Just now, simbol said:

You know the answer..

S.

Fair enough 😞

Forgive my ignorance, I haven't really played with the SDK. I so far understand that whatever is developed the WASM way is sandboxed... are there any restrictions to use sockets/IPC/etc to have your components talk to each other or the outside world?. I also understand there needs to be some sort of "wrapper" that converts DirectX / GDI into Nanovg in orther to migrate existing code to the new stuff, isn't there an unnecessary overhead of using Nanovg instead of DX?. Final question: are there restrictions to what WASM can or cannot do to read the internals of the sim? (I'm imagining Simconnect/Lvars?). I would hate to develop something mildly sophisticated with an SDK that is a moving target... makes me wonder how good that CRJ is really going to be when it launches. 

Thanks!

-E  

I tend to feel with this that we are slowly losing the thing that many of us signed up for which is a simulation. I've tried MSFS and I've only found that it isn't fit for purpose as anything other than a game. I can't believe that Aerosoft don't recognise this, a serious simulation company would not accept MSFS in its current state nor entertain discussion on dropping far superior platforms.

I can understand scenery developers trying to bulk new sales but most good sceneries in MSFS are just ports from Prepar3D (which yes of course you have to buy again so yeah sales are going to be great...). There must surely still be a market for dual development given most Prepar3D users won't be going anywhere and the vast majority will own both simulators for a very long time.

It's sad that Mathijs describes that Aerosoft can only follow the market rather than making it, that to me isn't the greatest ethos for a company that has the platform/resources to 'make' its market. A market can only buy what it's given and quality is determined by the developer and not the customers demands. Taking advantage of this fact is exactly what every disrupting company in the world does. It's why people will keep Prepar3D v4.5/v5 to fly PMDG and FSLabs aircraft before they will even consider MSFS.

I just find it very sad that such a large and historic company has been reduced to a company run solely by a spreadsheet.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by G MIDY

4 hours ago, evaamo said:

makes me wonder how good that CRJ is really going to be when it launches. 

Those who can remember far enough back, the original CRJ was being developed by Hans, to be marketed through Aerosoft. It was going to be a study level flightsim product with everything modelled to the ultimate standard of realism, and be fully configurable, suitable for use in a home cockpit. Then Aerosoft effectively took over the development, and after many more years of delay they eventually released a quite nice, but substantially simplified product.

I would not expect a study level model for MSFS.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by Biggles2010

One thing Mathijs is correct about : they make their own code that runs directly in MSFS. 
Then you do not need a very enhanced SDK. But the main Fs thread then also needs to calculate everything of the addon ac.

If you want all features and good performance you run as much code outside the sim and connect the ac by using the SDK. 
Therefore PMDG/FsLabs/Prosim etc need an enhanced SDK.

1 hour ago, GSalden said:

Then you do not need a very enhanced SDK. But the main Fs thread then also needs to calculate everything of the addon ac.

I'm curious how much of a load this really is - calculations in user-mode are insanely fast compared to Windows API calls, switches to kernel mode or (gasp) I/O. All of my complex airliners get significantly better FPS when I switch to spot view - where the panel isn't being drawn but all of the internal state calculations are still taking place.

Cheers!

Luke

6 minutes ago, Luke said:

I'm curious how much of a load this really is - calculations in user-mode are insanely fast compared to Windows API calls, switches to kernel mode or (gasp) I/O. All of my complex airliners get significantly better FPS when I switch to spot view - where the panel isn't being drawn but all of the internal state calculations are still taking place.

Cheers!

Luke

Hi Luke,
GC + all kinds of VC panels onscreen Will drag your FPS and Vram down. Spotplane view or a VC without instruments will give you the better FPS .

regards, Gerard

I think we're in agreement, then - it's unlikely to be the state calculations since those are still happening.

Cheers!

2 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

Those who can remember far enough back, the original CRJ was being developed by Hans, to be marketed through Aerosoft. It was going to be a study level flightsim product with everything modelled to the ultimate standard of realism, and be fully configurable, suitable for use in a home cockpit. Then Aerosoft effectively took over the development, and after many more years of delay they eventually released a quite nice, but substantially simplified product.

I would not expect a study level model for MSFS.

 

Yep I remember this so well.  I really wanted CRJ study level.  We all waited waited and in the end it was well not what was promised...it does the work but I wanted to be near PMDG/FSLabs equivalent.  One thing I despise flight sim addon/publishers is Majority over promise and then solidly under deliver.  Few addon makers stand above who actually 100% over deliver and give fantastic support (I only buy their products - at this time....you all should know who these top players are - it is truly handful names and I can count them with my fingers that is it).

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by Skywolf

Well the thread over Aerosoft is now locked by Mr. Kok. Judging from his closing remarks, it's clear they are set to target an audience group which I'm definitely not a member of. 

"They also do not seem to grasp that the hobby is totally changed as we have between 500.000 and a million new users. Most of these users will not be flying complex airliners because they like the flying aspect a lot more than the system management.  We intend to sell the Twin Otter for the X-Box version." 

Let's see how many of those 500k-1M users remain loyal consumers after 2-3 years. If it's 10% of that I'd be extremely surprised. More likely it'll remain at a 2-5% after said time frame, which I would bet isn't too different from what has always been. 

I don't know how big is the market for FSX, P3D and X-Plane from an add-on consumer point of view (and from looking at myself and others habits here, we certainly have add-on " overlap " across the three  platforms in our libraries), but I'd guess it is between 50-100k users?. If that is true, combined with Navigraph survey results from 2019, then I'd dare to say most of the consumers fall on a different category than Aerosoft is aiming for. Risky to bet your new business model on a new type of consumer that could be as loyal as a fleeting star.

I for one hope they are right in their strategy, which I'd hope was properly researched and based not so much on a real interpretation of data but also on unbiased intuition (I have my doubts), and as much as I disagree with Aerosoft's stance on this situation, I would never wish them anything but success.    

39 minutes ago, Luke said:

I'm curious how much of a load this really is - calculations in user-mode are insanely fast compared to Windows API calls, switches to kernel mode or (gasp) I/O. All of my complex airliners get significantly better FPS when I switch to spot view - where the panel isn't being drawn but all of the internal state calculations are still taking place.

Cheers!

Luke

Again, I'm word not allowed on gauge/panel development, but whatever they ended up pushing as the "new way" of doing things, eventually has to draw to the screen using DirectX, and from seeing how sluggish their A320/747/787 behaves (in cockpit view, as you said), I'm not sure how that will end up working in terms of FPS for more complex add-on aircraft.

I guess by then DX12 will be a reality in MSFS and things should be better... then again we'll see how P3D and Vulkan XPL have evolved by then. My bet is we won't see anything interesting in the complex airliner department before Q2 2022 by judging at the state of things.   

I'm enjoying 5.1/HF1 and just bought two V5 sceneries from AS. However, I know the writing is on the wall for P3D. It's not like Mathijs is alone in the data he is seeing, just look at FSDT, which is pulling out of P3D sceneries entirely. If there's anyone to blame for this situation, it's Microsoft--not because of MSFS, but because of how they exited FSX by splitting the licenses and handing off the entertainment one to Dovetail, a spectacularly incompetent dev shop. 

1 minute ago, Chapstick said:

I'm enjoying 5.1/HF1 and just bought two V5 sceneries from AS. However, I know the writing is on the wall for P3D. It's not like Mathijs is alone in the data he is seeing, just look at FSDT, which is pulling out of P3D sceneries entirely. If there's anyone to blame for this situation, it's Microsoft--not because of MSFS, but because of how they exited FSX by splitting the licenses and handing off the entertainment one to Dovetail, a spectacularly incompetent dev shop. 

I haven't seen any formal statement by @virtuali saying they are pulling out of the P3D market. Care to share a reference?  Thanks 🙂

3 minutes ago, evaamo said:

I haven't seen any formal statement by @virtuali saying they are pulling out of the P3D market. Care to share a reference?  Thanks 🙂

I could swear there's a more explicit statement somewhere, but read these posts: http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,24497.15.html. It's not that different from what Aerosoft is saying, i.e. people are voting with their wallets.

In the investment business there's an old term: "talking your book."  When a brokerage is getting some kind of incentive to push a particular investment vehicle, it's no surprise that every sales call is suddenly pushing that vehicle and downtalking the others. 

So given the relationship between Aerosoft and Asobo/Microsoft, it's no surprise that Señor Kok is talking his book and pumping SimZilla as the future of all things simming.

What this discussion (and another similar one on the MSFS forum) misses, is that P3D is not, and never was developed with the gamer/casual sim user in mind.  It's a professional training tool that we have the good fortune to use, and I think as long as the relationship between this community and LM remains symbiotic (mutually beneficial) we'll be on solid ground without having to worry about the veracity of any gloomy P3D prophesies being cooked up in the smoky back rooms of Aerosoft or Microsoft.  Google up what the USAF is doing with "Pilot Training Next"--that is an example of LM/P3D's developing primary market, and we are just an adjunct to that.  And there's a reason you won't see MSFS within a country mile of that kind of use...take what you will from that.