mikkel

I don't think his question was about licence policies... so the question has not been answered yet.

Quite ironic as they base their business model on reverse engineering another product, and selling add-ons for it... and they don't tolerate a user giving away an update a users has made? The dubious ethics aside, I'm not sure if they have any juridistriction to do so, in fact, I'm pretty sure they don't.

PMDG can't stop you from making your own cockpit texture and sharing it, as long as you don't keep any of their work in it....

I think Mathijs of Aerosoft, the biggest publisher and developer of flight sim content, put it quite nice, I can at least not find a better way of expressing it:

PMDG should start an MD-11 update kickstarter campaign Maybe they'll be surprised...

I see this argument being repeated on several forums, it's simply not true. An update to 64-bit architecture will not make the textures, polygon and vertices incompatible. There might be some work needing to be done, especially on how custom code interacts with the base program, but it won't become a entirely alien platform. Further, I would guess that a long over-due implementation of modern realtime shaders and high-res textures in the entire FS-world (normal, bump and specular mapped landscape textures for instance) will make it necessary to re-do sceneries and redraw textures completely, a process that will take scenery-developers years.

Yes, and compared to the Boeings I find it much more interesting to fly! The Boeings are like Wolksvagen, but flying the MD11 is like being in an exotic Citroën. An updated virtual cockpit and Prepar3d v2 support would be fantastic!

...or maybe a slight vc update and Prepar3d compatibility would give some extra return on the investment already done? The systems, audio, simulations and external model are up to par... They also said they never were going to make their planes for Prepar3d, things can change...

MD-11 and MD-10 are Boeing products as of 1997, they still make/convert MD-10's I think, and MD-11 seems popular with freight companies. I don't think there are any conflict there... However I do believe that PMDG could generate some extra income by doing a retouch of the VC and relaunch it as their first Prepar3d v2 product. I can only speak for myself. The only reason I bought PMDG MD-11 in the first place had to do with the fact that it was the only high-end jetliner for FSX at the time. I had no interest in the MD-11, but it turned out to be the most fun and interesting simulation I ever bought.

The audio, systems and external visual model is still top of the line. I know PMDG has said that the MD-11 is EOL, but everything changes, even Prepar3d support is coming for a few other models. A compability update to Prepar3d v2 and a touch-up of the virtual cockpit would be my biggest wish for the FS-scene. Although i'm not working with financials at PMDG, I think it could be an idea to make this the first PMDG Prepar3d product, to get some extra sales on this great simulation... Just my two cents.

I guess the answer to the question is that most simmers don't know how to fly a plane. It takes some practice to hand fly correctly, and 99,999% of all the landings you do, once you get it, should be correct, even in bad weather. I guess most "gamers" don't have the discipline to learn this. Doing the button pressing seems more realistic to them. It's quite delusional.

Perception modeling mentioned as root reason - winds aloft not even involved, probably not even semi-partly.

Congratulations on a bizarre and out of focus comparison. So you compare using 2D panels on your desktop to sit in the real deal, and somehow I would wish - due to my insistence on VC's - to replace the real car, with it? Then I guess you'll also gladly believe that I would trade a physical cockpit or flying a real 737 with a VC on a desktop simulator?

I only use VC on IVAO, and I seem to be able to fly quite progressive and efficient. I handfly and make VFR short-cuts if allowed by the ATC during approaches, looking out the window in turns, making adjustments on the MCP - all in the same view. It lets me fly more like in the real world, with much more flexibility. You get this sensation because the VC-users left the 2D panels behind because they saw progress and betterness in using a virtual photoreal cockpit.

This is wrong. FSX nor any 3d-rendering/realtime engine I've heard of works this way. The eyepoint - when FOV (field of view) is changed - does not change. When you move and rotate the virtual camera along the different axis (X,Y and Z) in the VC, there are no distortion done. A real camera at the same position in the real cockpit would produce the same perspectives, using a lens reflecting the FOV in the FSX VC (I take it for granted that the PMDG 737 cockpit is accurate). Of course, human vision can sense about 180 degrees FOV, so using a zoom setting reproducing such a FOV will make a wide-angle distortion in the VC, comparable to an extreme wide-angel lens. But _even_ using a 2D panel does not make your FSX view and monitor into an 180 degree panorama on your desktop, unless you run multiple monitors. Anyways, using a zoom factor between 0.7 - 0.8 produce a more than satisfying FOV and panel overview on my 27" screen.

If there is a circle, and I insist its a straight line, that is not opinion. The 3D cockpit is a replica of the real deal, 2D panels are fictional representations made as compromises between usability and replication. Sorry, I just tried to make a joke about those obnoxious FS9 load mouths.

That will be hard... As there is a reason why 2D panels came first, and a reason why most users have progressed to use 3D panels. Sorry?

Yeah, I still remember those stubborn basterds that forced the developers to produce double-up add-ons for a while. Resulting in longer development times and more expensive add-ons. We could use a politburo in this community - to streamline things a little .)

Obviously - this discussion is about not having that choice any more or losing it. I still don't get what the huge difference is between a pre-rendered still image and realtime fixed view - of the same model the still image was rendered from. BTW: I love floppy disk, any hardware producer not respecting my life choice of using floppy's, will never get my money!

There are many good reasons to stop eating meat, few good reasons to start eating meat - even though I love a good steak. Back to 2D panels: I guess less than a quarter of the users even open them or think about them at all. BTW: With the extreme well made r/t 3d-graphics, why don't you just use the fixed camera positions in the VC - if you are opposed to dynamic view changes? You don't need a head tracking system if you just want to emulate the sensation of using the 2D panels.

Congratulations dear development and testing team. Just did a few VFR touch and go's at the airport where I'm a 737 passenger a few times a month. I'm very impressed! The performance is also quite good, a lot better than the impression from reading this forum. 20-30 fps on my i7 first generation 27" iMac.

It would be nice if the cursor in the 3D cockpit were "magnetically" linked to the surfaces you move it over, this would have eliminated the problem.

TrackIR

I guess you are one of the 5%, but maybe you could still be converted - let's see? I'm not speaking about users making panels, but a serious 3. party developer to make a niche product for "outputting the simulator" to home build cockpits.

Sometimes customers need some help to understand where the puck is headed. Cutting legacy features is a very efficient way of doing this. The moral is: 95% of the people who voice their desperate need of 2D panels, will still buy upcoming PMDGs products without 2D panels. Nobody believes this cliché: "then I will not buy it". Of-course you will, why would you miss out the best simulations available for your desktop? On homebuilder cockpits:I've heard that there will come an SDK for 737NGX and probably for future products, if there is a market a third party will sooner or later develop a homebuilder kit with all the 2d panels you need. Software cost is not an issue with home built cockpits.