Porting flightmodel is not possible FS<->XP. However, if they know what they aredoing, have the data I expect them to have, the FM is not the showstopper.These guy's are used to reverse engineering.I would headhunt someone from X-Plane that can help them.Porting avionics & systems over is the big one. Most of the systems in one way or the otherneeds datarefs from XP. So even if the logic is the same, the datarefs needs to be replaced.But I think this is also overcome-able if their code is made with that in mind.M

Couldn't agree more.A while ago, Scott posted this. A little later, he posted this. In other words, a move isn't ruled out, but it's not imminent.This question of new platforms has to be difficult for any developer that's built its product line and talent pool for FSX. There may in fact be a future tipping point where most users have gone over to a new platform. But until then, it's a matter of pulling resources away from the biggest cash-producing projects. Not everyone has the wherewithal to do that - see the comments by John V. of ORBX, linked above. Also, the "porting" process has got to be extremely difficult. Even with developers like PMDG or A2A, who offload most of the sim functions into their own modules, you've still got to get those modules to talk to the new program. That would mean "translating" the flight model, and also getting the in-depth systems to work with a program that handles them in its own new way. You can see why Prepar3D would be appealing on the face of it - less translating to do. But of course, there are all the questions there about Lockheed Martin's ability or willingness to support a consumer platform. It sounds as though PMDG and ORBX are having very different kinds of interaction with LM, which might just be the ins and outs of working with an extremely large organization where people and departments are on different pages.One thing is clear - to borrow from the ancient Chinese curse, we're living in interesting times.

I remember reading that post on A2A simulations forums. I also remember being quite surprised at how some people treated 'Hueyman' on that forum. Oh well...back on topic, It certainly would be nice to see other well established FSX developers at least take a look. But I can understand it makes for a tough business decision. It was interesting to read on Robert Randazzo (PMDG) Flight post about almost going out of business:Quote:"You see- we nearly put PMDG out of business by adopting our entire development process for 2006/2007 around the release of FSX. When that platform proved to be unready for the market it had disastrous consequences- and while we were very much excited by the idea of a new and more capable platform- there remained the obvious fear of "going down that road again" with FLIGHT."That is one tough decision to make, so I can see why some developers are being cautios. I'm with Alan, we certainly are living in interesting times.CheersRhydian

This is great news :)And the fact that PMDG now has announced a pilot project will without a doubtmake the rest of the big commercial company's in FS consider the same!Then the ball starts rolling...- The biggest challenge for them will be porting over the (systems)code, but as he states, their latest projectshave already been coded with this in mind (737NGX, 777). So it is likely it's one of those they are working on for XP.- Then there is the flightmodel which is new territory for them.At IXEG we welcome this and if they need any hints they are always free to contact us :)M

Your 737 classic looks really good. I will buy Xplane10 and your product once it's released.

Porting flightmodel is not possible FS<->XP. However, if they know what they aredoing, have the data I expect them to have, the FM is not the showstopper.These guy's are used to reverse engineering.I would headhunt someone from X-Plane that can help them.

I wonder if the guys at PMDG, in the event of committing to develop for X-P, will take into consideration the possibility to completely override X-P flight model. In their case, it's (maybe?) possible this could save them resources and time, if you think about it.They should "just" add to their code (which already overrides most of native FSX simulation) the bunch of equations necessary to calculate total forces and moments from the data of the look-up tables (control & stability derivatives). They would also need to add a turbulence model though, since in this case X-P's one would be of course overridden as well.Quite a lot of initial work would be needed for that, but subsequently they would have three advantages:1) the most significant, the possibility to directly transfer the flight dynamics data they already have for all their existing MSFS products into X-P, saving the reverse engineering that would be needed tweaking _each_ aircraft according to X-P flight model, and that (I reckon) takes a lot of time and trial/error.2) having a stable FM, not subject to the changes Austin introduces every now and then (ok, lately the FM has been very stable, but you can never know...)3) bypassing X-Plane turbulence model that, according to most RW pilots, has been exaggerated since several major versions now.Marco

I wonder if the guys at PMDG, in the event of committing to develop for X-P, will take into consideration the possibility to completely override X-P flight model. In their case, it's (maybe?) possible this could save them resources and time, if you think about it.

Should be possible.But I'd rather have them take a much bolder approach - get together with ORBX, etc. and create a new sim platform ! Probably, much easier said than done, I know.

Edited January 10, 201214 yr by m_av

You wont see PMDG developing for X-plane-unless Austin changes his development philosophy,meaning no global changes rendering ones addon useless.Can you see PMDG spending 5 years on NGX for XP ,only to have a change render all that time and energy useless?

Edited January 11, 201214 yr by BIGSKY

JimThat topic has been explained many times before and is another myth among the non x plane user base.No update in x plane breaks an add on for the life of that version run.And if it does, LR will make changes to make sure the add on works as it was supposed to work.

No update in x plane breaks an add on for the life of that version run.

I wouldn't go that far and I am being polite here.Addons have been broken or reduced in some features unrecognised or some features "dulled" or e.g. airport lighting highlited/brightened so much so that they look like they were lit like petroleum refneries, etc.What I have listed above is from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS. Again, you may chose to believe me or not, but it is a fact based on my personal experience. I have known 3rd party developers remain silent, grin and bear it or try to be as gentle as possible in asking Austin to make the necessary correction.This is where I say, again, the word "compatibility" is used somewhat losely. If compatibilty means X-plane didn't CTD because of the particular entity, THAT'S A PRETTY LOW BAR. To me compatibilty means the particular entity will work in the new X-plane update or version just as well as it it did in ta previous update or version, as the case maybe, WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS. One might say THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH BAR. But, that's me. :(

Edited January 11, 201214 yr by m_av

Please read my entire post."No update in x plane breaks an add on for the life of that version run.And if it does, LR will make changes to make sure the add on works as it was supposed to work."I'm not a scenery developer so I have no thoughts on scenery, (I don't consider lighting changes in particular "issues"), but as far as aircraft go, I have only seen one aircraft (Peter Hagers A330) have something happen to it. The thrust had more power...and that was fixed in about 10 minutes in Planemaker by Peter Hager himself.Developers do not just grin and bear it...and if they do, they are doing themselves and their customers a disservice. Ben Supnik has openly invited any developer whose add on "breaks" to report the issue to him and he will address it in the next update...usually within days.