SDK for 737 NGX...then 747?

[JC75 22]

HiWill there be an SDK for the upcoming 737? To allow hardware users to interface with the PMDG aircraft? is there any chance that an SDK will be released for the Queen at a later date?The driver method that has been employed before is useless and i imagine to time consuming for PMDG to develop drivers for each and every bit of hardware that is on the market, and limits development of further hardware? an SDK that would allow Hardware manufactures to do the work to interface to the software is a far better method, just like as been employed with the Level D 767 and using Opencockpits hardware through interfaces like LEkSEECON.Your aircraft are amazing, but become somewhat SIMTOYS, when you are left clicking with the mouse rather than being able to press, turn or push buttons and switches. An SDK along with your great VC that is being shown with the JS41, along with the accuracy that you model the various systems in your aircraft truly would make your aircraft the greatest addon for FS.RegardsJames C

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Jim-SimToys.That'll offend a whole raft of people all at the same time, to say nothing of the developers who invest tens of thousands of hours ino these projects.I've mentioned in a few other places that our intent with the NG2.0 is to provide hardware manufacturers with an SDK that will allow them to incorporate their hardware by developing any required interfaces. This will be done on a product by product basis, and may not include all products. We will not produce such SDK's retroactively to already released products, however.

[JC75 22]

Jim-SimToys.That'll offend a whole raft of people all at the same time, to say nothing of the developers who invest tens of thousands of hours ino these projects.I've mentioned in a few other places that our intent with the NG2.0 is to provide hardware manufacturers with an SDK that will allow them to incorporate their hardware by developing any required interfaces. This will be done on a product by product basis, and may not include all products. We will not produce such SDK's retroactively to already released products, however.

Hi Thanks for the quick response, and good to hear that the SDK will be developed for the NG2.0. I meant no offence in my comment of SIMTOYS, I was just refferring to the fact that you make such amazing planes, and those tens of thousands of hours you mention that developers put into to these products shows....but without the hardware interface your planes which are like the Audi and BMWs of this world are like buying one of them but they forget to give you the keys to drive it with lol! The SDK will allow users to enjoy the quality of your sims to the full, and i'm so glad you've dropped the silly driver method of hardware support, its not what the community needs, SDK's will allow the Hobby to thrive, with even more and cheaper hardware to come out on the market.Its a shame that you wont consider "Retroactively" (what a cool word!) releasing SDK's for the queen, especially as it unlikely we will see this remade in the near future. Its certainly a very popular aircraft, and one with a lot of hardware available for it, and would probably boost sales of it again. I understand that making an SDK is time consuming and possibly more revenue can be gained from putting that time into developing a whole new aircraft, but I think you would find that people would be willing to pay for an SDK for the queen!Anyhow keep up the good work, amazing looking JS41, and looking very much to being able to use the 737 with my hardware...my 767 needs a rest!RegardsJames

[ahuimanu 50]

The interface does not determine the "toy"-ness of the product, it is the routines, modeling and algorithms behind it that matter. Clicking the mouse or clicking a button is a matter of interface. That said, a more generalized SDK for hooking into PMDG variables would make for more interesting SimConnect programs. I think PMDG have expressed disdain for this approach in the past though; I think they did not want to expose their proprietary data such that their routines might be reverse engineered.

[Spaceman3 1]

I always thought that cheesy and fairly unauthentic interfaces reminded me of "Baby's First Car", you know with the little plastic wheel and horn that your kid could push and turn and feel like they were driving a real car. Those are the simtoys that I think he was referring to.For me, using a mouse and joystick to interface with a top notch computer simulation like PMDG produces is quite satisfying. If I want to turn knobs, I'll go out and fly a real plane.

[Krister 51]

I always thought that cheesy and fairly unauthentic interfaces reminded me of "Baby's First Car", you know with the little plastic wheel and horn that your kid could push and turn and feel like they were driving a real car. Those are the simtoys that I think he was referring to.For me, using a mouse and joystick to interface with a top notch computer simulation like PMDG produces is quite satisfying. If I want to turn knobs, I'll go out and fly a real plane.

Well, I use the CPFlight MCP for controlling the MCP functions of the PMDG737, 747 and LevelD 767 and I must say it gives me great satisfaction turning knobs and pushing buttons! Since I fly alot in VC using TrackIR fiddling around with the mouse trying to find the right spots is simply not an option when I am flying on VATSIM and the controllers wants me to promptly adhere to their instructions.

[ahuimanu 50]

It is nice to have both. My point was that the underlying quality of the sim is what matters and that is where PMDG shines (oh much more brightly than all of the other stars in the MSFS addon sky).