23 minutes ago, SierraDelta said:

... and then followed by: This is code that actually works. - as opposed to ???

Static bitmaps on the gauges in the screenshot so it looks like they're functional but they're not

By the way, what's up with FSLabs and QW? I didn't see any announcements from both 

Only in the flight sim community would someone advertise non standard code as a benefit.

Every programmer had a mild heart attack after reading that.

This is not for me.

57 minutes ago, Chock said:

Glad Aerosoft is jumping in deep, but frankly, some of that post is utter gibberish, especially this bit:

'using nonstandard code. P3D V5 standard.'

Aaah, that famous non-standard, standard stuff, with which we are all familiar. 🤣

I think what he’s trying to say in a round about way is that 3PD developers of complex systems are not necessarily going to be limited to using WASM in MSFS.

14 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

I think what he’s trying to say in a round about way is that 3PD developers of complex systems are not necessarily going to be limited to using WASM in MSFS.

As a NON programmer, that is what I thought he meant.  I believe he (mistakenly) targeted his statement towards us "simpleton" flight simmers versus programmers (therefore we "got it") 🤪

50 minutes ago, aldridgem said:

 What does "P3Dv5 standard" really mean?

I would assume it means a product meets the requirements to run properly in P3Dv5.

33 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

I think what he’s trying to say in a round about way is that 3PD developers of complex systems are not necessarily going to be limited to using WASM in MSFS.

Or that WASM is not an impediment to rendering gauges at all, which is more likely. I'm assuming MS has wired in WebGL (likely since they talk about announcing with MS) or that Aerosoft has decided to use the Canvas API to draw gauges (less likely due to the perf difference: it's more like GDI).

Remember, you can't ship random DLLs to XBox users.

Edit: For those complaining about paying again, don't. MSFS will require hundreds to thousands of hours of code porting for an aircraft, depending on complexity. It is as far from a copy and paste exercise as you could possibly get between sim platforms.

I'm not an FS dev, so there's no financial incentive for me to say that. It's just the reality of the situation.

Edited August 6, 20205 yr by MattNischan

Kok has made it quite obvious that Aerosoft will not develop for P3d anymore.

2 hours ago, Chock said:

Glad Aerosoft is jumping in deep, but frankly, some of that post is utter gibberish, especially this bit:

'using nonstandard code. P3D V5 standard.'

Aaah, that famous non-standard, standard stuff, with which we are all familiar. 🤣

I suppose it's meant "nonstandard" for MSFS.

4 minutes ago, tweekz said:

I suppose it's meant "nonstandard" for MSFS.

I assumed by "nonstandard" they meant "not using the default panels from another jet already in the game".

2 hours ago, SierraDelta said:

... and then followed by: This is code that actually works. - as opposed to ???
Let's hope this is not another Aerosoft Kok-up 🙂

He's saying the displays aren't static like we saw with early A320 shots from MSFS. They actually work with underlying code driving them.

2 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

By the way, what's up with FSLabs and QW? I didn't see any announcements from both 

Honestly, given how long it took FSLabs to get a plane out for P3D, why would anyone expect them to hit the ground running with MSFS? You'll get their A320 in about 5 years.

13 hours ago, jlund said:

Not only the CRJ, he mentions that the Airbus 320 also will be made. What version of the A320 is that? We had to pay each time for the upgtrade and now they want us to do it again. No thanks, I don't fly that often so the default will be fine for me. I KNOW that development isn't cheap, but after having bought the previous versions of the A318 -321 series, I've had enough of Aerosof, 

It's only in the last release of the A32x that Aerosoft actually got it right and there were noticeable performance improvements that didn't break anything else. Up until then it was one step forward and at least 1, maybe 2 back every time. Though I gather from their support forum that the A330 is still quite troubled. Odd really, you'd think it's the same basic code as the A32x but with different variables for the bigger aircraft.

Any news on a possible a330-200? 

With all due respect, aerosoft has been around for a long time and they have made plenty of great products. However, this guy's has a history of talking big game and not delivering. Specifically with this airplane. I personally don't see too much different with this cockpit than what's currently available. 

I hope many of you buy and support aerosoft and enjoy this add on when it is released. It's not for me though.