Yep, I have an 8700 32 GB 1080ti 4TB ssds 34 in Alienware Nvidia monitor.  Works OK for me.

7 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Could be that PMDG doesn't want to release within a sub-par physics model and ruin their reputation, for now giving them benefit of the doubt.

That's not it at all. It is simply the fact that if you're going to commit to making an add-on aeroplane which might require several years of work, you want to be sure that you don't spend two years working away at it only to find you've gone up a development cul-de-sac because the goalposts have moved.

This was one of the reasons PMDG never used to make anything for XPlane, although to be fair, they were also on record as saying it wasn't capable of doing everything they needed it to do for stuff like their 747, so there may be a grain of truth in that where MSFS is concerned, at least for now anyway. Don't forget that people for years said that FSX wasn't capable of supporting a complex A320 add-on, and then FSL went and did it and shut everyone up, and that was clearly more to do with a lot of lesser developers having a try at it and not being up to the task, than it not being possible to achieve, because that opinion was around long after FSX had received its final patch.

This is one of the reasons why the Aerosoft CRJ is so important. It's true that they aren't shooting for super-duper FSL-like realism, but what they are doing, is working toward planting the goalposts firmly in the ground in terms of how you go about making an airliner, so that other developers with loftier ambitions can shoot for that goal with their clever developmental trickery for their super-duper add-on, with all of us safe in the knowledge that if they miss, it won't be because the goalpost has moved, it will be because they were not up to the task in the first place.

Edited December 29, 20205 yr by Chock

1 hour ago, Chock said:

That's not it at all. It is simply the fact that if you're going to commit to making an add-on aeroplane which might require several years of work, you want to be sure that you don't spend two years working away at it only to find you've gone up a development cul-de-sac because the goalposts have moved.

 

It's all speculation as to their motives, so we're juggling a discord based on a speculative premise. In the end, it is likely partly because they know if they cannot be at a certain level, they cannot get the crazy prices they need to (or are used to) getting. Remember, the pricing model requires incredible quality and to be above others.

Shouldn't take 2 years when people have that much experience to build something they already built before, unless they are going to be doing something super super custom like rebuilding the entire physics model and providing the movement points directly to the sim (doubt they'd go that far). As you noted they didn't make it for Xplane, and it was super easy to make stuff in Xplane, comparatively speaking. Things have changed, but most stuff is easier now, not harder. It's a lot of javascript/html instead of C++. The problem isn't the difficulty level, the problem is flat out what doesn't work the same physics wise and all the other mumbmo jumbo.

How are they going to sell a generic quality 737 for $80+ when the bar is too high given the sim's current state. I would guess the people in the company also have other distractions, other business/job, or don't see the profit in it, etc... If the demand is there, most of the time someone will make it.

 

Edited December 29, 20205 yr by Alpine Scenery

50 minutes ago, Chock said:

This was one of the reasons PMDG never used to make anything for XPlane,

It was obvious why they didn't make it for Xplane, no-one was going to buy it hardly given the free Zibo mod. Also, the original Xplane crowd were very anti-payware and open sourcish / Linux fans (nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out). They weren't going to buy a PMDG level plane, sure a handful would, but in the old days Xplane was an impossible to crack payware market. It wasn't until Orbx kind of cracked it a bit that it started loosening up.

 

8 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Physics table issues, where it totally ignores the value. Problems with landing physics and incorrect ground effect as well.

I think a big problem is they left values in the .cfg files that only do anything when the 'Legacy' flight model is selected, which combined with the poor documentation (no documentation really) in the SDK is really throwing some people for a loop.  I think table-based physics is no longer used in many instances for the Modern flight model.  It's using the '1000 points' flight model instead (which really makes no sense in how they implemented it.....)

Edited December 29, 20205 yr by marsman2020

7 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Then again that guy is running a 10700K with RTX3090.

That‘s fake news! I am running a 9900K with a RTX3080. 😉 

4 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

It was obvious why they didn't make it for Xplane, no-one was going to buy it hardly given the free Zibo mod. Also, the original Xplane crowd were very anti-payware and open sourcish / Linux fans (nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out). They weren't going to buy a PMDG level plane, sure a handful would, but in the old days Xplane was an impossible to crack payware market. It wasn't until Orbx kind of cracked it a bit that it started loosening up.

In the old days of XP there also hasn't been any noteworthy study level airliner. And even after Zibo entered the game, there would've been plenty of market for PMDG and their long haul fleet. There isn't a quality 747 up to date AFAIK. The Flight Factor aircraft are decent but not great (except for the A320).

It was due to MS abandoning flightsimming and P3D not moving anywhere that XP became mainstream finally.

I'm sure the physics aren't what is limiting PMDG. You can tweak a lot in the flight model. FBW made the default A320 believable for free and are still working on it. I guess the system depth is more challenging to get done. And there must be a heck of legacy code which would be a pain in the *** to completely rewrite in JS.

Edited December 29, 20205 yr by tweekz

4 minutes ago, tweekz said:

I'm sure the physics aren't what is limiting PMDG

Yep I am fairly sure about it. I downloaded the latest SDK today 0.9 and I was reading through WASM, something important caught my attention, WASM currently supports basic GDI+ APIs and I am sure that is what most add-ons on FSX and P3D have been doing to draw the gauges. There are many missing GDI+ APIs are missing and I can speculate that is what is holding PMDG perhaps. However I do understand as well re-writting all that chunk of code to draw the gauges in JS/HTML from C++ could be overkill for them. So yeah, let's hope Asobo will enhance WASM further to allow PMDG to come along!

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

However I do understand as well re-writting all that chunk of code to draw the gauges in JS/HTML from C++ could be overkill for them.

Understandable. Imagine you have a lot of code simulating something complex already perfectly. There is no need to improve. So it would make no sense to rewrite all of it.

13 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Understandable. Imagine you have a lot of code simulating something complex already perfectly. There is no need to improve. So it would make no sense to rewrite all of it.

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. 

 

1 hour ago, tweekz said:

Understandable. Imagine you have a lot of code simulating something complex already perfectly. There is no need to improve. So it would make no sense to rewrite all of it.

2 million potential new customers, as I'm sure Aerosoft has recognized since they are taking the leap into the "new methods".

2 hours ago, tweekz said:

Understandable. Imagine you have a lot of code simulating something complex already perfectly. There is no need to improve. So it would make no sense to rewrite all of it.

Lol I have actually have done it several  times!  You gotta do what you gotta do. 

3 hours ago, Flyer024 said:

That‘s fake news! I am running a 9900K with a RTX3080. 😉 

Ok I was close lol

3 hours ago, tweekz said:

I'm sure the physics aren't what is limiting PMDG. You can tweak a lot in the flight model. FBW made the default A320 believable for free and are still working on it. I guess the system depth is more challenging to get done. And there must be a heck of legacy code which would be a pain in the *** to completely rewrite in JS.

I don't think it's just the physics, more the SDK overall. I think the physics are part of it, but it's the missing gauge stuff like he noted above as well. It may in fact be more about gauges than physics, but people are forgetting how close PMDG had the landing and take-off physics in the old 737, it was probably 'certifiable' or really close other than crosswinds or general issues the sim itself induced. This sim is nowhere near that, and no-one knows how to get it that close with a "plane from scratch" edit. Modifying a pre-existing plane and doing a plane that doesn't yet exist in the game are two totally different things in this sim.

The difference is when you tweak settings of a pre-existing plane, the plane was already generally acting sort-of like the real thing, because Asobo modeled it that way. So you can generally find values in the cfg to make it do X/Y/Z. When you do a new plane from scratch, it's harder to figure out the base values and you end up going in circles with tweaks trying to figure out how to effect something. Well, when editing an existing plane, if you cannot figure it out, you just move on and leave that part for later and come back to it, that's not an option when doing a new flight model from scratch. They can use the 787 config I guess as a starting point, but it's going to be way way off.

 

Edited December 30, 20205 yr by Alpine Scenery

16 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

"-N1 above 100% just does not work. Folds back to less than 100%.

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".

And I challenge anyone to find an official ESP/P3D/FSX SDK doc that details the correct use and function of every air file parameter. So while it's all well and good to point out that it doesn't exist for MSFS, it should also be said that the PMDG aircraft were built without that documentation for P3D as well...