4 hours ago, MatthewS said:

Probably the only ones with guts enough to speak out, given the NDA restrictions.

This.

1 minute ago, Milviz said:

This.

Admiring you in the mirror, Milviz ?

Oh please.  You do not know of what you speak but, sadly, I do.  We devs actually SPEAK to each other you know.  They are afraid of poking the bear.  I, on the other hand, am not afraid of doing so. 

Ah, another let me grab my popcorn and enjoy the show thread.

15 hours ago, Noodle said:

Cease Buzzer.

The entire post is needlessly condescending, speculative, and baseless. It lowers everyone's SA and devalues your opinion.

Asobo/MS have not "promised" anything. They have, however, communicated their desire and intent. The fact that something is not presently in an early Alpha build of the software is not an indicator of...anything. 

On the other hand, a major developer such as PMDG--which is run by a guy who has been critical of MS in the past, and whose financial future is tied inextricably to producing high-end complex aircraft addons--has publically decided to align itself to MSFS at the expense of XP development. That IS an indicator of...something.

If PMDG comes out and announces a change of heart, citing an inability to produce high-fidelity avionics, then I'll be disappointed and your pessimism will have been justified.

In the interim, I choose to exercise some common sense with a dash optimism.

When PMDG made their announcement, there were a lot of things assumed by development community and little was actually known for certain. MS was still asking developers questions about what they needed and it was assumed that we would absolutely get what we needed. Now, while there is considerable uncertainty, developers are more wait and see.

1 hour ago, JB3DG said:

When PMDG made their announcement, there were a lot of things assumed by development community and little was actually known for certain. MS was still asking developers questions about what they needed and it was assumed that we would absolutely get what we needed. Now, while there is considerable uncertainty, developers are more wait and see.

Ok. And like I said, "...if PMDG comes out and announces a change of heart, citing an inability to produce high-fidelity avionics, then I'll be disappointed and [the] pessimism will have been justified.

In the interim, I choose to exercise some common sense with a dash optimism."

Right now there is no consensus. A few big developers have publically pledged official support for MSFS. A few small ones are kicking cans on the Avsim forum claiming it's The End. Who to believe?

No evidence offered so far makes a compelling case that all is lost. By your own admission, things are "uncertain"...so how can one reasonably arrive at such certain conclusions as some offered in this thread?

I think I'll just calmly wait and see what happens.

12 minutes ago, Noodle said:

citing an inability to produce high-fidelity avionics

The fortnite developers are making millions of dollars selling player skins and badges.

no way PMDG will abandon putting whatever they can in msfs2020, even if that is just a nice looking 737neo model that looks the business and all the cockpit buttons do something interesting.

48 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The fortnite developers are making millions of dollars selling player skins and badges.

no way PMDG will abandon putting whatever they can in msfs2020, even if that is just a nice looking 737neo model that looks the business and all the cockpit buttons do something interesting.

Maybe. But that's not PMDG's modus operandi, and there's nothing in their long history to suggest they're going to start making low-fidelity stuff now out of the blue.

There are plenty of possibilities that lie across the continuum of plausibility. But without any evidence, it's just baseless speculation.

When you hear hooves, think horses not zebras.

9 hours ago, domkle said:

Two developers are against it as far as we know from this thread : Ed and Milviz 😉.  

In my defense... I am not against... I just stated it will not allow complex aircraft design.  There is so much behind-the-scenes code that goes into making a complex aircraft... and based on all I have for current information... it's just not possible with the WASM approach.  You can get simple aircraft... simple everything about the aircraft, systems, avionics... etc.  Each and every gauge defined will run "independent" with no cross-talk methodology because WASM is a sandbox... it intentionally isolates the code and won't allow it to do anything outside of it's sandbox.  

1 minute ago, WarpD said:

In my defense... I am not against... I just stated it will not allow complex aircraft design.  There is so much behind-the-scenes code that goes into making a complex aircraft... and based on all I have for current information... it's just not possible with the WASM approach.  You can get simple aircraft... simple everything about the aircraft, systems, avionics... etc.  Each and every gauge defined will run "independent" with no cross-talk methodology because WASM is a sandbox... it intentionally isolates the code and won't allow it to do anything outside of it's sandbox.  

Thanks for the clarification, Ed.

We, at MV, WANT this to work... We WANT to be able to play in this sandbox.  But if the sandbox is the size of a pinhead and 3PD's are being forced to use it but Asobo is not... that's not just unfair, it's downright ugly.  So... I HOPE that this isn't what ends up happening ... but so far...

53 minutes ago, WarpD said:

with no cross-talk methodology because WASM is a sandbox...

not strictly true, you can import and export  functions and objects provided by the host sandbox.

e g.

https://wasmbyexample.dev/examples/importing-javascript-functions-into-webassembly/importing-javascript-functions-into-webassembly.rust.en-us.html#

you wont want to use it for any kind of heavy computation or direct drawing tasks, but it can handle complexity reasonably well.

1 hour ago, WarpD said:

Each and every gauge defined will run "independent" with no cross-talk methodology because WASM is a sandbox... it intentionally isolates the code and won't allow it to do anything outside of it's sandbox. 

 

29 minutes ago, Milviz said:

But if the sandbox is the size of a pinhead

Webassembly is a sandbox, but that does not mean it can't access other things.  It depends on what APIs are added and the information flow security model implemented.  See this part from a Webassembly Security document.  (https://webassembly.org/docs/security/)

"Each WebAssembly module executes within a sandboxed environment separated from the host runtime using fault isolation techniques. This implies:

• Applications execute independently, and can’t escape the sandbox without going through appropriate APIs.
• Applications generally execute deterministically with limited exceptions.

Additionally, each module is subject to the security policies of its embedding. Within a web browser, this includes restrictions on information flow through same-origin policy. On a non-web platform, this could include the POSIX security model."

So, I assume that currently Webassembly does not currently allow the things needed.  But we know Asobo is working on Webassembly.  Has anyone seen the roadmap of what Asobo plans to do to Webassembly, and does that not allow the things needed?  And are we talking about rewriting from scratch, or porting the old code?

 

57 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

And are we talking about rewriting from scratch, or porting the old code?

anything that interacts with the aircraft systems will need writing from scratch.

addons like electronic flight bags (e.g. avitab) or full environment systems like my autoatc probably wont be possible.

Edited April 8, 20206 yr by mSparks

@mSparks  My two sentences were not meant to be taken apart, which is why I used "And".  I.e. people that have seen the roadmap, will it do what is needed, and are you talking about from scratch or porting.  Last I heard you didn't even sign up for the Alpha.