PMDG update

[jrw4 626]

I wonder, would it be easier for X-Plane developers like Flight Factor, Toliss, Aerobask, etc., to adapt their models to the FS2020 platform, or are their technologies even more distant from those currently provided by Asobo than are those of the FSX/P3D family developers? Yes, I understand that in time, Asobo will create interfaces to the existing FSX/P3D technologies, but as suggested by some of you, there appears to be a 12 month window of opportunity here. The XP market was for a long time significantly smaller than that of the FSX family, but the MSFS marketplace is potentially huge in comparison. The financial incentives seem to be totally different.

 

[MattNischan 3,875]

3 minutes ago, OSM said:

Just curious Who and Why are paying Asobo coders to do something for PMDG or any other 3PD?

Microsoft is paying them because it makes good financial sense to keep the third party development ecosystem alive and happy.

As much as I believe in the current freeware efforts (including our own) and that they can match the very highest quality, the fact is that third party developers are also the backbone of the sim community, and it has rested on their shoulders for decades. You simply can't get the same level of expertise from a general purpose programming company; it's just hard to find good programmers and artists who also know aviation extremely well and happen to be subject matter experts in their own right. Hell, it's hard enough to hire good developers period.

I don't think anyone should be upset that Microsoft and Asobo are spending resources bringing the third parties to the game.

My point in these convos is not to put down the 3PD devs, it's just to point out that really great stuff can already be done if you embrace the new tech, and at some point these companies will have to start innovating again.

-Matt

[jcjimmy 150]

Interesting discussions all around. I wish MSFS had made the SDK more robust for developers. I get a little uneasy about legacy code. I think the push should be to look ahead 10 years and not back 10 years.

PMDG has been up front about their development for MSFS2020. Let them take all the time they perceive to need. In the meantime, other developers may come up with third party products that interest us.

 

[marsman2020 1,310]

5 minutes ago, jcjimmy said:

Interesting discussions all around. I wish MSFS had made the SDK more robust for developers. I get a little uneasy about legacy code. I think the push should be to look ahead 10 years and not back 10 years.

PMDG has been up front about their development for MSFS2020. Let them take all the time they perceive to need. In the meantime, other developers may come up with third party products that interest us.

 

I wish there was a way to know before buying an aircraft what 'code type' it is using.  I'd put a higher value on aircraft using the new tools.  I'd expect they will be less likely to be broken somehow in the future.

[Biology 1,347]

2 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

I wish there was a way to know before buying an aircraft what 'code type' it is using.  I'd put a higher value on aircraft using the new tools.  I'd expect they will be less likely to be broken somehow in the future.

This is really not the case. Legacy code isn't necessarily inferior, as Asobo stated in one of the Q&A sessions.

[OSM 683]

8 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

My point in these convos is not to put down the 3PD devs, it's just to point out that really great stuff can already be done if you embrace the new tech, and at some point these companies will have to start innovating again.

-Matt

"You can't teach an old dog new tricks" or better to feed young tigers instead of old wolfs. Tigers could catch bigger prey! 😄

 

[marsman2020 1,310]

Just now, BiologicalNanobot said:

This is really not the case. Legacy code isn't necessarily inferior, as Asobo stated in one of the Q&A sessions.

Regardless of the politically correct comments they have to make to not hurt anyone's feelings......Based on the experience thus far with bug fixes and introduction of new bugs in updates, I think it will be easier for Asobo to maintain the APIs for the new coding methods that they implemented in the sim from the very start vs these compatibility shims they are adding for older code. 

[Biology 1,347]

4 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

Regardless of the politically correct comments they have to make to not hurt anyone's feelings......Based on the experience thus far with bug fixes and introduction of new bugs in updates, I think it will be easier for Asobo to maintain the APIs for the new coding methods that they implemented in the sim from the very start vs these compatibility shims they are adding for older code. 

It's mostly because it's not really "legacy". It's just a different way of programming, and I think the people in Asobo are skilled enough to support both. They just need more time. Also, WASM is still necessary for the cases where speed is important.

Edited November 22, 2020 by BiologicalNanobot

[odourboy 1,291]

1 hour ago, dobee51 said:

They'll probably be OK..

Good to know. Given Asobo's record so far, I would not stake my business on their completing a robust API to support the legacy environment needed to run a PMDG aircraft in MSFS. Glad that their other interests can carry them indefinitely.

[marsman2020 1,310]

I'd certainly call code that probably dates back as far as 2004, being interfaced with a new simulator using compatibility layers that weren't part of the new sim's original design, that the 3DP developers are depending on Asobo to implement - "legacy code".

"A different way to program" would be doing the same thing different ways with the native APIs that MSFS came with.

I'm sure this is an unpopular use of language though because it sure sounds like a lot of these companies want Daddy Asobo to make their 16-year old stuff work for them, so Asobo has to be accommodating and say nice things about this ancient stuff because $$$.

In order for this compatibility strategy to work, the Asobo team not only has to have a complete understanding of MSFS, but also of the old ACES releases that they are emulating.  I wouldn't stake my business on that either.

[OSM 683]

It seems a "new SDK from Asobo" just a dream from an old 3PD which will never come to the truth.

[DavidP 1,424]

46 minutes ago, OSM said:

"You can't teach an old dog new tricks" or better to feed young tigers instead of old wolfs. Tigers could catch bigger prey! 😄

You've obviously forgotten the tale of the old bull and the young bull.

[abrams_tank 7,500]

41 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

This is really not the case. Legacy code isn't necessarily inferior, as Asobo stated in one of the Q&A sessions.

Legacy code, by definition, is inferior for the MSFS engine.  Asobo is probably just sugar coating it because they don't want to upset the big 3rd party vendors.

There are 2 reasons why legacy code is inferior:

1. The new code that is developed with the MSFS API in mind is more consistent with how the MSFS engine performs.  Legacy code relies on a "middle man" to work work with the MSFS engine.  The "middle man" in this case is the layer that Asobo is building that allows MSFS to interface with the legacy code.  This also increases the complexity and legacy code is more likely to break with a given update, than new code that follows the API and is tailored towards the current MSFS engine.  That's not to say that MSFS updates won't break new code because we see updates breaking the FBW A320 and other add ons; but because of the extra complexity of the "middle man," legacy code is more likely to break than new code. 

2. Any use of a "middle man" layer that allows the legacy code to interface with MSFS can result in slower performance.  It's possible that the hit in performance is negligible - this is something only the 3rd party developer and Asobo know at this point.  But any time you have an additional layer in software development, there is usually some cost in performance.

[OSM 683]

2 minutes ago, DavidP said:

You've obviously forgotten the tale of the old bull and the young bull.

Yeah! It is true, unless the bulls need to go UPHILL! 😄

[flyforever 269]

4 hours ago, haskell said:

Like Carenado? Who releases, then with an update becomes crashware for 3-4 weeks. Perhaps PMDG doesn’t want the negativity of that associated with their products. I know I am frustrated that I can’t fly my Mooney and it’s not Carenado’s fault. 

I still think that there's a strong need for simpler aircrafts, old vintage twins, propliners, to keep us going while PMDG and other high fidelity folks take their time. Flying a sim is about dreaming, and I want to dream flying my favorite aircrafts. Moreover, these aircrafts don't have the complexity, thus the shorter development times.