15 minutes ago, mSparks said:

and I assume...

Objection. Speculation.

We must all continue to realise that what we are talking about is a very early alfa release of their SDK. Asobo have stated that they have 150 developers onboard; and I know (read think very strongly) that they will all be feeding back to the development team about any limitations.

As with the grass too big problem what has been proved beyond any doubt is that Asobo is listeneing, is reading these and other platforms, and is developing and changing development priorities based on feedback. I am sure that this will be the case with Web Assembly and the SDK.

Can we not change this topic slightly into something more positive?

Perhaps by looking at what is currently possible and even turning it into what external programs we'd like to see? That could even help a few developers here with ideas!

 

5 minutes ago, Matt Barraud said:

We must all continue to realise that what we are talking about is a very early alfa release of their SDK. Asobo have stated that they have 150 developers onboard; and I know (read think very strongly) that they will all be feeding back to the development team about any limitations.

As with the grass too big problem what has been proved beyond any doubt is that Asobo is listeneing, is reading these and other platforms, and is developing and changing development priorities based on feedback. I am sure that this will be the case with Web Assembly and the SDK.

Can we not change this topic slightly into something more positive?

Perhaps by looking at what is currently possible and even turning it into what external programs we'd like to see? That could even help a few developers here with ideas!

 

I launched the thread to have a better understanding of what WebAssembly is and what Asobo meant. Mission mostly accomplished. But Asobo has rekindled the embers in the last update. Interestingly enough, focusing it again on the porting of legacy codes and , more particularly on displays (not avionics, display) and panels (go figure😉).

We are excited to have over 150 third party companies using our SDK and working on many amazing updates for the new simulator. 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. We are also providing an initial release of the in-game aircraft editor and are continuously working on documentation, general usability improvements to the existing tools (in particular the scenery and script editors) and general bug fixing.

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Matt Barraud said:

We must all continue to realise that what we are talking about is a very early alfa release of their SDK.

We are talking about nothing at all - WASM does not exist in the current MSFS Alpha SDK. Nor has it ever been promised to be there at this point. As the current release statement says, the first version of the WASM integration will be available in the next version of the SDK. Then Asobo will continue to add functionality to it, which will probably take a few more months. That would be the phase to be working with the third parties, to make sure that they get the APIs that they need.

So how about we give it a rest, give everybody time to do their jobs first, come back here this summer, and then discuss what it actually is? IMHO that would be a lot more useful to everybody.

Best regards

Edited April 11, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

Just now, Lorby_SI said:

 WASM does not exist in the current MSFS Alpha SDK. Nor has it ever been promised to be there at this point. As the current release statement says, the first version of the WASM integration will be available in the next version of the SDK.  

Naive question, doesn't  "This week marks the initial release of WebAssembly support, enabling our partners to start porting their native code over to our platform." say otherwise ?

 

Edited April 11, 20206 yr by domkle

6 hours ago, Noodle said:

Making public statements regarding the current and planned capabilities and limitations of the software and SDK is something Microsoft has specifically authorized you to do?

 

Your assumption is that I am under an NDA with regards to what I know.  Might want to stop assuming things.

6 hours ago, Noodle said:

I've read some pretty definitive statements comparing G1000 functionality to the real unit, and to other addons. I've also read definitive statements regarding what the platform is, will, and will not be capable of doing.

It would be reasonable to conclude he's either saying stuff he shouldn't be saying in public, or he doesn't actually know.

You do realize my company makes a G1000 for real world training, right?  I don't have to actually run the new sim to see things on the offered G1000 that is inaccurate and/or missing.  The platform (WebAssembly) was publicly announced by Microsoft... pretty sure that makes it's discussion fair game.  WebAssembly is not a Microsoft product... it's actually someone else's works.  If you read the actual documentation for what currently exists as WebAssembly... you might notice it's extremely limited in functionality.  Might.

11 minutes ago, domkle said:

Naive question, doesn't  "This week marks the initial release of WebAssembly support, enabling our partners to start porting their native code over to our platform." say otherwise ?

 

Not sure that I understand. The Alpha that has the initial release of the WASM integration is the next one to come. Should be pushed out any day now (they said 2-3 days, but I would expect shortly after the easter holidays). So the job is done on their part, we just have to wait for the deployment.

Best regards

Edited April 11, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

1 hour ago, Lorby_SI said:

 

So how about we give it a rest, give everybody time to do their jobs first, come back here this summer, and then discuss what it actually is? IMHO that would be a lot more useful to everybody.

 

I agree, however it was certain devs that were complaining about Webassembly not being up to the task, they wanted to voice their concerns rightly or wrongly for what they needed, in hindsight it might of been more prudent to wait and see what Asobo's full plans were with Webassembly, the vast majority of user's (including me) were only wondering what it was used for.

7 hours ago, Noodle said:

Objection. Speculation.

fairly well documented speculation

https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc19/presentation/jangda

results in

 

Edited April 11, 20206 yr by mSparks

5 hours ago, WarpD said:

Your assumption is that I am under an NDA with regards to what I know.  Might want to stop assuming things.

Got it. You're here to mislead people into thinking you have inside knowledge, but you're actually just guessing. Thanks for clearing that up.

Your knowledge of real G1000 avionics doesn't qualify you to make definitive statements about a piece of Alpha software you don't have access to. 

There's been no video outlining the functions of the in-game G1000, so you have no idea to what depth it's been simulated. It could simply WIP and incomplete. Or maybe you're right and their version is simplified...but that doesn't prove the platform is INCAPABLE of simulating it better.

You've reached a premature conclusion and now you're twisting facts and evidence to support your bias.

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

Word salad

That's your big proof, huh? Encoding and playback (stuttering) issues with videos hosted on the FS website before they went to YouTube? That proves WASM will cause 1+ second pauses in flight instruments?

Outstanding work! They should've hired you to find the WMD in Iraq!

13 minutes ago, Noodle said:

Encoding and playback (stuttering) issues with videos hosted on the FS website before they went to YouTube?

What has that got to do with the lecture I posted about webassembly benchmarking 55% lower than native in standard application benchmarks and even then needing an entire linux kernel built in wasm to do so?

Ohhh you mean the link to all the people complaining about people complaining about stutters.

Well, I've seen the leak videos, but no need to repost them because I'm sure you have to. Although, by the sounds of it you haven't noticed them, so perhaps your idea of a quality aircraft is very very different to mine.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 20206 yr by mSparks

19 hours ago, mSparks said:

if you want to jump over to that topic you should continue that conversation here

Conversation? what conversation, I expressed an opinion I'm not on the debating team.

Do people actually listen and believe mSparks?  Do I need to refute his many misunderstandings, misleading statements, confusion, and wrong information?  If so, what do people have concerns about?

1 hour ago, GlideBy said:

Do people actually listen and believe mSparks?  Do I need to refute his many misunderstandings, misleading statements, confusion, and wrong information?  If so, what do people have concerns about?

Go for it, quote what you think falls under those categories use sources, I'm always happy to be corrected.

1 hour ago, jpc55 said:

Conversation? what conversation, I expressed an opinion I'm not on the debating team.

Just that if you look through that thread you may begin to understand why everyone who can actually see it goes "WOW that's amazing" to those graphics, or even all the way down to beat saber graphics - even though they look like "word not allowed" in youtube videos.

Which is kinda a requirement to understanding why I am so passionate about every millisecond my flight sim takes to draw a frame above all else.

 

Edited April 11, 20206 yr by mSparks