22 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

Oh I'm not debating that it is a very open forum, it's more when a thread apparently drifts off topic as conversations do in life and a mod decides it has... Anyway, it's more that I'm never sure where the line is rather than complaining about it.

Oh I understand completely. In the other focused forums I'm perfectly willing -- as most mods are -- to permit some topic drift, when it reaches the point of being completely off-the-flightpath for more than a page I'll post a request to "get back on topic please". 

If that request is ignored then it's time to lock the thread.

On 9/3/2020 at 12:02 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you look at the FSL forum you'll see it was David Norfolk who decided it was probably P3Dv5 given the PBR effects. It seems inconceivable it would be MFS given the state of the SDK.

I've no idea what it would mean for this particular project, but it's worth noting that companies like PMDG and Aerosoft have already confirmed aircraft being brought to MSFS, despite also acknowleding that the SDK isn't yet in a place where they can do all of the complex systems work necessary to actually complete them.  Presumably Asobo/MS gave them information on what functionality the SDK will have, and a timeline for when that functionality will be included, for them to organize their future projects around it.

I see no reason why FS Labs would necessarily be any different.  Though again, that's not necessarily speaking to this particular project.

@Scottoest, that statement was probably made before they saw the SDK. I’ve seen comments from one developer (not aircraft) who is tearing his hair out with the SDK.

There’s a world of difference between an ambition and reality. I’d be surprised to see any ‘serious’ 3rd party aircraft inside 6-9 months but that’s just my opinion. MFS was released far too early with much still far from complete.

The SDK isn’t bad, it’s just incomplete. With airports, it’s easy to overcome what’s missing by starting with the xml file that can be output by ADE. New landmarks just require a working knowledge of Blender. But aircraft are a real problem for two reasons. First one can convert an FSX model, but then any features provided by DLLs are lost. The second hurdle is that the developers of P3d5 study level aircraft are used to hacking directly into  the sim’s files by using custom DLLs. With those avenues presently closed, aircraft developers are going to have to be methodical and creative.

I believe the SDK of MSFS for "system" will eventually get there to able to support aircraft like Concorde.

But I was more wonder on the aerodynamic part.

The high mach simulation of FSX to P3Dv4 as I know is just...uh.....that even punish on tans-sonic Airliners cruising at 0.7~0.8 mach.

Not sure how it's going on P3Dv5, MSFS, and also the XP?

As far as PMDG for MSFS a long way off reading Roberts post until the SDK is final which they don`t know when it will be, may not be this year update for SDK in November on the roadmap, then add working on the aircraft and beta testing may be lucky to see it in 2021. FSL will face the same problem.

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

As far as PMDG for MSFS a long way off reading Roberts post until the SDK is final which they don`t know when it will be, may not be this year update for SDK in November on the roadmap, then add working on the aircraft and beta testing may be lucky to see it in 2021. FSL will face the same problem.

Only if they go down the MFS route of course. No such problems should they choose the P3Dv5 (and maybe v4) route.

Without wanting to drift off-topic, can anyone more familiar with FSLabs give some quick advice on whether one should go for the A320/A321 at this point? I've been looking at it for some time to spice up my airliner experience by adding some Airbus flavor but I'm on the fence whether the (huge) investment would be prudent with MSFS likely to expand its complex-airliner-capabilities going forward. I know it will be a while until these aircraft show up for MSFS, but then again what could be expected of FSLabs in terms of price policy for customers switching to a hypothetical MSFS version? How did they do this in the past with FSX-P3D-P3D v4?

17 hours ago, n4gix said:

Oh I understand completely. In the other focused forums I'm perfectly willing -- as most mods are -- to permit some topic drift, when it reaches the point of being completely off-the-flightpath for more than a page I'll post a request to "get back on topic please". 

If that request is ignored then it's time to lock the thread.

I have no problem with that at all - as long as all mods play by the same rules and don't impose their personal views on the matter!

17 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Scottoest, that statement was probably made before they saw the SDK. I’ve seen comments from one developer (not aircraft) who is tearing his hair out with the SDK.

There’s a world of difference between an ambition and reality. I’d be surprised to see any ‘serious’ 3rd party aircraft inside 6-9 months but that’s just my opinion. MFS was released far too early with much still far from complete.

@Ray ProudfootI guess it depends whether the developer is one that sees it as a long term challenge or whether they want to be able to release instantly for the new platform.  The developer in question here always takes time to develop things as well as possible anyway, and besides, there is nothing to say it won't take the time frame you've quoted even for the version you want...

1 hour ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

@Ray ProudfootI guess it depends whether the developer is one that sees it as a long term challenge or whether they want to be able to release instantly for the new platform.

The former.

45 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The former.

I agree, so let's wait for the next news...

P3D it is...