To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
For PMDG fans, it’s already time to get your way to their download shop to purchase the new version of their 747-400.
omg! that’s too expensive…
The ones we have the previous version for fsx? Anyway the price is embarrassing, a scorn to users.
This is not the previous version just adapted to P3D. It’s the new Queen of the Skies II, developed from scratch since like two years ago. Customers of the previous version have no special upgrade price as you can see.
Wow, I guess I need to kick this hobby and just pick up real flying.
89? may be 134? No way, PMDG just priced themselves out of my range.
Yes yes I know developing is expensive and all the time that went there is worth, but from a business perspective is better to sell 2 at 70 bucks than one at 130….
If they lower the price they will sell more, hence making more profit in the long run, at 134 I am out!
Disappointed by the graphic rendering with this price. The flight model seems more realistic. The sound immersion is better but the price is high … especially for those who had acquired the previous version.
Members
921 posts
Posted Today, 10:39 AM
As someone planning on buying the 747 at some point in the future, I was very interested in the recent thread about how low the wings bend on the ground. It struck me as something that was a bit off in images and videos I’d seen, but not having the plane yet I couldn’t test it myself. I agree that the ‘evidence’ posted at first wasn’t really conclusive, which Kyle was right to point out. However, as of earlier this morning EST, a handful of users had posted 1)a picture clearly showing too much downward flex at only 3kg of fuel, 2)data and a diagram showing the wingtip position change on the ground, 3) a comparison to the accurate wingflex on the pervious version, and 4) testimony from someone stating he is an actual 747 pilot saying it is indeed to extreme, even at full fuel. To me, all this evidence at least warranted the developers taking a closer look into the wing model, or at least a response. However, I didn’t see that, or even a response saying “the winflex is fine- this post is locked”. Instead, it seems that the entire thread was completely deleted without adressing what was brought up. This, as I see it, is completely unecissary. Many of us place a lot of importance in the external model, and to have our concers so flagrantly swept under the rug is dishonest and very poor practice from developers who strive to make the best planes for FS, both inside and out. I’m hoping this was a misunderstanding, the thread was simply moved, or for some reason I missed the post adressing the issues. Still, even if they were wrong, I’m not sure why this thread would have to be nuked when it would seem like it would warrant a relatively simple, polite response like “thanks for providing evidence as requested, we’re looking into it.”
(Note- there’s another thread about the wingflex during turbulance at cruise- this is a different matter and was properly shown to not be an issue with the aircraft. I am talking about a different thread mostly adressing a different issue altogether).
Members
921 posts
Posted Today, 10:39 AM
As someone planning on buying the 747 at some point in the future, I was very interested in the recent thread about how low the wings bend on the ground. It struck me as something that was a bit off in images and videos I’d seen, but not having the plane yet I couldn’t test it myself. I agree that the ‘evidence’ posted at first wasn’t really conclusive, which Kyle was right to point out. However, as of earlier this morning EST, a handful of users had posted 1)a picture clearly showing too much downward flex at only 3kg of fuel, 2)data and a diagram showing the wingtip position change on the ground, 3) a comparison to the accurate wingflex on the pervious version, and 4) testimony from someone stating he is an actual 747 pilot saying it is indeed to extreme, even at full fuel. To me, all this evidence at least warranted the developers taking a closer look into the wing model, or at least a response. However, I didn’t see that, or even a response saying “the winflex is fine- this post is locked”. Instead, it seems that the entire thread was completely deleted without adressing what was brought up. This, as I see it, is completely unecissary. Many of us place a lot of importance in the external model, and to have our concers so flagrantly swept under the rug is dishonest and very poor practice from developers who strive to make the best planes for FS, both inside and out. I’m hoping this was a misunderstanding, the thread was simply moved, or for some reason I missed the post adressing the issues. Still, even if they were wrong, I’m not sure why this thread would have to be nuked when it would seem like it would warrant a relatively simple, polite response like “thanks for providing evidence as requested, we’re looking into it.”
(Note- there’s another thread about the wingflex during turbulance at cruise- this is a different matter and was properly shown to not be an issue with the aircraft. I am talking about a different thread mostly adressing a different issue altogether).
Why spend that amount on an old out dated host sim?
How the hell can they justify $90 and $135 for a Flightsim addon?
IMHO this is just sheer greed! And you wonder why –CENSURED– ??
Ha! Ha! Ha! Really? Another Boeing. In fact another 747. Yawn!! Come on PMDG get a grip. For that price too.
I’m not gonna touch it.
NEXT!!