4 hours ago, GSalden said:

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.

No, this is not what they mean. For aircraft development, there are two ways to go: Using default systems (provided by SDK), which are quite lacking in MSFS as you can see with the default aircraft or coding everything from scratch, which is what developers like PMDG and FSLabs do. In order to code everything from scratch, you don't need a huge amount of SDK functionalities, as its sole aim is to provide tools to run your code. So, there's indeed no extra SDK requirement for a really complex aircraft compared to a less complex one. For such aircraft, SDK is only there to run their code and synchronize simulator state with aircraft state, not to add complex functionality. In short, it's not the SDK which determines the complexity of your aircraft, it's the code you write. This is a misconception many people have, SDKs do not provide anything extra to make more complex aircraft. So as long as you have an SDK which allows you to run your code somehow, you should be fine. And MSFS SDK already allows that - I'm aware that WASM has some limitations but none of them are show stoppers. Many of the "complex" X-Plane airliners like Rotate MD-80 are written in Lua using SASL, which does not support multitasking.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by BiologicalNanobot

This is no an attack on anyone.

But where is he wrong? From a business standpoint, the job-security of the employees. His logic is correct. A focal point on Prepar3d (according to their data, which they are basing their decisions from I suppose) is not nurturing  and protecting the investments in the Company. Whereas on MSFS it apparantly is. 

It will be interesting to see where this ends a few years down the road 🙂 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

No, this is not what they mean. For aircraft development, there are two ways to go: Using default systems (provided by SDK), which are quite lacking in MSFS as you can see with the default aircraft or coding everything from scratch, which is what developers like PMDG and FSLabs do. In order to code everything from scratch, you don't need a huge amount of SDK functionalities, as its sole aim is to provide tools to run your code. So, there's indeed no extra SDK requirement for a really complex aircraft compared to a less complex one. For such aircraft, SDK is only there to run their code and synchronize simulator state with aircraft state, not to add complex functionality. In short, it's not the SDK which determines the complexity of your aircraft, it's the code you write. This is a misconception many people have, SDKs do not provide anything extra to make more complex aircraft. So as long as you have an SDK which allows you to run your code somehow, you should be fine. And MSFS SDK already allows that - I'm aware that WASM has some limitations but none of them are show stoppers. Many of the "complex" X-Plane airliners like Rotate MD-80 are written in Lua using SASL, which does not support multitasking.

PMDG has stated that the MSFS SDK is too simple to use it with their ac..

FsLabs stated the same.

Prosim stated the same.

8 minutes ago, GSalden said:

PMDG has stated that the MSFS SDK is too simple to use it with their ac..

FsLabs stated the same.

Prosim stated the same.

PMDG and FSLabs are trying to use WASM, which is lacking when it comes to backwards compatibility, so it requires them to rewrite their entire aircraft from scratch. They've never told that it's "too simple", what they mean is simply SDK do not allow them to port over their existing code. It is just not practical for them to rewrite the aircraft code when Asobo has already promised them backwards compatibility.

Also, Prosim runs completely independent from P3D, so they only use SimConnect to synchronize camera position and other simulator parameters, which has nothing to do with aircraft development. Camera control has some issues with MSFS, and probably this is one of their major limitations Prosim is experiencing.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by BiologicalNanobot

I would like to add something to the debate:

Aerosoft has milked P3D and FSX users for a long time. I have bought different airports (EGLL, EDDF etc) and aircraft (A330, A320, etc) twice! and they know they won´t be able to sell those for a third time. Lets face it, they don´t have any room to grow in P3D environment.

Their only choice for new markets and developments is to migrate to a new platform with new users willing to spend on new projects. 

54 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

PMDG and FSLabs are trying to use WASM, which is lacking when it comes to backwards compatibility, so it requires them to rewrite their entire aircraft from scratch. They've never told that it's "too simple", what they mean is simply SDK do not allow them to port over their existing code. It is just not practical for them to rewrite the aircraft code when Asobo has already promised them backwards compatibility.

Also, Prosim runs completely independent from P3D, so they only use SimConnect to synchronize camera position and other simulator parameters, which has nothing to do with aircraft development. Camera control has some issues with MSFS, and probably this is one of their major limitations Prosim is experiencing.

DL the SDK and its manual and you will find that most features have not been implemented....

Just now, GSalden said:

DL the SDK and its manual and you will find that most features have not been implemented....

I have the SDK, and I'm working on a DA-42 already. As said before, these features marked as "TODO" have almost nothing to do with aircraft development.

29 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 ... P3D does require add-ons to look good and Aerosoft sell those add-ons, but he [Kok] is making an argument about "default" which is counter productive to his goal of keeping 50 employees paid.I

a very good point!

25 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Here ya go:

• He estimated 20,000-30,000 P3D licenses in one of his other posts, I know this is NOT accurate.
• Burning "recent" revenue streams is not a good business process, how does this benefit Aerosoft?

My point exactly. These 20-30k (are you able to share a more accurate figure? I'd love to have some factual info regarding numbers) are a loyal customer base that is willing to spend money on P3D. Of the 500K-1M users, I have serious doubts you'll be able to get an important percentage of those to spend some money on add-ons. Heck, even some regular avsimers went the Game Pass $1 way... I insist in my ballpark number that they'll be lucky if 5% of those new users remain customers when all the dust settles with MSFS.

Aerosoft are free to cater to gamers... that's their business decision. I'm sure other companies will fill the void for those of us who continue to use P3D and are willing to invest in the platform in the foreseeable future.

 

35 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

• He estimated 20,000-30,000 P3D licenses in one of his other posts, I know this is NOT accurate.
• Burning "recent" revenue streams is not a good business process, how does this benefit Aerosoft?

1) How would a bigger number help them in any way? Wouldnt these individuals be part of their current market and revenues already?

2) It make sense if calculated RoI is significantly quicker than current market offers. So I assume that is their theory. Would love to be a fly on the wall in AS HQ.

22 hours ago, micstatic said:

Same sentiments here. 

Same.

I've pretty much returned to P3D (version 5). I think the simulation portion of MSFS will improve and we'll get some high fidelity aircraft eventually. (although I have nothing to base this on besides hope)

right.  I still own and use MSFS as a concept sim.  I see possibility and some cool things no doubt.  When people say it's the future.  They might be right.  But my flights are in the present. I'm going to buy a few more P3D things today.  I wish there were more new things to buy.  

I am gonna lighten this thread 

And say

DCS "blows" boths sims when it comes to VR.  Lets go there...and take it up on virtual battles.  We need 2 teams.  MSFS team and P3D team.  Lets see who wins.  I will be on the DCS team...(third party) interceptor 🤪

 

PS - I assume thread has run its course.  Mathijs is gonna do what he wants to do - Aerosoft is his company

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by Skywolf

3 hours ago, GSalden said:

PMDG has stated that the MSFS SDK is too simple to use it with their ac..

FsLabs stated the same.

Prosim stated the same.

While they wait for the MSFS SDK to mature PMDG could port the DC-6 from V4 to V5.

Karl

6 hours ago, Skywolf said:

 Mathijs is gonna do what he wants to do - Aerosoft is his company

No, actually, it's not.