. And it is a business after all, and Randazzo has to pay his employees. Furthermore, my understanding is that Randazzo hired more developers and more employees at PMDG over the last year or two years.  So if Randazzo wants to pay the salaries of these new employees, his best course of action is to get the 777 and 737-Max out the door, and preferably beat iFly with the 737-Max.

From a business standpoint, fixing the RF legs and doing a better LNAV version would bring in very little revenue. Releasing the 777 and 737-Max will bring in a lot of revenue.

Think of it this way though. If you don't fix LNAV, RF legs etc at some point he is going to lose money and who knows eventually not able to pay his employees because its proven people have had enough of PMDG not being up to par so to speak. 

Just to prove another lie from RSR which RSR comment is not showing.

 

"No Robert, I do not have a direct line to you. If I tag you, if I write in the GFO-Forum or PM you you ignore it. There is no direct line, it‘s another slap to pretend there was any. I‘m not an aircraft tester, I never was, I‘m a paying customer with the same technical and personal situation as everyone else here. And with the same promises from your side that you haven‘t bothered to keep for many years. I‘ve been constructive and factual for years, you should know that I don‘t attack you personally but you have to accept that we customers have become a little impatient with certain things. It can‘t be that we get insulted if we bring it up. You threatened me to delete my forum account and told me off to get another hobby. I can really take a lot and if I had actually trolled here, made things up or whatever I would probably have swallowed it. But I replied to Andrew that I would make the 777 for me dependant basically on whether we finally get an important quality feature that has already been promised way before the 777 for 64 bit came out and that was enough for you to come at me like that. I won‘t ever remain silent in that situation, that was simply not okay, there are limits. And it‘s not okay either to pretend in front of others there were direct ways to talk to you about whatever I have on my oh so broken heart. You actually attempt to make me look stupid here. In that case you‘d better just delete me, block me etc. because I will correct that picture! I have pointed out a LOT of things regarding 737 and DC6, partially directly quoting or tagging you and obviously that was not a direct line. Obviously I was the same ignored customer complainant. For me that‘s always been okay, I never saw myself as anything different because of that GFO beta access. There are no differences. And I have received several messages, also from your aircraft beta team, who can‘t understand why you react that way and who agree with me. Again, I have never intended to attack you. But please understand that people will continue to „remind“ you of your many promises. For me that‘s it here.

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by carlanthony24

1 hour ago, g-liner said:

I think it is embarrassing for them and that’s why RSR is getting so salty when people are now constantly calling him out over their lack of progress. PMDG used to be great but they haven’t innovated for years now. It’s just the same old aircraft with the same faults and missing features being passed on to each new sim. Great for them if people don’t realise these things are missing and keep buying their aircraft but it seems to be causing them more and more issues as time goes on. 
 

So I take it you aren't buying any of their products? And if that is the case, why complain here about it?

17 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Just to prove another lie from RSR which his comment is now not showing. 

His comment is showing. You have to hit the arrow to expand it as it only shows 2-4. Not sure if that was deliberate. 

24 minutes ago, Wise87 said:

His comment is showing. You have to hit the arrow to expand it as it only shows 2-4. Not sure if that was deliberate. 

So it is sorry did not see that but still stands