PMDG 777 MSFS FIRST LOOK

[Steve Dra 7,588]

2 hours ago, JYW said:

Disagree strongly with this sentiment.

Some of us remember a time when it was run like a military unit.  Bans left, right and centre, political undertones, censorship and some mods high on authority and perceived power.    I recall a user who once wrote that they wouldn't buy P3D because of it's producer's military links to weapons.  He was literally called a communist by a moderator and had his account permanently banned.  You may not agree with the viewpoint he held, but it was not a viewpoint that deserved eternal castigation and disfellowship.

AVSIM as it is - right now, under Bob's leadership - really is the best it's ever been.

As for the member base - well, it's an internet forum!  How can anybody be surprised and get upset by the fact that there is eternal arguing, a lack of perspective and a sense of entitlement from some of it's members? 😄

Yeah have to agree about the old...old days even before is was Avsim.  Tom could be onery at times,  but I enjoyed our conversations...and we shared a common bond as we did the exact same thing in the Navy...even working on the exact same aircraft!

Anyway, members come and go, and I miss some of the old crew and guess I just remember things as not as toxic as it seems to be today.  Maybe I'm just getting old and its time to me out to pasture. 🙂

Cancer tried to get me once, and diabetes is always trying to kill me, and eventually will if I don't die of something else first.  Certainly more years behind me than ahead, I just want to enjoy them doing what I love, contributing to the community... so I'll probably die with a virtual paintbrush in my hand, right in the middle of a livery. 🤔

[UrgentSiesta 932]

2 hours ago, simtom said:

I'm the person that made the video and yes, their graphics settings were probably set to Low because I even had to turn on V-Sync and Ambient Occlusion. I was one of the first things I noticed in relation to the cockpit feeling bland. I didn't change any other settings, but it's something to keep in mind when watching this video. I'm sure that if everything would have been set to Ultra it would have been a different story.

now THAT is interesting - do tell! Did they send you video or was it captured on your own system? If yours, is it high end?

[threexgreen 3,142]

4 hours ago, BobFS88 said:

It alway a business decision that gets in the way of what giving the users what they want which is why I left FSX. For most user this is hobby and a not business so I go where the developers will support what I want in this hobby, not listen to those using their business as an excuse.

Sorry but that's a very strange take. For the users it's a hobby, obviously. For most developers it's not however. PMDG, for example, are all full-time employed and make a living off of selling flight sim aircraft. Even if MSFS is proving to be a cash cow, I can't imagine you'll ever get into a financial position where you can lead your business in a way that entirely favors what users want rather than do what the business does and make profit to keep it alive. Zibo is freeware, there's literally no way to make money so it's clearly subject to completely different conditions. A business using their business as an excuse not to produce something that isn't financially viable is... the whole point of a business.

Take PMDG and RF legs/navdata as an example. I've been critical of the timeframe is has taken myself. I believe however it was close to being rolled out when MSFS popped up out of nowhere. From this point onwards, it's financial suicide to focus on individual features for aircraft on a platform that's seeing a mass exodus of users, rather than set that aside and shift focus to work on bringing the actual products that make money to the new platform. Obviously, not an issue for freeware products or products developed by people who work on it part-time, but for a full-time developer that's not even a question.

 

1 hour ago, El Diablito said:

Why would anyone criticise a product based on a low res video before they've actually sat in the cockpit themselves, on their own system, with their own graphic settings? Bizaare behaviour and none of it can be taken serious.

What's even more bizarre is using a video where a portion of another screen is being filmed as a base to judge textures. But it doesn't seem to stop many people on Reddit from starting another bash fest.

[sd_flyer 6,049]

49 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Well, when it comes to developers, I really like it when they're IRL Type Rated on the aircraft they're modeling. That's the kind of "hype" that actually matters.

---

And in re "hype", FNTP II isn't a terribly high bar to reach with any of the top flight simulators and probably any of the "Study Level" addons available across multiple sims.

"Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainers (JAR STD 3A) are intended to be generic devices (although, if desired, they can of course be type specific).

The definitions and Minimum Technical Requirements supporting the generic nature of FNPTs are summarized below:

(JAR-STD 3A.035) FNPT II: A ground based training device which represents the flight deck environment of a multi-engine aeroplane type or class to the extent that the systems appear to function as in an aeroplane ………………….

(Appendix 1 to JAR STD 3A.030, Table 2, para 7 Control forces and control travels which respond in the same manner under the same flight conditions as in the aeroplane or class of aeroplane being simulated

And Aerodynamic modeling shall reflect (a) the effects of airframe icing and (b) the rolling moment due to yawing.

The key points when determining the acceptability of Validation Data for use within the QTG are summarized below:

(IEM STD 3A.030, Para 2.1) Simulated Aeroplane Configuration Unlike Flight Simulators, FNPT I and FNPT II are intended to be representative of a class of aeroplane (although they may in fact be type specific if desired) ……control type, control force and position, performance and handling and powerplant configuration should be representative of the class of aeroplane or the aeroplane itself."

As I think about it, one could take a plain vanilla install of X-Plane, MSFS, Prepar3D, FSX or even DCS World*, use the built-in Default aircraft and any of them would "certify" as FNPT II.

*(tho I can't remember if we get airframe icing in DCS - weather isn't the priority there 😉 ...)

You would think being a flight instructor I knew a little about it lol In beautiful world where nearly anything could be a training aid without certification . Have FF or PMDG ever presented functional instructional  station ? Lol How those people who would train in those “ aiming to be  FNTP” “study level “ sims self log and  type rated on their own ? Lol Then let’s stop those “could be” “would be “

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

29 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

What's even more bizarre is using a video where a portion of another screen is being filmed as a base to judge textures. But it doesn't seem to stop many people on Reddit from starting another bash fest.

What's even more bizarre than that?  Making a video as a payware dev that puts your product in a bad light.  Making a video that was shorter than then countdown itself.  

Look: most of us here know better.  We already know it's going to be a very good product, but that live stream had over 3600 viewers.  That's a ton.  I can't imagine all of them were hard core repeat customers.  In MSFS, you're going to have a ton of new-casual users that may not have purchased a PMDG product.  

Also, there was no link to the Q&A as far as I saw.   The Q&A was far better, IMO.  It explained a lot.  The Q&A had about half the viewers, so most didn't even see it.  They probably just left after the first "reveal", if you could call it that.  There's no reason why they couldn't have made a 'good' video showing some more of the features.  If they couldn't, they should have just waited a bit.

Honestly, even if the video was recorded with low setting in sim, then adding whatever compression, the criticism is probably still valid.  While yes, it will probably look much better on the users' sim, I'm not so sure it will be that much better.  Good enough for most, yes.  Good enough to call it a good product?  Yes, just not mind blowing and possibly not up to MSFS standards, so to speak.

In the end, this isn't that big of a deal.  Stuff happens.  I'm not meaning to just slam them here, but it was just strange.  

Edited March 17 by Jeff Nielsen

[simtom 496]

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

now THAT is interesting - do tell! Did they send you video or was it captured on your own system? If yours, is it high end?

Oh no, I captured this at their booth. I was doing some drone shots while my friend was recording. I feel like their system wasn't particularly powerful.

Edited March 17 by simtom

[UrgentSiesta 932]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

You would think being a flight instructor I knew a little about it lol In beautiful world where nearly anything could be a training aid without certification . Have FF or PMDG ever presented functional instructional  station ? Lol How those people who would train in those “ aiming to be  FNTP” “study level “ sims self log and  type rated on their own ? Lol Then let’s stop those “could be” “would be “

Considering the info I posted comes verbatim from EASA, it would seem you do indeed know very little about it. And also somehow missed the inherent irony in my post.

So let me spell it out for you: FNTP II isn't anything to brag about these days.

[BobFS88 640]

3 hours ago, threexgreen said:

Sorry but that's a very strange take. For the users it's a hobby, obviously. For most developers it's not however. PMDG, for example, are all full-time employed and make a living off of selling flight sim aircraft. Even if MSFS is proving to be a cash cow, I can't imagine you'll ever get into a financial position where you can lead your business in a way that entirely favors what users want rather than do what the business does and make profit to keep it alive. Zibo is freeware, there's literally no way to make money so it's clearly subject to completely different conditions. A business using their business as an excuse not to produce something that isn't financially viable is... the whole point of a business.

Take PMDG and RF legs/navdata as an example. I've been critical of the timeframe is has taken myself. I believe however it was close to being rolled out when MSFS popped up out of nowhere. From this point onwards, it's financial suicide to focus on individual features for aircraft on a platform that's seeing a mass exodus of users, rather than set that aside and shift focus to work on bringing the actual products that make money to the new platform. Obviously, not an issue for freeware products or products developed by people who work on it part-time, but for a full-time developer that's not even a question.

 

No it is not a strange take from a customer POV. It is exercising a choice in which one does not wish to live with the decision coming from a developer who didn't support the aircraft the users wanted. What is strange is you willing to live with their decision as if they are paying your salary as if you work for them and not being customer of their product. I was once a customer and made the choice to leave and not stay and compromise what I wanted in the sim when saw something better, to stay with them. 

People understand that some developers has to make money and pay salaries if that is the business they are in. But that their business, who responsible for that, the customer?  

If a customers is not satisfy of a particular product, should they just live with that product or go to another and the get product they want. After all, it is their money they earned they are spending, not the developers. So to see it from the developers POV to me is no benefit to wait for rest of your life for something that should have been in you hands yesterday if their job is to produce products to sell. You can't make money if you don't produce anything.

"Even if MSFS is proving to be a cash cow, I can't imagine you'll ever get into a financial position where you can lead your business in a way that entirely favors what users want rather than do what the business does and make profit to keep it alive."

And why not, isn't that what motives many developers including PMDG to go to MSFS and stop all their development efforts on other platforms as well as their own project in the first place? PMDG had a command on their own market and could have taken it anywhere they wanted to go. MS knew it and was too glad to have them on their side and willing to hold their hand at getting their aircraft running, because they knew the users would follow and if you think that was not the case, who are you kidding? If making money means that to them, why are they not expanding their business instead of shrinking it to one. This is not their first rodeo, they been with P3D and FSX for years. 

it's financial suicide to focus on individual features for aircraft on a platform that's seeing a mass exodus of users, rather than set that aside and shift focus to work on bringing the actual products that make money to the new platform.

It may not have been a financial suicide for them after they got there first 737 aircraft after the years its has taken to get that out the door but their reputation took a huge hit on the EFB and all you have to do is look at some of cynical comments in between the praise from the faithful around here or others. The news of the 777 is the biggest news of week but even some find it not to be a long lasting impression about this aircraft that has being around since 2013.

 

Edited March 17 by BobFS88

[verbal 106]

4 hours ago, simtom said:

Oh no, I captured this at their booth. I was doing some drone shots while my friend was recording. I feel like their system wasn't particularly powerful.

I could be wrong but I think some folk believe you made the official PMDG video. which I'm confident is not the case. 

Edited March 18 by verbal

[jrw4 624]

4 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

their reputation took a huge hit on the EFB

Do you have any data to support that? I ask because that brief 2 minute YT preview of the 777 has almost 100,000 views in the first 2 days since its posting. What number might they have hit if their reputation was still intact?

As Carl Sagan once suggested, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If no one decided to view their brief product reveal, that would be one thing, but the large number who checked in seem to suggest that potential buyers are still very much interested in PMDG products. If only our own reputations were all so good.

Hope everyone had a great weekend. Have fun out there.

[F737MAX 5,623]

4 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

that brief 2 minute YT preview of the 777 has almost 100,000 views in the first 2 days since its posting.

100,000 views ≠ 100,000 sales.

Many of those are repeat views and also from people who want to see if the claims of it being 'great'/'terrible'/'mediocre'/'good' ring true to their own opinions.

Nonetheless, as the first complex long-haul airliner in MSFS, I still expect it to sell very well (first-mover advantage).

[BobFS88 640]

19 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Do you have any data to support that? I ask because that brief 2 minute YT preview of the 777 has almost 100,000 views in the first 2 days since its posting. What number might they have hit if their reputation was still intact?

I am referring to the comments made relating to the 737 that you can find on FSElite with all the updates leading up the release of the efb in the comment section (if they still there) and have recited numbers for me to prove anything. If you want to know how they felt, you are more than welcome to look for yourself and infer what you want from it. To say it was any different is not steep in reality. Beside 100000 views are just it, curious viewers and I could have been one them, does mean you can count that as sales?  

Edited March 17 by BobFS88

[sd_flyer 6,049]

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Considering the info I posted comes verbatim from EASA, it would seem you do indeed know very little about it. And also somehow missed the inherent irony in my post.

So let me spell it out for you: FNTP II isn't anything to brag about these days.

But as pointed out it's pretty catchy marketing tool like "tested by real pilots", "study level", "professional", "precise", "advanced" and so on 🙂

[carlanthony24 576]

15 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Do you have any data to support that? I ask because that brief 2 minute YT preview of the 777 has almost 100,000 views in the first 2 days since its posting. What number might they have hit if their reputation was still intact?

As Carl Sagan once suggested, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If no one decided to view their brief product reveal, that would be one thing, but the large number who checked in seem to suggest that potential buyers are still very much interested in PMDG products. If only our own reputations were all so good.

Hope everyone had a great weekend. Have fun out there.

Hazard a guess if they did the same for the 200 variant it might not do has well who knows. Most are very interested only because we do not have a decent Triple 7. I wonder how it would do if we had another high fidelity developer who had already brought a Triple out? 

[rjquick 229]

It's rarely a good look to root for others to fail.