these are made by hundreds of artists by 3d scanning real planes. there is no way small developers can compete. even the DC-6 has angular meshes and blurry textures.
3 Likes
The DC-6 is an update of an existing product for FSX and P3D though. Stuff created from scratch from MSFS will probably look better in general. It was released in 2016 or so.
2 Likes
Still they claim “(The DC6) has been built from the ground up to capitalize on the vast strengths of this new simulation platform”
Which doesnt seem true. The model was probably a re-export in the MSFS file format but not completely re-done.
I have respect for PMDG but all the developers claiming that the products has benn “built from ground up” seem not to be entirely true.
11 Likes
I think Carenado planes look better than default planes.
8 Likes
I think the statement you quoted was not talking about the visuals, but about the flight model, the instruments, efb etc.
Small developers might not, but it’s but bigger are, if they want to. This distinction is missing in your thread title which is why I disagree in it’s generalization.
That might be true, but then it should bementioned. I would interpret “from ground up” differently. But as long as the systems are as good as they are in PMDG products, the visual model is not such a big factor for me. But for others they obviously are.
1 Like
Well, it’s marketing. JustFlight advertises their Arrows with
highest possible texture detail and clarity
which is far from reality as well and they confirmed it.
All of this might be due to porting or lack of time/resources, but also might be a result of optimization since more details cost performance.
Looking forward to the Ju-52 advertised by MS, this is one guy doing it, but I expect similar visual quality as we have with stock aircraft.
2 Likes
I don’t care too much about the visual quality of the aircraft in MSFS. If it is good then I appreciate it, but I’m more after scenery quality. And system depth of course.
Karl
4 Likes
Me too man, yes! Its such an iconic aircraft here in switzerland. I think the modeling part will be done by Asobo and Oliver will make the “systems” and stuff. It looked very detailed in the screenshots.
Most third party planes are re-releases, if you like, of an existing product. We’ll have to get used to that for a few years to come as the developers use up their existing stock. We may see some additional delays when brand new aircraft have to be developed completely from scratch, including the airframe itself.
I am pretty sure all 3d modelling and sound with be Asobo’s work.
And similar system depth.
Generally it’s a simple equation: more detail → more work required → higher prices.
regarding PMDG it’s almost typical system depth as far it’s currently possible but a price that’s lower than anything we’ve seen from them in a loong time. That’s only possible as they where able to use a 3D model they already had. It probably saved them several 100s of hours and from the screenshots I took from a typical distance from where you’d take pictures of an airplane it doesn’t look worse than completely native models.
Tell that to Carenado, A1R Aero Design, SimSkunkWorks, IndiaFoxtEcho, Wing42, Aerosoft, Milviz, AT Simulations, CaptainSim (visual only), Flying Iron, and SimWorks Studios. Somehow, they managed.
17 Likes
Actually the system depth of piston aircraft with steam gauges isn’t that big of a deal and since that addon will probably cost >=10 USD, I’d assume it will have enough detail. Jorg mentioned that they want to have every button and switch work like the real thing.
So far I’m optimistic, but we’ll see.
And if the model is done by Asobo (which wasn’t that clear to me), I assume it will look great, at least if you prefer factory-clean aircraft.
I for one would rather have wear&tear, especially on the old aircraft, which doesn’t work well with the way Asobo uses their material pattern and decal system.
Sandro, there a couple users here from the same general geographic area as you. I also have a few pilot friends from Germany, Switzerland and Austria. All have one thing in common.
We constantly have arguments that always seem to come back to interpretation. I have learned to never “generalize” a statement. It seems to trigger the arguments. I am pretty sure that when PMDG said they had built the new DC-6 from the ground up they were speaking of the systems and dynamics. They had a perfectly usable 3d model and paint job that could be used as a wrapper. Not only does this greatly reduce cost of production but also gets it out the door faster.
As I mentioned before this is an entry level price point for a PMDG product. That alone suggests they took the path of least investment.
What you say is not wrong, but it is indicative of the literal way that people from your region interpret statements. I know you do not like generalizations that can be interpreted as untrue if taken at face value, but in this case, building the airplane for MSFS does not necessarily include building the visual model. I know, vague, possibly even misleading depending on perspective. I did not read that marketing release to include the liveries or 3d model, because I fully expected them to use the existing visuals.
Europe vs N/A. Different ways of looking at things…
they did it cheaper because of the bigger market here. they did not for p3d and they had the fsx one already…so your story just doesnt sound very convincing to me.
its clever marketing, i say, get it out so cheap a lot of people who never else would have
bought it, will get it and see the really good deep simulation, so maybe those are in for the next products. its future client marketing too.
And you say that you dont “generalize”? 
@willisxdc
Its just a misleading statement, marketing speak. Thats all im saying. PMDG doesnt need such things. They are very open and honest and carefull what they say, especially Robert. Thats why i think they should be more clear in the product description.
But still, why u think that my statement has anything to do with my origin is a bit beyond me. 
4 Likes
On visuals:
Carenado have been probably the best at upgrading their visuals for the new platform. They probably use their FSX models, sure, BUT they have more polygons and higher resolution textures than older sims.
We’ve also seen newer first-time devs who have no resources from the older sims to use, and hence make true “native” aircraft that tend to be very high quality visually because they are made in MSFS. See: A1R design bureau’s Ryan.
However some of the larger, older “titans” seem to lack the visual fidelity in places. The DC6 exterior is inconsistent in its quality; some areas have the new PBR and high resolution while some are taken from FS2004. Same with the CRJ: the cockpit is definitely up to standards but certain places in the exterior are lacking.
Visual fidelity varies based on dev to dev. If you want a large chance of up-to-date visuals then buy from the first-time devs who have no older, dated resources to port over. Or find a dev like Carenado who work to upgrade their older products to newer standards. Personally I think the failure of the “titans” to upgrade is for performance reasons as their systems are far more complex than that of first-timer devs.
2 Likes
That was intended as a trigger.
Sorry, not intended as a slight. Just an observation. “Generalization interpretation disputes” or misunderstandings based on vague or casual descriptions have often been rooted in cultural or societal differences when interpretation relies on personal experiences. eg: I have a friend that lives just outside Rome. We often argued about why anyone would pay $90K CND for a 4WD 1 ton pickup for personal use. Wasn’t until he came for a visit and we went for a drive in the countryside that he came to grips.
