Milviz didn’t say much either :)

[The Flight Level 2,113]

We can only hope for the best and try to be positive. We all have our favourite aircraft that we would love to see in 2020. Once the dust settles and developers get to feel out the new sim, we'll soon get an appreciation quickly for what can and can’t be ported or re-developed. There will be much excitement to explore in the first few months to keep our minds off the track that many are on now.

[Dominique_K 10,149]

guys

you are talking upgrades and how justified they could o should be. Do you see that after Scott Gentile’s announcement yesterday, there could  be only one upper-tier GA aircraft dev ?  

Pessimistic ? Read A2A declaration...

[odourboy 1,289]

Link?

[n4gix 4,947]

10 hours ago, LHookins said:

...and n4gix does work for Milviz.

I am but a humble poly-bender and part of the "fit and finish" crew. I am not a spokesperson for Milviz. 

That said however, the SDK is not yet complete, but the parts of it I have read and studied inform me that everything has changed! There is nearly zero resemblance to FSX, ESP, or P3D.

More concerning however is the decision to isolate access to the core of the MSFS display engine by requiring the use of WASM* (Web Assembly), thus making high-level C++ "gauges' highly questionable. It may take many months to investigate and possibly discover suitable workarounds. WebAssembly is specified to be run in a safe, sandboxed execution environment.

All previously announced aircraft remain in the pipeline, which of course includes the ATR.

*Nota Bene: https://webassembly.org/docs/faq/

[dbw1 445]

Milviz Kingair 350: As a retired pilot who spent some years on various king airs I am really impressed with this 4.5 version. Really good creation. They did take awhile, I was one of the earliest purchasers, but the wait was worth it. If it takes some more time to get it for V5 I'm good with it. if they need a small/reasonable upgrade fee I'd be fine with that too.

Edited July 19, 2020 by dbw1

[Dominique_K 10,149]

26 minutes ago, n4gix said:

I am but a humble poly-bender and part of the "fit and finish" crew. I am not a spokesperson for Milviz. 

Thank you, Bill. Appreciated. 

As far as we can see, I dont ask for any fabrication secret here, do the « official partner » Carenado P3D aircraft carry these  « high level C++ gauges » in your opinion ? 

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

[MDFlier 2,031]

It not really fair to ask developers to say that they can release a product for a platform that they haven't really seen (I'm talking full release version, here), using an SDK that is not complete,and using APIs that they've barely heard of much less ever considered using.

I'm sure that all of them will be able to figure out how to get the "poly-bender" stuff imported into the sim. The actual 3D modeling part shouldn't change all that much as I believe that I have read it standard 3D modeling tools work.

As n4gix said, getting all of the higher level coding ported over is going to be the key. Until they get their grubby little hands on the actual working SDK and go through their current code section by section going "Can we made this function work with whats available in the new API?", "Yep, good. Next section" and get all the way through with yeses.

Edited July 19, 2020 by MDFlier

[chapstick 2,757]

5 minutes ago, dbw1 said:

Milviz Kingair 350: As a retired pilot who spent some years on various king airs I am really impressed with this 4.5 version. Really good creation. They did take awhile, I was one of the earliest purchasers, but the wait was worth it. If it takes some more time to get it for V5 I'm good with it. if they need a small/reasonable upgrade fee I'd be fine with that too.

They posted a beta for the V5 version in their user forum, FYI. The port to V5 will be free.

[n4gix 4,947]

4 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

As far as we can see, I dont ask for any fabrication secret here, do the « official partner » Carenado P3D aircraft carry these  « high level C++ gauges » in your opinion ? 

No. They are exclusively XML based "gauges." 

[Dominique_K 10,149]

Just now, n4gix said:

No. They are exclusively XML based "gauges." 

Ok thanks but Milviz went beyond that ? Only for the 350i or also for the PC6, 310, Otter etc ? 

[n4gix 4,947]

3 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Ok thanks but Milviz went beyond that ? Only for the 350i or also for the PC6, 310, Otter etc ? 

The only "XML" in any of them lies solely in the compiled model (.mdl) files via the modeldef.xml file. These are animation scripts, visibility tags, attachpoint effects, and mouse control scripts.

[Dominique_K 10,149]

56 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

As n4gix said, getting all of the higher level coding ported over is going to be the key. Until they get their grubby little hands on the actual working SDK and go through their current code section by section going "Can we made this function work with whats available in the new API?", "Yep, good. Next section" and get all the way through with yeses.

Not bad points.

As a buyer, I am interested by a declaration of intention more than road maps at this point in time as FS20 is a very  new architecture. Been through so many releases, I know that the good products I wish, will take time to come to market. But see the smart guys at Orbx. Also, the FS20 team says things or rather their over-vitamined PR folks say things about partnerships etc, that need to be confronted with the vision of the other side. The 3rd party real dev. Honestly, the language of the updates reminds of some ads late at night on local stations in the US 😏. 

High level coding.  I guess that it is  a need for the Shmarmin x0000  but do we need them to have to a nice Beaver with steam gauge. ? Open question.  Is the WA an obstacle then ? 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Dominique_K
Removed unnecessary long quote!

[n4gix 4,947]

5 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

High level coding.  I guess that it is  a need for the Shmarmin x0000  but do we need them to have to a nice Beaver with steam gauge. ? Open question.  Is the WA an obstacle then ? 

For simpler not much better than the default aircraft. No high level code will be required.

However, for anything featuring fully functional and authentic feature avionics such as ProLine 21 and FMS3000, then yes WASM is an obstacle to be overcome if even possible. Keep in mind that WASM is designed to work in an HTML browser window, For us this is unknown territory at this juncture. Mostly because we lack the full SDK at this time.

[Dominique_K 10,149]

Just now, n4gix said:

For simpler not much better than the default aircraft. No high level code will be required.

However, for anything featuring fully functional and authentic feature avionics such as ProLine 21 and FMS3000, then yes WASM is an obstacle to be overcome if even possible. Keep in mind that WASM is designed to work in an HTML browser window, For us this is unknown territory at this juncture. Mostly because we lack the full SDK at this time.

Lets take an example dear to me. The coding of the engine/prop management of a turboprop . It needs C++ gauges ? 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Dominique_K

[n4gix 4,947]

Just now, Dominique_K said:

Lets take an example dear to me. The coding of a engine/prop management of a turboprop . It needs C++ gauges ? 

Yes. The entire turboprop "engine" in the KA350i is custom coded. Not a single bit of it is native FSX/P3D.