Update from PMDG

[IAhawkeyeDDS 158]

4 hours ago, Steve Halpern said:

would you buy it?

[FlyBaby 659]

3 hours ago, airlinejets said:

Finally, someone tells it like it is. My hope is that Asobo don't bend over backwards to accommodate PMDG. Let's move on, others will figure it out.

Well some folk said that MSFS can't survive wthout PMDG and other study level aircraft.

Seems to be the other way around....the large user base in MSFS beckons 3P developers to explore the sales potential. PMDG loses out the longer it takes to tap the MSFS "oil" well.

How some people make it out like PMDG influences anything is beyond me. I was never interested in their high price / performance killing products.

[Kilo60 660]

5 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

I infer from that the following:

1. PMDG knew the capability of the SDK from day 1

2. They were led to believe that progress with it would be more rapid than it has been

3. RR has now had to change PMDGs plans because the functionality they need still isnt there

 

If this is the case, it begs the question what has changed and why?

Japan scenery as a priority that’s what happened!

[Mark VII 26]

Well, as a matter of facts, arcades have a wide audience but they last around one year while sims have a small audience but they last decades.

Where FS belongs to it’s quite clear

[Dillon 2,197]

22 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

Well some folk said that MSFS can't survive wthout PMDG and other study level aircraft.

Seems to be the other way around....the large user base in MSFS beckons 3P developers to explore the sales potential. PMDG loses out the longer it takes to tap the MSFS "oil" well.

How some people make it out like PMDG influences anything is beyond me. I was never interested in their high price / performance killing products.

Outside of the last part you are correct.  The high price is the product is being sold to run on P3D which for whatever reason requires more money to develop on based on the agreement with developers (at least that's how I understand it).  The FSX releases by PMDG are cheaper.  That being said it's a big gamble to keep developing for a platform that the community is moving away from.  I go back and look at FS9, FSX, and P3Dv4/5 and can't bring myself to use them after FS2020.  You would think they'd sell what's close to release now and then heads down work on learning the new sim.  The world (and I do mean world) is clamoring for FS2020 releases.  No one now in mass is looking at FSX/P3D.  I for one want nothing to do with that 10+ old bloated code.  So this is one heck of a gamble for them as I don't know of anyone today who was looking to buy a new sim choosing P3D over FS2020.  Those that already have P3D are fine but new users are not going over to that platform especially when you can get FS2020 Standard with a game pass for $4 and use your existing computer versus $100+ for P3D not to mention new hardware and add-ons to get it to look like FS2020.  Who's crazy enough to do that???  Knowing this there's something deeper going on with Asobo and PMDG that troubles me...

Edited September 27, 2020 by Dillon

[Manny 1,293]

It's obvious... MS decided to lverage their Bing DB of world environment and then added companies that did weather  and put this Cloud based amazing sim together and and then they threw in a frew GA aircraft and we are here. I love it. GA VFR and IFR. Flight simulator

For Airliner like PMDG its a totally different ball game and MS is not ready for it yet 

 

Deal with it.

 

[HiFlyer 9,343]

38 minutes ago, Manny said:

It's obvious... MS decided to lverage their Bing DB of world environment and then added companies that did weather  and put this Cloud based amazing sim together and and then they threw in a frew GA aircraft and we are here. I love it. GA VFR and IFR. Flight simulator

For Airliner like PMDG its a totally different ball game and MS is not ready for it yet 

 

Deal with it.

 

I read through the thread and just keep frowning.

One of the first things I note is the developers wishing that making complex aircraft was easier: And the way they want (apparently) it made easier is to more closely (or exactly) replicate/mirror what they have gotten used to doing on another platform.

Understandable; and undoubtedly they could produce things more quickly that way, but is the old way (or the familiar way) incontrovertibly the best possible way? Or does Asobo have something new in mind, via a different path all their own?

The second thing I note is the almost obligatory dismissal of the non "hardcore" user. There seem to be a lot of conveniently self serving assumptions out there as to the longevity of their interest, their long term financial viability, and even apparently their intelligence, since its frequently opined that they don't have the mental discipline, patience blah blah to learn complex aircraft systems etc....

One is driven to wonder where we all originally came from?

Finally, in aid of the first two, is an apparently almost instinctive urge to find reasons and ways to separate ourselves once more from the common user (different versions) for various reasons and once again elevate ourselves above the mere Xbox kiddies. Essentially to return once more to a determinedly niche/insular community.

Back to the future.

(Good luck with all that)

I can't see Microsoft nor Asobo finding either a splitting or narrowing of the market attractive, nor can I see them eager to tackle the possible/probable hurdles of having two separate versions of the sim connected through multiplayer and Xbox live, while the planes have a completely different technical underpinning....

But..... maybe somebody will be successful in selling the idea.

I myself would almost certainly reject it nearly out of hand if I were Microsoft/Asobo, but who knows?

Edited September 27, 2020 by HiFlyer

[Adrian123 1,015]

42 minutes ago, Dillon said:

he FSX releases by PMDG are cheaper.

Supposedly because it was an entertainment product, not Commercial. We will see how that washes out.

[Chock 17,769]

22 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

Supposedly because it was an entertainment product, not Commercial. We will see how that washes out.

I suspect this was the thin end of the wedge, with the hope that they'd be able to get away with keeping prices at that level in the further hope that customers would accept it as the normal price for stuff other than P3D. Personally, I think they'll be in for a shock if they think it's that easy to pull the wool over people's eyes.

[Steve Halpern 176]

47 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

But hey, maybe somebody will be successful in selling the idea.

I myself would almost certainly reject it nearly out of hand if I were Microsoft/Asobo, but who knows?

It is far fetched... but maybe once it is realized that study level aircraft will be a long time coming it may get their attention, or possibly have some limitations. I mean, why not bring it up for discussion at least?

The bridge between technologies is so wide (C++ and FSX-P3D vs FS2020 and WASM). There is a real "null zone" created in the industry and navigating a path is more difficult. At some point there may be some bottlenecks with WASM also. My understanding is that even though WASM is byte code (not text like pure javascript), it still has to be "interpreted"... like your browser interpreting Javascript.

For aircraft that may use over 100,000 lines of C++ code, will WASM be viable? WASM is faster than Javascript, but slower than C++ from what I understand.

This article is quite complex but it may shed some light: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc19-jangda.pdf

If Xbox is the only reason to abandon C++ then that is unfortunate. PC is the core enthusiast group for study level simulators, even if a study level sim worked on Xbox (but who knows what the future of computing will entail).

I do not mean to twist this thread in a different path. PMDG's announcement does say many things, and it is not limited to PMDG. It mirrors a lot of what is going on with many companies, including our company. Just because WASM is newer that does not mean it is better. It may be a great technology in many regards, but it may not be the best fit in other areas. The new FS2020 is AMAZING in many regards. If it allowed C++, maybe with a different rendering API, it could possibly be even more amazing!

Edited September 28, 2020 by Steve Halpern

[Adrian123 1,015]

I don't get it. The old want's the new to adapt to the old? Instead of the old adapting to the new? Confused. 🙂

[Steve Halpern 176]

8 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

I don't get it. The old want's the new to adapt to the old? Instead of the old adapting to the new? Confused. 🙂

C++ is old, Assembly language is old, but it is still the foundation of what runs PC's (including Windows itself). The interpreter for WASM could be written in C++!

WASM may provide portability, but not performance vs. compiled C++.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Steve Halpern

[bean_sprout 1,201]

PMDG offers good stuff.  Objectives of their planes are (fill in the blanks.)   Known for there heaviness I don't partake primarily because I'm a VFR pilot so FS2020 foots the bill for me and I don't like CPU intensive planes. 

Given time PMDG planes will work in FS2020 no doubt but it will not affect flyers like me at all.  (except that by then we will have a completed SDK)

Regards

bs

Edited September 28, 2020 by bean_sprout

[Adrian123 1,015]

10 minutes ago, Steve Halpern said:

C++ is old, Assembly language is old, but it is still the foundation of what runs PC's (including Windows itself). The interpreter for WASM could be written in C++!

Yes, we studied it college in the late 70's early 80's in Electronics Eng. classes. Showing my age. C+, Fortran, Cobalt and Basic.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Adrian123

[bean_sprout 1,201]

It's still used today for performance.  Most of Windows is written in C++.

Cheers 

bs