PMDG 777 MSFS FIRST LOOK

[Bobsk8 12,754]

5 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

And most are getting a more than decent long hauler with a bunch of new stuff everyone wanted PMDG to finally implement. Which still begs the question of what the exact criticism even is, or why there is criticism in the first place.

FWIW, I just had a scroll through the Reddit posts regarding the preview which I did not see before. I did not find a single comment that pointed out something that's objectively bad in the preview or Q&A. It's just the usual, generic posts you've seen for years, and some complaints about other things like the video editing.

With the exception of work in progress panel textures, it seems no one really knows what the criticism even is. If you then consider that there's virtually no response to RF legs/navata, CPDLC, GSX integration, etc. finally being added after years of passionate demand for these, it appears many aren't even all that interested, and just seem to have made a habit out of complaining about some flight sim addon developer.

I'm saying this because considering the list of good news that came out of this the repsonse doesn't seem to fit at all, and I was unsure at some point if I missed something. Personally, I'm looking forward to a 777 with a lot of new stuff I didn't expected would come, and a MAX in the next few months too. No idea what I'm supposed to be unhappy about right now.

It's just the usual Avsim PMDG bashing, rearing it's ugly head. 

[Christopher Low 5,359]

To be honest, a bunch of simmers whinged about the quality of the 777 VC textures in P3D. I never worked out what they were talking about, unless it was because they were expecting 32K resolution on the cinema screen size monitors that they were using. Sometimes, it's best to stick to more sensible options

[rmeier 473]

8 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

To be honest, a bunch of simmers whinged about the quality of the 777 VC textures in P3D.

I suspect you meant to say "whined"?

Just curious...if you flew both the PMDG 747 and the PMDG 777 in P3D, did you notice a difference in the quality of the textures between the two cockpits?

[Christopher Low 5,359]

I did not notice much difference in the quality of the textures between the two. There may have been, but it is not something that was glaringly obvious to me.

[carlanthony24 576]

29 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

And most are getting a more than decent long hauler with a bunch of new stuff everyone wanted PMDG to finally implement. Which still begs the question of what the exact criticism even is, or why there is criticism in the first place.

FWIW, I just had a scroll through the Reddit posts regarding the preview which I did not see before. I did not find a single comment that pointed out something that's objectively bad in the preview or Q&A. It's just the usual, generic posts you've seen for years, and some complaints about other things like the video editing.

With the exception of work in progress panel textures, it seems no one really knows what the criticism even is. If you then consider that there's virtually no response to RF legs/navata, CPDLC, GSX integration, etc. finally being added after years of passionate demand for these, it appears many aren't even all that interested, and just seem to have made a habit out of complaining about some flight sim addon developer.

I'm saying this because considering the list of good news that came out of this the repsonse doesn't seem to fit at all, and I was unsure at some point if I missed something. Personally, I'm looking forward to a 777 with a lot of new stuff I didn't expected would come, and a MAX in the next few months too. No idea what I'm supposed to be unhappy about right now.

I think you maybe missing the point. The trailer people were saying its was not good, the textures looked like the same from P3D. Exactly the things people have been saying elsewhere. Give us a trailer of the new things that are implemented, a closer look at the EFB that they have updated would of been good, like I said they could of shown all this and not a trailer of the plane pushing back then going into air. 

[MySound 403]

10 hours ago, z06z33 said:

....To me staring at a screen filled with simulated screens while a simulated computer on my computer flies a plane on autopilot isn't really engaging. That's just me though.

Well. 
Maybe a thread about a highly automated modern airliner isn’t the place for you then? Just maybe. 

Edited March 16 by MySound

[threexgreen 3,142]

12 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

I think you maybe missing the point. The trailer people were saying its was not good, the textures looked like the same from P3D. Exactly the things people have been saying elsewhere. Give us a trailer of the new things that are implemented, a closer look at the EFB that they have updated would of been good, like I said they could of shown all this and not a trailer of the plane pushing back then going into air. 

They have announced there will be a deep dive at FSWeekend. This is just a promo trailer which I think is obvious, even if it's titled poorly as a preview.

[carlanthony24 576]

6 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

They have announced there will be a deep dive at FSWeekend. This is just a promo trailer which I think is obvious, even if it's titled poorly as a preview.

Even though its a promo trailer you would think they still would like to show off new things. Like others do. The trailer IMO would of been better suited for when it was actually released.

Edited March 16 by carlanthony24

[Gazzareth 808]

20 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

The trailer people were saying its was not good, the textures looked like the same from P3D. 

I would suggest that those people should probably head to an opticians to get checked out, they clearly have vision issues.

G

[kdfw__ 542]

This must be the place where the rf legs troll bots, pmdg troll bots, and cartoon texture bots come to dump their payloads.

happens Every. Single. Time.

 

 

[carlanthony24 576]

Just now, Gazzareth said:

I would suggest that those people should probably head to an opticians to get checked out, they clearly have vision issues.

G

Or clearly they don't. Like someone said before obviously wait till its out but just looking at that video the consensus is that the textures seem quite poor. 

[SierraDelta 1,342]

20 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Or clearly they don't. Like someone said before obviously wait till its out but just looking at that video the consensus is that the textures seem quite poor. 

Okay - but you’ll buy it anyway, right?

[carlanthony24 576]

Just now, SierraDelta said:

Okay - but you’ll buy it anyway, right?

Of course. I really don't have a choice when we will only have one decent triple.

[JRBarrett 3,080]

2 hours ago, rmeier said:

suspect you meant to say "whined"?

Per the Oxford English Dictionary:

Whinge

Verb (British)

complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.

[UrgentSiesta 932]

11 hours ago, z06z33 said:

The Inistuff is pretty modern as is the 146 by that I mean they have an FMS.. I want somthing old, think late 50s early 60s with INS only or even less than that, flying ADF to ADF. In the case of the big flying boats in the sim, I've used dead reckoning to get across the ocean. Was challenging but I was busy the entire crossing... The issue with those or even the Connie or DC6 is how long a crossing takes that's why a classic jet would be a good addition to the sim.. I get it people want to simulate what's currently flying but to me it's more fun to simulate a time in aviation you'll never get to experience. I don't get the opposition folks have to classic jets they are easier to learn and fly because the automation is minimal you actually have to hand fly the plane which is what makes flight sims or flying in real life fun....To me staring at a screen filled with simulated screens while a simulated computer on my computer flies a plane on autopilot isn't really engaging. That's just me though.

To be clear, I've no opposition to old school aircraft. My favorite airliner is the FlyJ Sim 727 for X-Plane - an excellent experience (and thankfully they're developing v4 for XP v12).

I can't speak for the JF Fokker, but as for the JF 146, the IRL individual aircraft modeled didn't have an FMS. It was all radio nav, and that's how JF released it.*

So the model is certainly capable of the type of flying you're describing. And it's a jet, so it's relatively fast.

And, like you, I enjoy hand flying, which the 146 more or less demands through at least the interesting portions of the flight. IoW, you can easily choose to self-pilot the aircraft old school because that's how it was designed.

The other thing I like about the 146 is its ability to get into and out of smaller airfields, its huge airbrake vs reversers, and its austere/rough field capabilities (not that those are well modeled in the sim(s), but it does suggest quite a few ideas for interesting flights).

* To your point, the "community" was so upset over the lack of an FMS on release that they basically bullied JF into retrofitting one immediately. Always rubbed me wrong way how JF were treated there - imagine being upset over actual reality! 😉