Aerosoft CRJ preview pictures

[cwburnett 1,809]

3 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Yep indeed and I am pretty many of their C++ code evolved from their previous 737 releases from FS9 until P3D, so yeah they may think, why would we touch this code if it works perfectly? And C++ is also painful, so yeah, from programing point of view is understandable to avoid this at all cost since it will open for them paradox of issues if they try to port this code to JS/TS. 

That's just a risk all 3PDs take by waiting for Asobo to make WASM compatible with legacy code; something they have not committed to doing.

I mean, at some point PMDG wrote it from scratch and charged a lot for it. Now they don't write it from scratch and still charge a lot for it. They're welcome to wait, but I hope someone else doesn't come along in the meantime and build a 737 from scratch in newer more performent languages. Even if they do eventually both reach the market, the plane developed in modern languages will almost certainly outperform legacy code in raw FPS... V8 JS/HTML + Coherent is really performent if done right.

The rewritten from scratch WT G1000 in semi-open beta right now adds 10-15 fps... If someone tells me, but yeah, we want to bring 10 year old legacy code into the sim, I'm gonna say no thanks.... I've lived long enough with P3D framerates, thanks.... but YMMV....

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

15 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

We run an N1 with a FADEC cap of 104% for the CJ4.

I think it's worth noting that there's a difference between "not possible" and "we don't know how".

I hear you, but you have a large team of people willing to sit there and figure stuff out for free. They are a payware based model which means they are focused on profit, and it makes things a lot more deadline oriented.

P3D was mainly based on FSX which was thoroughly documented because of all the people experimenting over the years had it well figured out in the third-party community, before people like PMDG even came along. I can find the physics answers in forums for both Xplane and P3D, not so for MSFS. There is a tiny bit, but not much.

From what I've seen so far, the best you can do is take an existing flight model and just tweak and measure, but trying to create one from scratch is going to be pretty difficult if you need it to perform to PMDG standards. 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Alpine Scenery

[cwburnett 1,809]

3 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

but you have a large team of people willing to sit there and figure stuff out for free

?

There are 4 of us working on the CJ4 actively. We all have full time jobs.

Anyhow, look, I'm not quarreling with PMDG, it's their business and they can do with their product as they see fit, as can all the 3PDs.

I just get frustrated with disinformation that spreads like wildfire around here.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

7 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

There are 4 of us working on the CJ4 actively. We all have full time jobs.
Anyhow, look, I'm not quarreling with PMDG, it's their business and they can do with their product as they see fit, as can all the 3PDs.
I just get frustrated with disinformation that spreads like wildfire around here.

The average MSFS user is not going to want to spend the kind of money on a single plane that PMDG needs to sell for, so that is what I mean when I say they need to get the specs really precise. The PMDG market is a bit different than say the Carenado market.

I'm not sure what is misinformation... A team of 4 people isn't large, but it's decent sized for a freeware dev, I didn't know how many people you had, I just knew it was more than 3 (which in Flight sim stuff is kind of big, lol).

Anyhow, the CJ4 is a tweaked pre-existing plane, there is no 737 in the game, so yah it's a different problem. You did a great job btw, but my only point is that PMDG may not even have a "unique selling proposition" for MSFS, hard to say.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Alpine Scenery

[marsman2020 1,310]

 

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I'm not sure what is misinformation...

I think you should stick to scenery and not comment on things you don't know about, you also seem to keep moving the goalposts with every new comment.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

4 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

 

I think you should stick to scenery and not comment on things you don't know about, you also seem to keep moving the goalposts with every new comment.

I think you should watch your tone there friend. Been simming since the 1990's, and disagreeing with someone's speculation is no reason to take things personally. Not moving the goalpost, simply that in a forum post you don't state every specific point in the first post, was clarifying my viewpoint. What makes you the expert, do you work for PMDG, I have market metrics collected in this field, just FYI. I've looked at the data, best I can tell, that is my opinion. I think you should not assume without thinking things over thoroughly.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Alpine Scenery

[marsman2020 1,310]

3 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I think you should watch your tone there friend. Been simming since the 1990's, and disagreeing with someone's speculation is no reason to take things personally. Not moving the goalpost, simply that in a forum post you don't state every specific point in the first post, was expanding my viewpoint. What makes you the expert, do you work for PMDG, I have market metrics in this field, just FYI.

Ohh fancy, market metrics, props to you.

It's totally possible to make complex aircraft with in depth system simulations in MSFS right now, as Aerosoft is showing with the CRJ.  The idea that that isn't somehow possible is the disinformation that people keep spreading.

Some developers are waiting for Daddy Asobo to make all their C++ code run with 0 work on their side.  Time will tell if this is a smart decision or not.

Edited December 30, 2020 by marsman2020

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

6 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

Some developers are waiting for Daddy Asobo to make all their C++ code run with 0 work on their side.  Time will tell if this is a smart decision or not.

I'm sure there is some truth to that, no doubt, but PMDG has it harder than the others with their pricing model, it's a one shot kind of deal if they want to just do 1-2 planes at the highest level of sophistication at the highest price point.

I've never seen anything from Aerosoft live up to say PMDG or Majestic or even Accusim, but I have not tried every one of their planes. From my understanding, Aerosoft is more of a distribution / publishing house and has scattered distribution from different developers. Maybe Aerosoft will surprise us, hope so.

I never meant to intend that it's absolutely impossible, just that certain things appear to be a bit buggy and that it would be difficult to create something from scratch without a reference plane in the sim. Not sure why Asobo didn't do a 737.

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Alpine Scenery

[marsman2020 1,310]

1 minute ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I'm sure there is some truth to that, no doubt, but PMDG has it harder than the others.

I've never seen anything from Aerosoft live up to say PMDG or Majestic or even Accusim, but I have not tried every one of their planes. From my understanding, Aerosoft is more of a distribution / publishing house and has scattered distribution from different developers.

I never meant to intend that it's absolutely impossible, just that certain things appear to be a bit buggy and that it would be difficult to create something from scratch without a reference plane in the sim. Not sure why Asobo didn't do a 737.

What mythical reference aircraft do you think they are using for the CRJ?

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

The new sim isn't using a bunch of fluid dynamics equations you can pass to a math parser if that is what you are thinking, it's still based on values from config files that you provide. That's what it would take to do a true 1000-point system based on aerodynamics, or the other option is at least exposing some of the equations variables in a function like setup (where nearly every low level equation is exposed). But since Asobo wanted to add more 'pizazz' to the flight model, they now have internal interactions into the exposed discrete physics which are hard to compensate for, in addition to some things being ignored in the config. In the air it feels really good, but takeoffs and landings need a lot of work.

To what level you can match the physics of say Xplane or P3D is hard to say, we shall see, but so far everything is a little different than most have been used to.

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Alpine Scenery

[duckbilled 310]

Isn't this thread awesome?

👏

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking.  I'm not sure why speculation upsets people. I was really just thinking out loud as to why so many old devs haven't released planes yet. It's not like just one or two, it's like 99% right now, so they are still struggling with it, but more planes will come with time. It's obviously a big part the gauges, but also some is getting the variables correct to make the physics "good enough or acceptable", but PMDG has to be at a higher level than just good enough, which takes some time if you are used to FSX/P3D/Xplane.

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Alpine Scenery

[The Flight Level 2,112]

Wicked read guys! Truly insightful and one of the most knowledgeable threads I’ve read on what makes the foundation of this hobby tick.

[omarsmak30 4,065]

4 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I hear you, but you have a large team of people willing to sit there and figure stuff out for free. They are a payware based model which means they are focused on profit, and it makes things a lot more deadline oriented.

Sorry but is a weird arguments. If we are talking on figuring out things, indeed PMDG should figure this out, not the freeware devs. And they gotta work for it in order to sell it, right? And honestly in MSFS, we are talking on a larger userbase, and if PMDG is serious about it, they would at least re-write the stuff to draw the gauges in JS, not everything though.

Anyway Robert in PMDG forums is refusing to say what is slowing them down in MSFS development, at least Matijas was open a bit about the state of development in MSFS side. 

 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

34 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

Sorry but is a weird arguments. If we are talking on figuring out things, indeed PMDG should figure this out, not the freeware devs. And they gotta work for it in order to sell it, right? And honestly in MSFS, we are talking on a larger userbase, and if PMDG is serious about it, they would at least re-write the stuff to draw the gauges in JS, not everything though.

Anyway Robert in PMDG forums is refusing to say what is slowing them down in MSFS development, at least Matijas was open a bit about the state of development in MSFS side. 

Right, i think we agree on most points, just misunderstandings in our posts. Overall, I was just speculating mainly and thinking out loud, doing three things at once while writing these posts.

I was speaking about two things really, the smaller devs and people like PMDG/Aerosoft who have an unfair advantage of being able to contact Asobo (which is a big advantage). The smaller devs might struggle a bit more with the simpler things being left undocumented, but with a giant project like PMDG, decision being made are complicated and are tied to profit and other things. 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Alpine Scenery