Well, to each their own. I will leave you to swell in your juices and "I told you so"'s, while I go and enjoy some vatsim flights. 

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

They are still working out the kinks in the WASM "sandbox". Until they do so the more complex graphics and maths required by high-level systems aren't available yet.

There are some pretty clever folks out there so is a solution to this issue a realistic prospect or too early to tell? That is quite a serious mountain to overcome.

48 minutes ago, DavidP said:

Luckily the thread only runs for two pages, so you can find the specifics yourselves.

It's not the job of others to find a quote. If someone quotes someone it is THEIR job to cite correctly, including sources and links to sources.

1 hour ago, MatthewS said:

 

Does WASM support threads? Maybe not.

Would be hard to simulate complex systems if you couldn't use threads, because presumably PMDG (etc) model each subsystem running in it's own thread.

No multi-threading at this time... and, it's 32 bit....

48 minutes ago, FPStewy said:

If you don't even have a working GPS how to you expect PMDG to work. If you want to practice some real VOR navigation or real study level flight plans, sorry but this is not the sim to use.

Those are nothing more than slightly pimped up versions of the original G500 from FSX. They are still limited to what is possible in XML...

23 minutes ago, Farlis said:

It's not the job of others to find a quote. If someone quotes someone it is THEIR job to cite correctly, including sources and links to sources.

This is a forum, not a university thesis, so you can step down from your high horse, thanks.

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by DavidP

10 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Those are nothing more than slightly pimped up versions of the original G500 from FSX. They are still limited to what is possible in XML...

Then again, RealityXP figured out 10+ years ago how to have a fully functioning GNS 430/530W with a fully up to date Airac navdata based off the Garmin simulator executable. A truly game changer for a lot of us who got their multi IFR rating and saved considerable time and money by practicing IFR with light twins like the Beech Duke or the Milviz C310 and be able to do NDB overlays and LNAV+V/LPV approaches. 

If I was a pilot student today, there would be very little use of FS2020 except planning some VFR routes. For IFR it's utterly useless. 

 

5 minutes ago, DaedalusX said:

... with a fully up to date Airac navdata...

hum

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by PabloC

1 minute ago, DaedalusX said:

Then again, RealityXP figured out 10+ years ago how to have a fully functioning GNS 430/530W with a fully up to date Airac navdata based off the Garmin simulator executable.

Yes, and so did Flight1. Both companies also managed to leverage their breakthroughs for the GTN series.

However, not wishing to take away from their successful accomplishments, it is the official Garmin simulators that are doing nearly all of the 'heavy lifting'. I'm confident that given a bit more time, both RXP and Flight1 will manage the same results in MSFS. They too are handicapped because WASM isn't robustly developed enough at this time.

Just now, PabloC said:

 

hum

Oh yeah. Not sure how it is now with Garmin and Jeppesen data providers but yes for at least 7+ years you could use real world 100% current data with the Garmin GNS sim and Reality XP.

35 minutes ago, Milviz said:

No multi-threading at this time... and, it's 32 bit....

Don’t have MSFS yet, so If I may ask.

If gauges are written in JavaScript, can JS worker threads be used as a weird  workaround, since them can update data on the main thread?

How about C#, can it be used for gauges in MSFS, and if so are they limiting  C# not to use threading or parallel threads?
 

Thanks

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by RamonB

Just now, n4gix said:

Yes, and so did Flight1. Both companies also managed to leverage their breakthroughs for the GTN series.

However, not wishing to take away from their successful accomplishments, it is the official Garmin simulators that are doing nearly all of the 'heavy lifting'. I'm confident that given a bit more time, both RXP and Flight1 will manage the same results in MSFS. They too are handicapped because WASM isn't robustly developed enough at this time.

Correct. Of course the Garmin executable was doing the heavy lifting. What I'm saying is either Asboro provides this level of quality (unlikely) or work on a proper SDK. Without a proper SDK, this toysim is DOA and I hope they understand that.

4 minutes ago, DaedalusX said:

What I'm saying is either Asboro provides this level of quality (unlikely) or work on a proper SDK.

Please understand that one of the things holding back the SDK is that MSFS is still far from planned feature completion, and they also need to fix many (most?) of the current bugs. There's little point in trying to document a constantly moving target.

And no, Asobo won't be providing much more than they already have. It remains up to 3rd parties to develop all of the advanced bells and whistles for the much smaller user base who want them and are willing to pay for them.

3 minutes ago, DaedalusX said:

Oh yeah. Not sure how it is now with Garmin and Jeppesen data providers but yes for at least 7+ years you could use real world 100% current data with the Garmin GNS sim and Reality XP.

I don't pay for the real garmin update so I've only 2/3 free updates per year so not really up to date. but you're right the implementation of the garmin trainers by reality xp on xp/p3d is really a lifesaving thing.

JS can be event based, threads friendly, no blocking and ipc-communication ready, so... sounds good 😉