Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

150 Excellent

About nrunning24

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

2,851 profile views
  1. I can't believe we have gone 1.5 pages of people with no real world 737 piloting experience using cockpit YouTube videos to tell the real 737 pilot that he is wrong about the flight model.... I mean what are we doing here.
  2. Lets be honest here outside of Maddog these are all a step below PMDG, Fenix is almost a side step, more complete in some areas, less complete in others. The good news of this whole event is that I have to imagine LNAV is getting pushed up the priority list. Squeaky wheel gets the grease
  3. The response is poor customer service, period end of question. But gosh it seems like no matter what he says it gets trashed. I'm sure on a personal level, a self confident successful pilot and thereafter business person probably has a hard time dealing with all the negative comments. Especially when you see your most recently released product be voted the top airplane add on this last year in a community wide survey. I'm sure that is causing a huge disconnect there and a feeling of being persecuted unfairly. While I think PMDG needs to innovate, add in better LNAV to keep up with the other developers out there, we also have to be realistic about running a business. New LNAV brings in very miniscule $'s.... vs updating your existing 777 and 747 code to MSFS which brings in $$$$$$$$$. Considering according to PMDG they are a much bigger team now, that also means much more reoccurring overhead and staffing $'s needed. Focusing resources on LNAV as #1 priority right now doesnt likely make business sense if your looking at outgoing monthly costs and your P&Ls. I would expect LNAV to be done after the 747 honestly.... There is too much low hanging fruit for them before that honestly. Plus the fact that it seems the FS community loves to forgive missed commitments and buy the next best thing no matter what. There is likely hardly any financial downside to PMDG not keeping promised commitments in regards to future sales release #'s. Robert got himself into this mess though, promised 777 P3D cockpit update, LNAV etc. and when it wasn't in his business's best financial interests to do it he pushed the can down the road. At this point he will likely never do the 777 P3D upgrade. He definitely isn't the first company to ditch previous commitments He likely just needs to stop promising things that aren't included in the initial release that way he can make the next best business decision without concern of previous promises in a FS landscape that seems to be changing more and more rapidly. More examples (as if we need more in FS) that you should buy a product for what it is NOW not for what is promised to come.
  4. For me the immersion breaking elements of PXST pale in comparison to the MSFS Ai traffic system. There are so many airports which use runway configurations that aren't even possible with MSFS default ATC. All it takes is one great experience at airports like SFO, ORD, IAD, IAH, BOS etc. where the runway choices are not usually wind specific and include different directions for takeoff and landing. PSXT nails that experience, and I'll gladly take a situation where I sometimes get taxied through for that extra realism.
  5. As a pilot I'm sure you see things differently since your concern is in the flight deck, I assure you the burden on airlines maintenance teams is drastically elevated due to these regulations on the 787. There were MANY instances where we could approve changes to ease the burden of work required biased off any reasonable safety standard, but as it was part of the original FAA cert requirements we were forcing hundreds if not thousands of hours of additional work per aircraft to meet certification during standard checks. As we got more info from the fleet some of these requirements were removed for certain line numbers forward, but those changes could not roll back to earlier line numbers due to the difference in certification. I assure you it is a major problem that Boeing and Airlines have spent crazy amounts of $ on. Even on the MAX, MCAS was only added due to the aircraft to not meet a cert requirement in a flight condition that was almost impossible to see in regular operation. Boeing for sure messed up the implementation but that system was only bootstrapped in to meet reg that covered a very improbable situation. Oversight is good, regulation for public safety is good, at this point its just not being implemented in a way or even proposed that actually improves safety and rewards industry innovation.
  6. As a former Boeing Engineer who worked on the production line of the 787 multiple things can be true at the same time. Quality Control at Boeing is in need of a revamp, People get promoted biased of the speed of pushing things through (especially in Manufacturing leadership). I know QA people who didn't even understand why they were writing stuff up for engineering to review, just that the mechanics told them they needed to. FYI the mechanics I worked with were rock stars and usually could tell me exactly what was wrong with the design or install within 5 seconds on the airplane. Suppliers like Spirt have their own QA controls and don't get "re-inspected" by Boeing personnel usually. More FAA oversight isn't always a good solution, most of these bureaucrats have never designed or built an airplane and mostly just make and follow rules to not get in trouble.. Current FAA regulations for new airplanes are extremely onerous for OEMs and Airlines and part of the reason we are seeing new versions of these 60 year old airplanes that get pushed to their limit is its not economically feasible to build something from scratch once you consider the FAA certification requirements if you truly want to be innovative. There really is no good solution, obviously quality escapes like not tightening fasteners needs to be rectified, but there is a bigger issue that we keep on working with these old designs because its almost impossible to get the FAA to certify something innovative and new. Last time Boeing did that on the 787 the FAA certification requirements were extremely onerous and now is causing lots of issues with airline maintenance, not due to safety but because the FAA added lots of excess requirements due to the "new design" and not having service history.
  7. This is a PMDG thread. You had quite the negative comments about the update, so I think the fact that you cant say one negative word about Fenix (their basically only competitor) for missing promised RELEASE DATES by at least 2X even though the dates were provided only a month or two in advance shows a lot about what I'm saying.
  8. So we should give them a pass for their original engine model being + 5% off in some situations? This is my whole point, of course its not easy. It just seems like all these defenses are used only for non-PMDG dev's. Its hard for everyone. Either take the standard you apply for PMDG and use it for everyone FENIX included or apply the Fenix standard for PMDG. That's all I'm asking for.
  9. Ok so who has done better than PMDG in MSFS? Like really, take all the stupid wordy updates by the CEO out.... Who has provided more product that meets the high bar that serious simmers demand? Seems like your quite critical of their public info provided for future releases but I dont see anyone but Fenix who competes and they have only modeled one engine variant for one model.
  10. No you misunderstand. The fault is that PMDG is held to a standard that no other developer is. Just because people dont like the CEO basically as far as I can tell. They have the most complete and realistic product line in MSFS (737-600-900ER). Their next competitor has just a CFM A320 with a continuously delayed IAE, A319 and A321. At this point anyone who constantly nitpicks and puts down PMDG's constant updates has shown themselves as a not serious judge of product unless they are also doing the same for Fenix.
  11. Sure I respect them, they should take their time. But if PMDG did the same we would be having complaints on end. The reality is Fenix came out with a forward plan with dates (near term too, and pretty solid) and has COMPLETLY missed them. PMDG had vague forward dates on the EFB on release and got killed for not meeting them. Lots of double standards.
  12. This thread is perfectly timed with the release of Navigraph's survey. There is SOOO much PMDG hate here about everything, including a well worded update about the status of the 777. But guess what out of the people who pay for Nav data updates *aka hardcore simmers* The top airplane from last year was the PMDG 737 and the most anticipated airplane is the 777. Everyone needs to calm down, they make great products, they are wordy on their updates sure but end product is top of the line. Find something else to complain about.... Wasn't Fenix supposed to release block 2 in Oct? What happened to that?
  13. Awesome thanks, I had moved from AIG to FSLTL for ease of installation but this is a huge issue for me so I'll go back to AIG.
  14. Does anyone else that uses FSLTL models notice that many of the US regional airlines dont show in MSFS? I noticed on a flight from ORD -- IAH today that all seemed too quiet upon landing and sure enough after lookin at Flight Radar 24 about half the flights on the ground were United Express E175s which weren't being shown. I feel like I've seen this with Delta Connection before too. Does anyone else see this or have a solution? Base installs with no modifications for both FSLTL and PSXT.
  15. You should quote out what the RT cost is in Business and First class, which are almost always full on this route. Random dates in April, First +$19,000 AUD per person, Business +$12,000 AUD per person. Not saying you can't make money, just that its really limited to a very small amount of routes where it makes sense.
  • Create New...