17 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

Wasn't RSR's timeframe very similar until his recent post? Just saying...

Time will tell!

What he says or does, has no bearing on the outcome for Aerosoft. Two very different companies.

1 hour ago, MattNischan said:

And, as previously mentioned, the STL isn't even included in the available APIs for WASM, so if you want to use basically any data structure you don't feel like reinventing from scratch (and who does, these days), you're a bit SOL. And that includes even simple things like lists, vectors, maps.

Are you sure ? Just tried this:
 

// WASM_Module1.cpp

#include <stdio.h>
#include "WASM_Module1.h"
#include <vector>
#include <map>

extern "C" MODULE_EXPORT void test(void)
{
	std::vector<double> vect;

	vect.push_back(1.0);
	vect.push_back(2.3);
	vect.push_back(3.5);

	char txt[32];

	for (auto v : vect)
	{
		snprintf(txt, sizeof(txt), "%f", v);
	}

	std::map<int, double> myMap;

	myMap.insert(std::pair<int, double>(1, 20.0));
	myMap.insert(std::pair<int, double>(2, 33.3));
	myMap.insert(std::pair<int, double>(3, 12.1));
	
	for (auto m : myMap)
	{
		snprintf(txt, sizeof(txt), "%f", m.second);
	}
}

And it compiles just fine. 

10 hours ago, harrry said:

If PMDG says one year read 2 years (A PMDG YEAR has 24 months) thats 2023 at best.

You say that 1 year is actually 2 years?

Does PMDG have plans to "port" existing products to MSFS quicker than the brand new 737?

I'll probably start buying P3D scenery again (at least airliner-focused airports) if/when 5.1 fixes the SimConnect window CTD and now that we know a good airliner sim in MSFS is a year away. Those two factors have been holding me back, and I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.

6 minutes ago, Noooch said:

Does PMDG have plans to "port" existing products to MSFS quicker than the brand new 737?

No, NG3 will be their first product in MSFS. 

19 hours ago, espent said:

I felt that was a very polite way of expressing his surprise of lacking functionality in MFS.

That not a fair comment on PDMG because if it's true then shame on them. PDMG have been working on this for over 12 months, I'm pretty sure they new what the capability of the SDK was.

Edited September 27, 20205 yr by dtrjones

5 hours ago, YMMB said:

Did anyone notice the Dreamliners and specifically the tail of a 787-9 in the background in one of the photos in PMDG's announcements?

 

And this:

.

No, that was just a decoy!

You guys have all failed to spot the hidden hint in his post!

He used 707 words in his post!!!

Get it? 707!!

Now if that isn´t a hint in plain sight, I don´t know how much closer he must dangle the obvious in front of your eyes 🙄.

707 - now that's talking my language!

Why is it that the 727 doesn't get any love from devs 😪

I'd love a PMDG 727. Back to the analog days.

 707? The progenitor is on its way!

This announce from PMDG is for me another factor of desillusion. It means that we will have to wait about one year for having some "study level" aircrafts to fly with (airliners but also other nice GA planes). According to PMDG itself, MSFS is not ready at this stage to implement high quality add-ons. May be Aerosoft will prove the contrary...

For now on, I think seriously to put MSFS in the fridge till next summer !

At latest when we have AI that can code and model, we'll get every aircraft imaginable.. until then, a 787 will be fine.

2 hours ago, virtuali said:

Are you sure ? Just tried this:
 

// WASM_Module1.cpp

#include <stdio.h>
#include "WASM_Module1.h"
#include <vector>
#include <map>

extern "C" MODULE_EXPORT void test(void)
{
	std::vector<double> vect;

	vect.push_back(1.0);
	vect.push_back(2.3);
	vect.push_back(3.5);

	char txt[32];

	for (auto v : vect)
	{
		snprintf(txt, sizeof(txt), "%f", v);
	}

	std::map<int, double> myMap;

	myMap.insert(std::pair<int, double>(1, 20.0));
	myMap.insert(std::pair<int, double>(2, 33.3));
	myMap.insert(std::pair<int, double>(3, 12.1));
	
	for (auto m : myMap)
	{
		snprintf(txt, sizeof(txt), "%f", m.second);
	}
}

And it compiles just fine. 

Well what do you know. I definitely must have been doing something wrong (although it looked identical, as far as I remember). Nice!

46 minutes ago, dtrjones said:

That not a fair comment on PDMG because if it's true then shame on them. PDMG have been working on this for over 12 months, I'm pretty sure they new what the capability of the SDK was.

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?