Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/10/2013 in all areas

  1. Today I flew my (new) usual route...EPWA-UDYZ on a Boeing B767-300 of British Airways.
    2 points
  2. finaly got around to reposting these after the server crash awhile back the planes a f-15 eagle by the way
    2 points
  3. LOL glad I made somebody happy
    1 point
  4. 1 point
  5. Ethiopia. Pretty extraterrestrial place on Earth.
    1 point
  6. The post quoted above , starts a two page conversation. A conversation about what? For me just a conversation about.............the fact there is not any new news.. Forgive me for making some small comments. Michael_Chang showed us a stunning NGX painted by McPhat and X-PlaneAustralia showd us one stating thes planes will even show better in X-Plane. I must disappoint you ,reality is a bit different. McPhat-paints for the PMDG NGX are no more avaiable due to copy-right-issues. Seen in that light its not very likely to see McPhat produce their extreme quality for PMDG planes in X-Plane in future. Till this moment the quality of paintwork for X-Plane is limited, the best results still can be achieved in FSX these days. I am confident future will change that, in time.
    1 point
  7. I guess I am alone on thinking the PMDG will hire the people needed to port their existing 737 to X-plane. Who knows maybe they saw the previews of the 733 for X-plane and decided to go all in and are porting the 777 they are working on. I just find it really hard to believe that they will want to enter a new market with a lite product, or a product with limited appeal. If I was running PMDG I would wait until I had the right people on staff and the expertise to do it right and release a product that says who they are. As I said in another post it's not like they NEED to release for X-plane right now, it makes better business sense to take their time and release a product that will build on the reputation they have built up in the MSFS world. Correct me if I am wrong but the 733 is IXEG's first release as a group right? Did they decide to start with a small prop plane... NO they took years and built a plane that puts them on the FS map. I don't see why people think it's impossible for them to do that. PMDG employs some of the most talented programmers in the FS world, and each release they have had was ground breaking in the MSFS world at the time of it's release. I bet they strive to do the same in X-plane and I doubt they will settle to be a also ran just to rush into the market
    1 point
  8. Touché. Thirty, fifteen. Next service.....
    1 point
  9. Forgive me on that part, but the truth is that they have a life, and they don't stick to developing for us all the time. Give them respect, they at least tried to bring us goodies ASAP....
    1 point
  10. IXEG has incredible talent and having seen the project in person at a conference I can easily say it knocks PMDG out of the water (yes, I have purchased PMDG products). The simulation is amazing. There are things in there never before seen in any simulation, and it's awe inspiring. I don't see how you can even conjure up the idea that the -300 is the "only one they'd be doing." I don't even know that! PMDG's entrance into the XP world with the 737NG is almost assuredly not going to happen off the bat, and for a multitude of reasons. They are smart enough to realize this as well.
    1 point
  11. Hey Mike, I'll jump in on this one. We have all discussed internally "theories" regarding documentation for the flight sim market. One approach is to basically copy the AOM. For us, this implies that if it's in the AOM, it must be in the sim and despite marketing claims of many companies, very rarely will everything in the AOM be in the simulation, probably barely half in most cases. Most developers are willing to take the risk that customers won't go in so deep as to discover where they come up short and would rather have the marketing value of saying, "our stuff is so real you can use the real AOM". Going this route means either copying a whole lot of info or licensing the information, which is usually quite overwhelming in its breadth. We have good perspective with Jan's consultation because I believe even he will tell you he doesn't read all of the AOM that close and indeed MANY times, we had to read it together to find out how to simulate something exactly. So we asked ourselves, "what satisfies best all levels of simmers" and here is where we are now. We will be writing our own documentation that is a slimmed down paraphrasing of the AOM but not necessarily light. It will follow the AOM roughly but it will also contain product specific stuff of course for installation mumbo jumbo and the like. We'll have a quick start so users interested in instant gratification can get some satisfaction. We will back off somewhat on explaining in depth how systems work and focus more on how to work the systems from the pilot perspective. We believe this will satisfy the majority of the simmers out there. We might include less information initially on backup and standby systems which most simmers won't get into. Now for the hard core junkies, we feel that being hardcore junkies, they either have the AOM or know where to go get it as they're not too hard to find. So the question we asked ourselves in this situation was "what if a hardcore guy gets the manual and puts on thick glasses and goes over it line by line". In that case, we said, "well our sim should try and handle it". So we use the AOM to develop the sim as best we are able with our resources but we will not ship the same volume of information as the real one. So what you will find shipping with the sim is more basic descriptions, typical operating procedures with paraphrasing of the AOM; however, becasue we simulated it according to the AOM, we have some overhead to grow and expand and I think over time, after release, we will certainly consider adding a supplement to the documentation based on feedback or include more specialized stuff, but even for us we have to ask, if it follows the AOM exactly, why not just include it? Our final response to that is that most simmers, ourselves included, don't want that volume of information to have to wade through to find info. This is a entertainment market and not a high risk liability market and therefore the documentation needs are different. We want documentation that caters to what customers will be doing most often BUT if one desires more info, then yea, grab the AOM somewhere and knock yourself out because if it's in the AOM and our sim doesn't work as described there, then that is fair game for questioning. We may tell you that we voluntarily chose not to simulate a feature, but we may have missed something also. We use the AOM to guide our programming so we are game to look at it all. All that said, it market demands dictate, we may eaily change our minds after some feedback and it's not like adding the AOM to the download package is a big deal, only a big licensing cost TomK
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...