1 hour ago, GlideBy said:

Last I heard you didn't even sign up for the Alpha.

Why would I? 99% of the code is sim agnostic and the rest is open source. Tools to build WASM are not new and readily available, but the toolchain is not fit for production and possibly never will be.

1 hour ago, GlideBy said:

My two sentences were not meant to be taken apart, which is why I used "And".

->will it do what is needed for a custom airspeed indicator and are you talking about from scratch or porting.

yes, from scratch

->will it do what is needed for a custom electronic flight bag and are you talking about from scratch or porting.

not possible.

___

not all things you need to do for a plugin are created equal, it can be used for some simple things starting from scratch. A lot of things that may be possible are unknown or untested, for example I could possibly do a compile of the stuff I open sourced linking websockets and require an android device.

you are welcome to try and build it in WASM if you want to get a feel for yourself

source for AutoATC plugin is here

https://github.com/mSparks43/XPlane-11-AutoATC-plugin

source for AVITab is here

https://github.com/fpw/avitab

WASM toolchain is here

https://webassembly.org/getting-started/developers-guide/

and Linux (needed for the WASM toolchain for the next few years) is here:

https://www.centos.org/

Good luck

Edited April 8, 20206 yr by mSparks

5 hours ago, Noodle said:

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?

Believe the ones who actually have the guts to post the truth here in this forum, like Milviz and WarpD.

 

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

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.

Possible... Nice visual models, lots of liveries and very simple avionics (because of MSFS limitations).

 

3 hours ago, GlideBy said:

Applications execute independently, and can’t escape the sandbox without going through appropriate APIs

Yes, a lot hinges on what APIs Asobo decides to "surface" for use by addons.

 

3 hours ago, Milviz said:

But if the sandbox is the size of a pinhead and 3PD's are being forced to use it but Asobo is not

This is very disappointing, I would have thought the logical way for Asobo to approach the default aircraft is by using the very same techniques (ie WASM) that 3PDs will have to use. However Asobo's current approach suggests that support for 3PDs is just an after thought.

Edited April 8, 20206 yr by MatthewS

50 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

I would have thought the logical way for Asobo to approach the default aircraft is by using the very same techniques (ie WASM) that 3PDs will have to use. However Asobo's current approach suggests that support for 3PDs is just an after thought.

To a fashion they are.

Someone on here leaked early on that asobo were using javascript for scripting the systems (although at the time I thought they were joking) wasm is just javascript compiled from other languages.

They were also quite open from day 1 that there were huge difficulties working around uwp that microsoft was forcing them to use.

Edited April 8, 20206 yr by mSparks

 

11 hours ago, Noodle said:

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

That is pretty much what I've said, albeit in fewer words. Asobo may indeed pull a rabbit out of their chapeau somewhere down the road...

In the interim, at least we now have P3Dv5 on which to focus attention.

8 hours ago, n4gix said:

 

That is pretty much what I've said, albeit in fewer words. Asobo may indeed pull a rabbit out of their chapeau somewhere down the road...

In the interim, at least we now have P3Dv5 on which to focus attention.

This. It’s what we are all hoping for.

From todays update.  "This week marks the initial release of WebAssembly support, enabling our partners to start porting their native code over to our platform. As a start, we are focusing on panels and displays support, which are a critical part of high-quality airplane add-ons."

So up till now, no one has actually used WebAssembly within the sim.  Maybe now we can get some feedback from people actually using it.

I also noticed they say "high-quality airplane add-ons".  That may be directed at this thread.

11 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

From todays update.  "This week marks the initial release of WebAssembly support, enabling our partners to start porting their native code over to our platform. As a start, we are focusing on panels and displays support, which are a critical part of high-quality airplane add-ons."

So up till now, no one has actually used WebAssembly within the sim.  Maybe now we can get some feedback from people actually using it.

I also noticed they say "high-quality airplane add-ons".  That may be directed at this thread.

 

Great update! So lets hope they follow through quickly and give 3PDs everything they need to commit to MSFS.

2 hours ago, GlideBy said:

I also noticed they say "high-quality airplane add-ons".  That may be directed at this thread.

Not sure whether I'm reassured or flabbergasted that they felt the need to point out that panels and displays are a necessary part of an airplane addon.

Makes me wonder how they will handle sound, web audio api would be.... amusing...

did you have a try at building those links I posted?

 

 

Edited April 10, 20206 yr by mSparks

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

Not sure whether I'm reassured or flabbergasted that they felt the need to point out that panels and displays are a necessary part of an airplane addon.

Makes me wonder how they will handle sound, web audio api would be.... amusing...

 

Why are you being so nitpicky with MSFS? After all, you are doing backflips if a sim provides stable >30fps with a city full of randomly placed and shaped cardboard autogen houses ...

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

Not sure whether I'm reassured or flabbergasted that they felt the need to point out that panels and displays are a necessary part of an airplane addon.

Stop being obtuse. They said, "[a]s a start, we are focusing on panels and displays support..."

The comment directly addresses the drama queens in this thread who bleat on and on about "hollow promises" and the impossibility of creating high-quality addons.

But in typical fashion, you don't have anything to say about the actual content of their statement; just some baseless snarky swipe.

First working implementation of WASM is coming. Functions will focus on panels and displays. 150 developers are using the SDK, providing feedback, and developing content.

2 minutes ago, Noodle said:

First working implementation of WASM is coming. Functions will focus on panels and displays. 150 developers are using the SDK, providing feedback, and developing content.

And please guys. Even if that version is flawed... even if it totally does not allow you to do what you would like to do. Report it, but keep calm!

30 minutes ago, tweekz said:

 

Why are you being so nitpicky with MSFS? After all, you are doing backflips if a sim provides stable >30fps with a city full of randomly placed and shaped cardboard autogen houses ...

Many of us have, for a long time now, put this sparky gentleman on our ignore list. It would be nice not to exposed to what he says through quotes thus defeating the purpose of the list. I tend to add to my ignore list those who do that. Thanks.

7 hours ago, GlideBy said:

 

I also noticed they say "high-quality airplane add-ons".  That may be directed at this thread.

I tend to think so too. This thread should have a long life in front of it 😀.
 

Edited April 10, 20206 yr by domkle

7 hours ago, GlideBy said:

So up till now, no one has actually used WebAssembly within the sim.  Maybe now we can get some feedback from people actually using it.

I also noticed they say "high-quality airplane add-ons".  That may be directed at this thread.

As things have moved from theoretical to actual I would imagine that such feedback would clearly fall under the NDA.

34 minutes ago, Noodle said:

The comment directly addresses the drama queens in this thread who bleat on and on about "hollow promises" and the impossibility of creating high-quality addons.

Really?

They still haven't delivered yet.

Let's see if they have actually been listening to the 3PDs and now follow through on their promises.  Words are cheap, especially with Asobo, given what the posts of 3PDs in this thread say about Asobos WASM efforts so far.

27 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Blah blah

Words are cheap

Blah blah blah

This is what I meant by drama queens.