this is going the same way as all the other pmdg threads

5 hours ago, pete_auau said:

this is going the same way as all the other pmdg threads

As long as they continue to disregard customer feedback, overlook their own documented functional standards, and carry the same unresolved bugs from one product generation to the next, the outcome is unlikely to change.

Those unfamiliar with how the product is intended to function may not fully understand the concerns being raised and may simply accept the shortcomings. However, many long-time users and subject-matter experts have grown increasingly frustrated with the company's direction. Some will express their dissatisfaction publicly, while others will simply vote with their wallets.

What makes this particularly disappointing is the stark contrast between the quality, accuracy, and attention to detail that once defined their products and the current emphasis on visual appeal over functional fidelity. A visually attractive product is certainly valuable, but accuracy and proper functionality should not be sacrificed in the process—especially when other developers have demonstrated that it is entirely possible to achieve both in a well-balanced and highly capable product.

3 hours ago, LRBS said:

As long as they continue to disregard customer feedback, overlook their own documented functional standards, and carry the same unresolved bugs from one product generation to the next, the outcome is unlikely to change.

Those unfamiliar with how the product is intended to function may not fully understand the concerns being raised and may simply accept the shortcomings. However, many long-time users and subject-matter experts have grown increasingly frustrated with the company's direction. Some will express their dissatisfaction publicly, while others will simply vote with their wallets.

What makes this particularly disappointing is the stark contrast between the quality, accuracy, and attention to detail that once defined their products and the current emphasis on visual appeal over functional fidelity. A visually attractive product is certainly valuable, but accuracy and proper functionality should not be sacrificed in the process—especially when other developers have demonstrated that it is entirely possible to achieve both in a well-balanced and highly capable product.

I would argue that their modeling and visual development has gone down hill, too. Look at the 777 flight deck. The screen brightness, when turned up, enacts this weird mix of decreasing contrast and saturation. It certainly doesn’t make it…brighter. The nav displays are like this weird black hole that have zero reflective quality. I realize they’re not meant to be reflective, but look at the Fenix displays. There’s finger print smudge marks. When you make the screens brighter, they actually get…brighter.

What is especially difficult to understand is the persistent dismissal of legitimate concerns regarding defects that continue to appear across multiple product lines. These issues are not isolated observations; they are repeatedly documented and discussed, including on the company's own forums. Yet, rather than addressing the underlying problems, discussions often devolve into denying or minimizing well-documented shortcomings, which only serves to undermine customer confidence.

From a consumer perspective, the concern extends beyond the existence of bugs. The issue arises when a product is represented as accurately replicating real-world functionality while known deviations, limitations, or defects remain unresolved. The company has access to the relevant technical documentation that defines correct system operation and has stated that qualified pilots are involved in the development process. Consequently, customers reasonably expect a level of fidelity consistent with those representations.

Equally concerning is the apparent lack of transparency regarding significant limitations that could materially influence a customer's purchasing decision. When legitimate concerns are raised by customers—including active, qualified professionals with direct experience operating the real equipment—they should be addressed through objective technical discussion rather than dismissed or debated without consideration of the available evidence.

Constructive criticism from knowledgeable users should be viewed as an opportunity to improve the product, not as something to be disregarded. Ultimately, customer trust is built not through marketing claims or visual presentation alone, but through a demonstrated commitment to accuracy, quality, transparency, and continuous improvement.

More so, if a company knowingly markets a product as functioning correctly, or advertises features that do not work as described, it may run into consumer protection laws. 

I wouldn't view this as a victim situation; maybe more like a wake-up call?  

What is so difficult about fixing the issues and making the community enjoy a very good product?

If they can't, they should be honest enough to say WE CAN'T. STOP ACCUSING PEOPLE LEFT/RIGHT. Case closed.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by LRBS

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

More so, if a company knowingly markets a product as functioning correctly, or advertises features that do not work as described, it may run into consumer protection laws. 

A company’s lawyers would know about this.

1 hour ago, vonmar said:

A company’s lawyers would know about this.

Hopefully, they don't end up in such a situation and are bug-free. 🤣

On 6/8/2026 at 1:05 PM, vonmar said:

I use MSFS2020.

Just tested a manual load it and go PMDG777 takeoff.

No problems.

Would be 2024, They updated the plane a bit ago and it was only updated in 2024 afaik. So thats why you dont see it in 2020, In one update in 2024 it was fine and then the next broken.