4 hours ago, Wise87 said:

I was thinking of picking up the 777-200LR during the sale but decided against it. Even with the 29% off, thats a lot for a single variant that few airlines fly. If Delta was still opertaing them I would have to think hard about it.

I considered the LR last year simply as it’s the least expensive. I wanted the 736 of the 777s.

Then I figured out that the LR is not only the longest ranged 77x, but was also the longest ranged airliner for awhile. Tempting just for bragging rights 😁

THEN I realized the freighter is a version of the LR and that’s all it took for me. Spent the extra $5 and now I fly with Atlas. 😎

And it’s nice to know I can also wear UPS brown and fly into the local airfield every day just like IRL. 🤙

Edited Saturday at 07:44 PM4 days by UrgentSiesta

11 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Choice of 3 engine options for both the 200 and 300ER's.

Single engine only for the LR.

The 300ER only has one engine option.

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The 300ER only has one engine option.

Interesting. It's top dollar too. How so?

Ahhh....would it have been the first 777 they released for MSFS by any chance?

15 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

THEN I realized the freighter is a version of the LR and that’s all it took for me. Spent the extra $5 and now I fly with Atlas. 😎

Does the freighter have the same range as the LR, though ?

I'm tempted by this sale, suffering as I do from FOMO and a need for all the shiny toys.

17 hours ago, tamsini said:

What's the difference between PMDG 777-200LR and PMDG 777-200ER, specifically for MS2024. Quite the difference in price.

I think whether one gets the 200 LR or ER it only makes a slight difference as far as the flying experience, "the feeling" within the sim goes. I think it's simply down to lots of people liking to fly the models that are more popular in the real world influencing the price. Exactly! As someone else just mentioned before, like the 737-600 vs. the 700.

The LR really wastes a lot of space that could have otherwise been used for payload if you don't use it on flights that are more than like 14 hours. Generally up to roughly 14 hour flights the ER is totally adequate.

I was just envisioning it's cicra 2004 and I can make all the decisions at Qantas. I'd be like screw it, we're going to beat Singapore Airlines with their A340-500's on their Newark nonstops ASAP! We're getting a whole fleet of 777-200 LR's. Project Sunrise is now in full effect!

But imagine you're parked at the gate filling up with like 160,000 kg of fuel, only to take on like 16,000 kg of payload (stress the pay, as in what's paying you, rather than what you're paying for, all that fuel). Like maybe just 120 pax and some mail. 10 times the weight in fuel vs. payload. It might seem rather silly to a lot of people.

One thing I also like about the 200ER vs. the LR is the shorter wingspan, you could potentially get into tighter parking spaces. But I doubt whether that factor had much of an impact on the prices of the PMDG's.

6 minutes ago, Paul K said:

Does the freighter have the same range as the LR, though ?

I'm tempted by this sale, suffering as I do from FOMO and a need for all the shiny toys.

I think the freighter potentially has the same range as the LR with no aux fuel tanks, but only if you're taking on a relatively light payload, like what 200 or so pax and their bags might weigh if you were flying an LR. Generally you'd probably want to take less fuel and more heavy cargo. You're limited by the max takeoff weight. I'm also seriously considering getting the freighter.

Edit: Just stumbled upon this article, I didn't know about it before.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/article/20-hours-11-315-miles-national-airlines-completes-record-breaking-boeing-777f-flight/ar-AA29uNNl

I think just taking some fairly lightweight spare parts, so range with full fuel and light payload is no problem for the freighter.

I'm thinking another example would be like a single prize horse of some rich dude, and maybe just one handler, a bag of oats, some water, and a brush to give the horse a rub down on the long flight. Freighter ops indeed have lots of possibilities.

Edited Sunday at 01:13 PM3 days by Antipodeslonghaul
New info

7 hours ago, Paul K said:

Does the freighter have the same range as the LR, though ?

I'm tempted by this sale, suffering as I do from FOMO and a need for all the shiny toys.

The freighter has the usual structural reinforcements, and typically flies at higher weights. So in practice the 77F flies shorter routes.

But if you fly at the lower pax weights, being the same-ish airframe, you get similar range.

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The freighter has the usual structural reinforcements, and typically flies at higher weights. So in practice the 77F flies shorter routes.

But if you fly at the lower pax weights, being the same-ish airframe, you get similar range.

Thanks for that, mate. I'm torn between the F and the 300ER at the moment.

5 minutes ago, Paul K said:

Thanks for that, mate. I'm torn between the F and the 300ER at the moment.

You’ll be very well served with either.😁

IMHO it’s just a matter of how often one intends to fly it and how deep one wants to go on a single airframe.

I’m not passionate about airliners to get into the weeds with any single airframe, so all I need is a general purpose example. 🤙

Edited Sunday at 09:41 PM3 days by UrgentSiesta

It doesn’t get loaded onto the loyalty discount. I would have considered buying the 737-700 for MSFS24 (as I have it for MSFS20) if there was 29% on the ludicrous cup of coffee price at $30, although I’m very unlikely to fly the 737s very often given the amount of other planes out like the A220

1 hour ago, silentghostx said:

It doesn’t get loaded onto the loyalty discount. I would have considered buying the 737-700 for MSFS24 (as I have it for MSFS20) if there was 29% on the ludicrous cup of coffee price at $30, although I’m very unlikely to fly the 737s very often given the amount of other planes out like the A220

Yes - they've explained that it's the greater discount of either/or, and not stacked. You could dip into the 736 for $25, which is a smokin' deal.

I still really like the BBJ1 for my infrequent airliner flights. 🙂

I have an issue with the BBJ1 on final approach. it is always giving me an AIRSPEED WARNING message when I set FLAPS 25. Very annoying. Someone else also mentioned this on the PMDG forum, and (hopefully) they are checking it. It also does not automatically accept the ZFW value calculated by the FMS.

EDIT: As for the PMDG sale, it will still be active when I get home from holiday later today. That 200LR is very tempting.....

Edited Monday at 06:22 AM2 days by Christopher Low

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I have an issue with the BBJ1 on final approach. it is always giving me an AIRSPEED WARNING message when I set FLAPS 25. Very annoying.

I just got around to patching the BBJ1 today, and it seemed a good reason to give it a go (haven’t in awhile). A short flight and nothing fancy, but it was mostly programmed in the FMS.

No warnings on any flap settings. Biggest problem was the high, gusty winds - but those are fun for me 😂

13 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

You’ll be very well served with either.😁

IMHO it’s just a matter of how often one intends to fly it and how deep one wants to go on a single airframe.

I’m not passionate about airliners to get into the weeds with any single airframe, so all I need is a general purpose example. 🤙

I eventually settled for the 300ER, and had a quick look round it last night. Gorgeous! I now have the DC-6, the 737-700 and this 777-300ER. People can say what they like about PMDG, but they produce a damned fine aeroplane.

I didn’t want to point out the obvious deficiencies of the PMDG 737 and 777 during this sale, especially with the products being offered at 29% off the regular price. However, I think it is fair to discuss what customers are actually buying.

I also want to acknowledge that ASOBO/MSFS plays a significant role in making aircraft development extremely difficult. The simulator platform has its own limitations and changes, and developers sometimes have to work around problems that are outside their direct control. Some developers manage to overcome certain issues, while others struggle with them. That is understandable.

What is much harder to understand, however, is when known, reproducible problems are reported repeatedly by customers and real-world pilots, discussed extensively on the developer's own forum, and remain unresolved for years.

Bugs are part of software development. Unfixed bugs that are known, documented, reproducible, and repeatedly reported are a different matter.

PMDG 737 / 777 — LNAV and Flight Director

One of the most noticeable examples is LNAV behavior.

• The Flight Director can momentarily command the wrong direction—left or right—immediately before initiating an LNAV turn.

• LNAV can exhibit oversteering, excessive bank, overshooting of the magenta path, followed by corrections and repeated oscillation.

• There have been numerous reports since the transition to MSFS describing the FD briefly moving in the opposite direction before correcting itself and commanding the actual turn.

• Similar behavior has been reported during RNP/RF procedures, where the aircraft can briefly bank toward the opposite side before establishing the correct turn.

This is not simply a question of whether someone "likes" the way PMDG flies. The issue is that this behavior has been repeatedly reported, including by people with real-world Boeing experience, and has been discussed on the PMDG forums.

As of August 10, 2026, I have not seen convincing evidence that this specific behavior has been conclusively eliminated.

PMDG has also acknowledged in the past that its magenta-line and Flight Director architecture required substantial work, and there has been discussion of a completely new magenta-line/FD module for PMDG products because the existing system needed a major rewrite.

That makes the continued presence of these behaviors even more disappointing.

Other long-standing 737 / 777 concerns

There are also numerous other areas that have generated repeated customer and pilot reports over the years:

• Flight-model and handling characteristics that do not always reproduce the expected Boeing behavior.

• Pitch and trim behavior around rotation and during the initial climb.

• Roll response and the way bank corrections are generated.

• Yaw oscillation and Dutch-roll tendencies.

• Engine-out handling.

• Crosswind behavior.

• Autopilot bank corrections that can sometimes become unnecessarily frequent or abrupt.

• VNAV transition behavior in certain situations.

• FMC waypoint and route-editing behavior.

• OFFSET entry behavior.

• VNAV constraint calculations in particular circumstances.

• Electrical and other system behaviors that can produce unexpected results.

• Ground handling, particularly nosewheel/tiller response.

• Directional behavior on the ground in strong crosswinds.

• Differences between the expected Boeing tiller/ground-steering response and what the simulator actually produces.

And the list is not limited to the 737.

The 777 has its own collection of flight-model, systems, navigation, VNAV, autopilot, and ground-handling concerns, some of which have also been discussed repeatedly by customers and real-world pilots.

The point is not that PMDG software should be perfect

Nobody reasonably expects complex aircraft software to be bug-free.

The issue is how long known problems remain unresolved and how they are prioritized.

A customer can accept a bug when a developer says:

"We know about it, we understand the cause, and we're working on it."

It becomes much harder to accept when the same problem is reported over and over again for years, receives extensive discussion from experienced users and pilots, and still remains part of the product.

At that point, it is reasonable for customers to question priorities.

PMDG has produced some extremely sophisticated aircraft, and there is no question that developing these products for MSFS is technically difficult. I respect the amount of work involved.

But complexity should not become an excuse for leaving documented deficiencies indefinitely unresolved.

For me, the fundamental principle is simple:

Bugs are acceptable during development.
Known bugs are acceptable temporarily.
Long-standing, reproducible bugs that are repeatedly reported and never conclusively fixed are not something customers should be expected to consider "normal."

So, IMHO, when evaluating the PMDG 737 and 777 during a sale, the discount does more than simply lower the price.

It also makes the purchase more representative of what the products actually deliver today—including their long-standing unresolved issues.

And that is why, personally, I believe the discounted price is much closer to the price these products should command in their current state.

This is not intended as an attack on PMDG or its developers. It is simply a customer's perspective: if a product is sold as a high-fidelity simulation, customers have every right to expect the important, documented problems to be treated with the same seriousness as the features used to sell the product.