I hope we get new developers. I’m weary of all the P3D drama and exclusivity. These folks did good work for their time and for that platform, but I want to see some fresh talent and new developers in MSFS.

1 Like

Any writer hostile to MSFS probably writes for a very niche sim publication that survives (likely struggling) on an extremely small and elitist audience regurgitating the same fossilized concepts we used to write 15 years ago.

I can guarantee out of direct experience that anyone who writes on larger/relevant gaming publications either on the web or print is only welcoming and happy that MSFS exists, because it’s what allows us to write about sims at all. Writing about P3D or X-Plane would be less relevant to the audience (and less profitable for the publication) than writing about some of the nichest Japanese games the most relevant mechanic of which is gacha to unlock pictures of waifus. :joy:

The fact that MSFS exists allows me to write 2-3 MSFS news articles a day for the publication I work for, plus plenty of add-on reviews and even interviews, guaranteeing that there will be an audience for it (often as sizable as many AAA games) making me happy because I can write about my favorite hobby, and my employer as well.

My first professionally written review was MSFS2004, and I’m overjoyed that things have finally gone full circle :smiley:


No doubt,…Well from the article I was reading, it sounded very positive and I have patience, the problems I have had with MSFS with FPS drops are the places I avoid until there is a fix…Rome was not built in a day (I maybe wrong). I bought thr CRJ and loved it…just didnt fly to areas where I had problems.

Quite agree, lucky you getting paid for a hobby, your passionate about, flying then critiques the product. Perfect Job

1 Like

True, just like FBW and WT. Fresh blood, young, humble, open minded, willing to learn and passionate about it. Not developers with this SDK drama at first or the WASM drama lol. But yeah, I am pretty sure, there will be new developers coming as long MSFS has good users base not only limited to few users called themselves “serious simmers” lol


For a while now I have been giving guidance on the release of PMDG 737NG3 as “very late 2021” and even hinted that it might drag into 1Q22. This guidance is a bit softer now- as we are really starting to see our work accelerate in MSFS.

Is it just me or maybe I understand that wrong, but this sentence might be a hint from them. Should I understand that the PMDG 737NG3 may now come earlier than expected as “very late 2021” or “Q1 2022”? With the words “a bit softer now” and “work accelerate” that made me in hope.

Anyway, I cannot wait to fly Alaska Airlines Milk Run with PMDG 737 NG3 :grinning:

That’s exactly what he said.

I actually like the Zibo better anyway. I flew the 777 and NGX for a while- put in a LOT of hours and they’re great system-wise. However, the NGX in particular had awful sounds- that vacuum in a can takeoff noise? UGGGHH! The cockpit wasn’t right either- especially with the colors and no cabin.

I’m sure PMDG will do good in MSFS with serious-simmers, but I think other developers can give us something just as satisfying if they think they can beat them to the punch. Current 737-MAX excluded of course :rofl:

I believe the “change” it’s very much due to what you mentioned. When Aerosoft’s making good money with their launch and with existing technology, any past excuses of SDK etc. just doesn’t hold water. It’s either adapt and change or be left behind. Furthermore Working Title Simulations have shown what can be achieved in terms of advanced AP and Flight Management etc, with existing SDK.


Interesting interpretation. “Softer” = “sooner”? I took softer to mean less firm.Time will tell.

It’s not an interpretation. It’s a fact. A softer guidance means less harsh, IE more positive.

May want to read the whole sentence:

“This guidance is a bit softer now- as we are really starting to see our work accelerate in MSFS.”

No interpretation is required.

1 Like

In case you have not been following. MSFS is going to get a lot better within the year since its release. PMDG Provide Brief Update on Microsoft Flight Simulator Development - Threshold

I love Zibo mod ! I have both the NG and Zibo and I really find Zibo more immersive to fly with.
But anyway, PMDG has its own fan base, for many RSR like is like Godfather and you are not allowed to bash him lol.

It is taking some time, primarily because we have to completely reinvent our development process.

They must have realised Asobo weren’t going to budge, and allow them to simply port over what they had, I guess. Brinkmanship at work, and someone usually ends up conceding.


When Robert writes “ this new sim is highly dynamic and changing continually.” What does this really means?
For me it sounds that this sim has gotten more closer to the real life flying behavior, which would be awesome!

1 Like

That comment is neither positive or negative. Sometimes those changes are good, sometimes bad.

It’s more likely they saw money being thrown at Aerosoft’s CRJ, decided holding out for Asobo to allow their custom code to be allowed wasn’t going to work, so have decided to bite the bullet, and re-write for the SDK they have, rather the the SDK they want to have.

It’s all good news though.


This was back in July last year:

All from the article written at the time:
[30JUL20] Pending Updates Update and PMDG 737NG3 for Microsoft Flight Simulator First Look - PMDG Simulations

Just to reiterate, this was all written in July last year:

‘The Faustian Bargain here is that we cannot simply drag our existing code sources over, click a few buttons and output a new product for you. What is required here is a top-down engineering effort to bring our existing technology into the simulator while simultaneously learning everything we can about the new platform’

There are aspects of the MSFS SDK/API that aren’t finished, and functions still missing that we need in order to bring everything fully to life. We are fortunate to have a wide open channel with Microsoft and Asobo so once these features are implemented, debugged and ready for prime time, we will share those results with you.’

‘We are looking forward to bringing you more previews as our work progresses, but please do understand that we are building our first product release on an entirely new platform and this is taking time.’

For those not registered on the PMDG forums, the July article contains some WIP images , so here’s a couple of them:

It’s up to people to read in to all this as they see fit and for some, interpret things the way they want to even is the message coming from the developer is the opposite.

Unless I’m missing something glaringly obvious, PMDG said back last year that the SDK wasn’t where it needed to be at that time. Clearly Aerosoft along with Asobo have done some significant work in that department as the CRJ is plain evidence of that. Could it be that it’s as simple as the SDK is now at a state of functionality that PMDG are able to utilise it far more to achieve what they want to in order to bring their aircraft to this sim, especially as to quote “we are not currently seeing any major limitations to prevent us from bringing our product catalogue into MSFS.” ?

During the X-Plane Vulkan beta last year, that circus was certainly changing continually (highly dynamic not so much) and breaking all manner of things on a regular basis from beta version to version. Some devs (Flight Factor springs to mind with their study level A320) basically said we’ll update our addons when this things in a stable condition or words to that effect, otherwise they’d constantly be trying to get the thing working whilst LR kept shifting the goalposts all over the place week after week. Perhaps PMDG have been taking a similar approach with how the SDK and sim have been progressing :thinking:


I really hate to be picky but “soft guidance” does not mean less harsh. It means less positive. For example in the investment industry, when a company provides soft guidance it means:
Soft guidance: Soft = weak, or weaker than expected. But let’s agree to disagree and time will tell all.

There’s no need to agree to disagree. You’re simply incorrect. This isn’t financial guidance and we’re not talking about an earning forecast, with which incidentally I’m quite familiar.

You’re obviously misquoting Mr. Randazzo, not sure if intentionally or not, continuing to ignore the context and the rest of the quote despite the fact that I’ve put it right there for your perusal.

His message is very clear. Things are moving faster than expected (You can’t misrepresent “accelerate,” which is likely why you’re ignoring it), and that’s exactly what Mr. Randazzo expressed.