Hi.  I thought this was a really important topic brought up in the Q&A yesterday so it deserves its own thread.  Asobo yesterday talked about the SDK and about 3rd party planes yesterday.   This will interest you if you are hoping for planes from Aerosoft, FSLabs, PDMG, etc: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/784582715?t=00h43m18s

More or less, Asobo said the reason it is taking some time for the 3rd parties to port their planes over is because they are using legacy code and MSFS is a new simulator and a new engine.  So according to Jorg Neumann in that video, it will take some time to port that code over.  I assume that Asobo are doing things are their part with the SDK to bridge the gap.  But my guess is, both sides will need to do some work.  The 3rd party makers of planes can't expect the SDK to convert all the legacy code so that it's compatible with MSFS. At the same time, Asobo needs to make the SDK sophisticated enough to convert what's possible to lower the workload of 3rd party plane makers.

My guess is, once the top plane makers are able to complete their first plane for MSFS, the other planes in their portfolio will be released much faster because they have already done the base legwork and they can reuse the work for the other planes in their portfolio.

there is one thing I dont understand that maybe someone cleverer than me can answer: Asobo say that TPD have the same tools available to them as Asobo. They are not holding anything back. However, many devs, most notably PMDG and also Aerosoft, have said they cannot make their complex aircraft before the SDK is more complete.

So how can TPD have the SAME tools as Asobo if they have to use the SDK, and the SDK is not complete? Are Asobo using an incomplete SDK to make MSF? 😄

38 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

More or less, Asobo said the reason it is taking some time for the 3rd parties to port their planes over is because they are using legacy code and MSFS is a new simulator and a new engine. 

What I'm reading is this: addon developers are trying to port old stuff over to cut corners and save cash, unfortunately, this old wine in new bottles strategy doesn't work. 

18 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

So how can TPD have the SAME tools as Asobo if they have to use the SDK, and the SDK is not complete? Are Asobo using an incomplete SDK to make MSF? 😄

They built the sim and changed the code so they know how it works and how to do things, but I bet a lot of it is still in their heads and just isn't documented properly yet for others to follow.

But aren't we waiting for the SDK to get to a stage where players like PMDG can build their aircraft, or are Asobo saying that PMDG can already build their aircraft, it will just take time to convert code and learn the new stuff?

When I asked a couple of the legacy developers what are their specific problems in moving an existing FSX model over to MSFS, they both said their xml code had to be totally rewritten using html from the sdk.  If you remember, there is a ton of xml code running in the more complex FSX models.

5 minutes ago, raymar said:

When I asked a couple of the legacy developers what are their specific problems in moving an existing FSX model over to MSFS, they both said their xml code had to be totally rewritten using html from the sdk.  If you remember, there is a ton of xml code running in the more complex FSX models.

At best then, PMDG did not elaborate on this very excellent point.  At worst, well, you can decide what that means.  

14 minutes ago, raymar said:

When I asked a couple of the legacy developers what are their specific problems in moving an existing FSX model over to MSFS, they both said their xml code had to be totally rewritten using html from the sdk.  If you remember, there is a ton of xml code running in the more complex FSX models.

So it's just a matter of time.  I suppose PDMG doesn't want to do this and they prefer that the SDK convert it for them.

If this is an example of why PDMG is stalling, then I can understand their position.  PDMG doesn't want to use their own developer resources to do something that the SDK can do automatically.  They are a business after all so of course they want to save money where they can.

But it's possible to do it, it's just time consuming.  On the other hand, the FlyByWire A320 team seems to be able, and more than willing, to overcome these obstacles by themselves.  But to be fair, the FlyByWire A320 team is a bunch of unpaid volunteers whereas PDMG is a business.

11 minutes ago, FrankR409 said:

At best then, PMDG did not elaborate on this very excellent point.  At worst, well, you can decide what that means.  

Well, PDMG wants to save money I suppose.  So they are probably waiting for the SDK to become more mature so that the SDK can do a lot of the grunt work, rather than some PDMG employee doing the grunt work.  It's not that it can't be done - it can be done and it would be tedious for PDMG to do it.  

16 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Well, PDMG wants to save money I suppose.  So they are probably waiting for the SDK to become more mature so that the SDK can do a lot of the grunt work, rather than some PDMG employee doing the grunt work.  It's not that it can't be done - it can be done and it would be tedious for PDMG to do it.  

Exactly. Maybe it's time for new devs to step in on the commercial front also, using modern implementations.

According to one developer it is not just .xml gauges, but communicating with the software and reading and writing files outside of the protected folders. 

In a lot of these cases, especially with advanced avionics where you are calculating navigation old code is not bad as it still does the job efficiently. You really think someone like Honeywell or Rockwell Collins throws away the baby with the bathwater just because they updated their avionics? If so you are kidding yourself. The Proline Fusion is still running code from the much older Pro Line 4. 

6 minutes ago, Ilari Kousa said:

Exactly. Maybe it's time for new devs to step in on the commercial front also, using modern implementations.

I think the FlyByWire team will get to a "study level" A320 before FSLabs comes out with their A320 for MSFS 😃 

3 minutes ago, Ilari Kousa said:

Exactly. Maybe it's time for new devs to step in on the commercial front also, using modern implementations.

I wouldn't be surprised new developers come onto the scene soon. There are empty spots to fill on the airliner front. Developers who have not worked on FSX or Prepar3d are likely to look beyond perceived roadblocks.

55 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

But it's possible to do it, it's just time consuming.  On the other hand, the FlyByWire A320 team seems to be able, and more than willing, to overcome these obstacles by themselves.  But to be fair, the FlyByWire A320 team is a bunch of unpaid volunteers whereas PDMG is a business.

It's worth pointing out that they are modifying a model that was already built in accordance with the SDK and to a large extent they are either adding additional code or modifying the existing compliant  code. PMDG's model was built in a substantially different way so they have much bigger issues and almost certainly, considerably more code that is affected.

To be crystal clear, I did not speak to anyone at PMDG; it was two other developers. Both are hard at work building MSFS versions of some of their classics.

Ray