Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
crvm

MCP737 support

Recommended Posts

Hey Don! Hehe. Where you at? Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

Share this post


Link to post

Folks at PMDG,Could you please post the update on the SDK development please.I am looking forward to purchasing MCP unit, but apparently it is not yet supported.ThanksDom

Share this post


Link to post

Dom-Lefteris posted a reply earlier- but I thought a more detailed response might be appropriate. (Ive read some really odd theories about why we have not developed a comprehensive hardware SDK- so at least you'll get the answer right from the "head mouthpiece" so to speak!) ;-)After the release of the 737NG series- we were approached by a number of hadrware manufacturers to see if we would produce an SDK that would allow them access to the customer PMDG autopilot/MCP/AFDS systems that were designed by us for this airplane.Initially we felt this would be a good way to ensure that hardware owning customers were able to get the most enjoyment from the airplane by using it in conjunction with their hardware. We felt this would be good for customers, PMDG and the hardware manufacturers.Keeping in mind for a moment that at the time the PMDG 737 series airplanes were launched into development (August of 2002), PMDG had virtually no experience programming add-on aircraft for MSFS. Our experience with FLY and FLY!II did not well prepare us for some of the "additionals" that customers would ask of us during the product maturation process.As such- the NG was not developed with hardware compatibility in mind, but instead was programmed for developmental efficiency.The process of adding this compatibility is not a simple one, as some would epouse. It would have been quite simple had we known to plan for it- but in the case of the NG- it was not.... (It is hard to plan for the unknown...)During our discussions with various firms interested in linking their hardware to the PMDG 737, it became obvious that we had a series of concerns:1) Intellectual Property Protection: The PMDG autopilot, flight director and AFDS is entirely proprietary. Obviously we need to protect our intellectual investment- and the process of doing this is an entire endeavor of it's own. We have been working closely with the United States Secret Service, FBI and our Intellectual Property Counsel's office to investigate and prepare legal cases against individuals and organizations perpetrating the theft of PMDG intellectual property. (These are pending shortly... not my favorite passtime- but....) This process was an eye opener- and forced us to recognize that we would have to prepare significant IP protections before proceding. This is not an easy task....2) Cross platform functionality: There are nearly as many hardware vendors as there are software vendors. Each hardware vendor had a unique set of needs and a unique set of demands. Matching all of these to suit the users was immediately a complicated scenario that we were not prepared to support without negatively impacting our existing development schedule.3) Poor pre-planning on our part: As i've mentioned, the NG did not come "pre-wired" for such interface. As such- we found that it would be necessary to re-write as much as 40% of the code... This would introduce a level of potential disruption and place upon PMDG a heavy test/re-test need that was not compatible with our existing development schedule.4) Uncertain Success: As we've said a number of times- we do not like to launch into projects that we are not 100% certain we are technically capable of resolving. Based on 1-3 above, we were uncertain that the massive programming effort required would "bear fruit" for the labor required.As such- we completed the SDK development for those users owning the Aerosoft Australia MCP units. (Aerosoft was kind enough to provide access to testing units- so how could we NOT finish?!)The bad news is that I think it will be a long time, if ever- before we are able to develop a comprehensive SDK allowing a broader range of hardware support for the NG.The good news is that we have certainly learned quite a bit in the past 2 years of MSFS development- and the 747-400 was begun with some specific goals in mind.... One of which was to make the software more readily compatible with a hardware interface!I hope that answers your question as thoroughly as you'd like!


Robert S. Randazzo coolcap.gif

PLEASE NOTE THAT PMDG HAS DEPARTED AVSIM

You can find us at:  http://forum.pmdg.com

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Binkles

Sorry to harp on the subject, but when you say "readily compatible with a hardware interface" do you mean for commercial hardware - or will systems like opencockpits and FSBus work?Although I won't be building my cockpit for the 747 I know others will be.Back to my search for a 737 to use for a cockpit I suppose.Laurence

Share this post


Link to post

Robert,I guess you could not make your answer more honest and comprehensive.Thank you for that.I understand the background of the problem. As a matter of fact you might have just saved me a 500 bucks - LOLThanks and looking forward to your long-range queen.Congratulations on excellent customer support.DomPS. Randy, been looking for ya. Call me on ICQ pls.

Share this post


Link to post

Most cockpit builders won't be happy about this. I myself am not building anything on top of the NG, but the reasons (while valid on their own) posted above just leave me with a feeling that "it just wasn't done".I realize that PMDG never intended to be Project Magenta, especially not with their first ever MSFS project. That said, the rumours and speculation of an SDK coming should've been given a straight answer much earlier.Just my personal feelings about this...Tero


PPL(A)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest mmcevilley

Robert,Thanks for the candid, informative and educational response ... >As such- we completed the SDK development for those users>owning the Aerosoft Australia MCP units. (Aerosoft was kind>enough to provide access to testing units- so how could we NOT>finish?!)Appreciate the collaboration and hope such will be the case for the 744.>The good news is that we have certainly learned quite a bit in>the past 2 years of MSFS development- and the 747-400 was>begun with some specific goals in mind.... One of which was>to make the software more readily compatible with a hardware>interface!This is very good news ... thanks for the 'course correction' on the development philosophy!-michael

Share this post


Link to post

In February of this year, I wrote to PMDG concerning the SDK issue. I am just moving from the planning stage to the construction stage of a simpit based on the 737 using FSBus to interface. I expect the electronic components to arrive this week. The content of this thread seems to be a complete reversal from the email I received...Quote...We are curretnly testing the SDK but no release date is available. Watch the Forum and our website for more info on when this will become available. Regards Paul Gollnick Manager - Technical/Customer Support Operations Precision Manuals Development Group Unquote.What has transpired, leaves me a little perplexed. I think that it is wonderful that you are thinking of incorporating such features in the 744, but, I don't want to fly the 744! A lot of airports that I like to fly would be marginal for the 744 and I don't like long hauls. The 737 fits my needs to a tee.I don't want a full blown SDK, wouldn't know how it use it if I had it. If you are so concerned about copyright infringements or trade secrets, could there be some way to make a dll that would give access to the features indirectly?If I cannot access the features, then I will have no choice, but to abandon the PMDG model and invest my money in Project Magenta!Feeling very mislead...

Share this post


Link to post

Chuck-It am sorry that you feel misled. Unfortunately- there is simply NO manner in which an organization like PMDG will be able to please everyone ALL the time.Guys such as yourself are not the majority of sim user base worldwide. As a high end hardware owner/builder/designer- you know that you are in a smaller segment of the market that is not "easily included" in a mainstream product development. That being said- we elected to "rise to the challenge" to see if we could connect you guys to our software- in spite of the fact that such functionality was not originally planned for.Over a period of two and a half months, Lefteris invested hundreds of man hours into finding a solution that we felt was:1) Functional2) Workable3) SupportableIn the end, after delaying full development start of the 747-400 for nearly two and a half months- it was obvious that the ONLY WAY we would succeed in supporting all the existing hardware manufacturers was to suspend PMDG development for a period estimated to be 7 months, and completely rewrite the systems/interface logic for this airplane.The net revenue for such effort would have been less than $5000, and it would have meant delaying the release of the 747-400 until approximately September of 2006.PMDG is a business- albiet one that runs directly to support the hobby of our customers. We frequently make decisions that are not "good business decisions" in the Harvard Business School sense becuase we also enjoy the hobby- and we like to simulate the airline operating environment to the greatest degree possible.However- there comes a point when you have to admit defeat.If the reality of the business model is disappointing- that is certainly understandable, but we didn't get here without trying.CYXU is London, Ont- is it not? I've flown in and out of there a few times... Katana Cafe is a great place for lunch....


Robert S. Randazzo coolcap.gif

PLEASE NOTE THAT PMDG HAS DEPARTED AVSIM

You can find us at:  http://forum.pmdg.com

Share this post


Link to post

Aha, a seventh month delay would mean the 747 being released in September 2006. Counting counting counting. So it will be released in Februari 2005 then? :)BTW, that picture of the nose gear you have in the gallery, that is a REAL photo right? RIGHT?


Krister Lindén
EFMA, Finland
------------------
 

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm..noticed now the text on the gear picture so forget my question. :) I can't edit my post though. Strange.


Krister Lindén
EFMA, Finland
------------------
 

Share this post


Link to post

Quote 1:3) Poor pre-planning on our part: As i've mentioned, the NG did not come "pre-wired" for such interface. As such- we found that it would be necessary to re-write as much as 40% of the code... Quote 2:As such- we completed the SDK development for those users owning the Aerosoft Australia MCP units. (Aerosoft was kind enough to provide access to testing units- so how could we NOT finish?!)OK We've got the point...:)Themis KatakalosAthens, GreeceFSBUS Cockpit Builder


Themis Katakalos

Athens - LGAV

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Raafie75

Chuck,I'm not sure if you are aware but IOcards (Similar to FSBUS) are putting together a systems interface, modelling a 737-800 which is what I'm currently building.I was also going to use FSBUS and had already built some of the cards but now I'll be switching to IOcards and have already ordered some. These you have to buy but are very inexpensive. You can purchase the PCB and components together and build it yourself or get a card shipped to you all ready to go.The system is called ON737 and you can see it at:www.opencockpits.comJust to be clear, I have no offiliation with Open Cockpits but I was hoping myself that PMDG would come to the party for us Cockpits Builders but as they've said, we are the minority and feel its not worth the time and effort to produce a package suitable for cockpit builders. Even though I would have paid alot more than the $39.95 they are currently charging.I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with IOcards as I was.Kind Regards,Brad Heller.

Share this post


Link to post

Robert,Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns so fully. I can appreciate how what may seem to be a workable project may run into complications during it's creation and I accept that fact. I still believe that products you and the rest of the team put out are in a league of there own as is your support.For now, I will continue to use them, maybe by the time my cockpit is ready for it's first test flight, I'll find a work around.Many thanks,P.S. I've been by the Katana restaurant countless time, but never been in yet, will have to make a point to stop in.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...