Milviz twitch live stream

[marsman2020 1,310]

6 hours ago, JB3DG said:

his makes it vastly easier and more affordable to keep up with changes in technology because C++ is a really great language that is used the world over in almost every platform. To have that portability removed makes things very difficult to deal with the future. Lets say after MSFS has been out for a while, a new update is made that uses a totally new tech/method of coding. Now all of a sudden we again find ourselves with a bunch of code we cannot use and have to re-write everything from scratch. Its just not worth it. Allowing low level code access is actually critical to keeping up with changes in technology and platforms, rather than staying in the past.

Good thing you can target C++ to WASM modules, so a lot of code can be re-used. 

Security is a much bigger thing now than it was in 2006 and a much bigger focus for Microsoft.  Distributing add-ons as random .dll files carries with it a lot of security risks for users.  Sandboxing mitigates that.

"Low level code access" has nothing to do with if APIs are stable and efficient or not, I think you're making a false equivalency there. 

4 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

There's another potential angle to 3PDs developing study level aircraft.

They sell their products for commercial ends too.  Those products won't ever get used in MSFS.  The development costs of their products are probably not covered by the simmers income alone, those commercial elements will be far more lucrative. 

2 million people playing MSFS, vs a few commercial contracts?  I guess the 3DP developers need to decide if they want to release products for an addressable market of 2 million users, or complain in Twitch stream rants about how much work that is, and fall back to commercial and military contracts for P3D.

Edited December 17, 2020 by marsman2020

[ca_metal 2,025]

4 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Indeed, however what they say in the video, is another thing. They mentioned that they are financially pressured and P3D is no longer financially viable for them, so then what they want exactly? 

Didn’t saw the whole stream, but if they’ve said P3D isn’t making it for them and MSFS doesn’t seem be the better way to go (for them), they will have to focus on X-plane 11. But as I remember it, they were not so thrilled about X-plane.

[JB3DG 225]

23 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

If everything is so difficult and the sdk is this that and the third, why is it that community members are able to achieve in a few months what it takes/took addon developers sometimes years to accomplish?

THe CJ4 went from being a toy to approaching "study level" in 4 months. 

The CJ4 already had a lot of the ground work in place so it isn't comparable to starting from scratch. Not even close. 

22 hours ago, honanhal said:

I mean, I get that this would be a less-than-ideal thing to have happen if you're a developer.

But:

1) This is not a guaranteed event; we're talking about a risk (probably not a very likely one, to be honest);
2) This risk applies to all your competitors as well;
3) Not taking advantage of a once-in-a-generation market opportunity also carries business risk!

It's the fact that point number 3 seemingly eludes so many developers that continues to stun me. You can list all the reasons it's hard to get into the MSFS market as an aircraft addon developer -- I get it! there are definitely some hurdles! -- but at the end of the day I just can't understand how a reasonably shrewd developer comes to the conclusion that, you know what, "it's just not worth it," as you say.

Yes, there are some hurdles/risks/disruptions to your existing business, but this is also a massive opportunity. Thanks to the patient explanations of some of the programming-savvy folks here, we know pretty well that what's holding hesitant developers back is overwhelmingly not an issue of technical impossibility, but of added cost/time.

I confess I just don't get it. It's like watching a bricks-and-mortar retailer a couple decades back who sees the emerging internet market, fully understands that it's the future and that it will kill their existing market completely dead in a relatively short time, and then decides, "you know what, it's just too hard to take our business online. Let's revisit this in a few years."

James

If there is a possibility that we can get Asobo/MS to implement features in the SDK that will allow us to do our work without starting from scratch, we will rather put our effort into working with them to get those features. So far, they are at least working with PMDG who faces the same challenges that we do. So we are taking a wait and see approach to see what comes of it. This is something that the folks in this forum seem to be missing. We aren't flat out refusing to do anything for the new sim. We are refusing to use the tools *that are currently available, not the tools that might potentially be available in a couple months or years time*. Somehow this community is interpreting that as "Developer XYZ isn't going to do anything for MSFS and we can't understand how they can be such idiots for missing out point X/Y/Z which is the reason why they should invest in it etc etc etc". Far from the truth. The fact that Milviz has a C310 in the pipeline for MSFS proves the exact opposite. Some of the aircraft in their catalog lend themselves to the currently available tools without much pain. Others (unfortunately the more popular ones like their KingAir and PL-21) do not.

22 hours ago, ca_metal said:

Like MS/ASOBO would do that, breaking all their own planes and partner’s.

Its already happened. An update was released not long ago that destroyed compatibility for a number of 3rd party planes and if I recall (I'm totally up for correction here) some of the default aircraft as well. Weird things were happening with various instruments not working at all, flight models went wonky, etc etc. Its far from stable right now.

[JB3DG 225]

17 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

Good thing you can target C++ to WASM modules, so a lot of code can be re-used. 

Security is a much bigger thing now than it was in 2006 and a much bigger focus for Microsoft.  Distributing add-ons as random .dll files carries with it a lot of security risks for users.  Sandboxing mitigates that.

"Low level code access" has nothing to do with if APIs are stable and efficient or not, I think you're making a false equivalency there. 

2 million people playing MSFS, vs a few commercial contracts?  I guess the 3DP developers need to decide if they want to release products for an addressable market of 2 million users, or complain in Twitch stream rants about how much work that is, and fall back to commercial and military contracts for P3D.

Sorry but this comment is clueless as to what all is involved in targeting C++ to WASM.

And apart from the FSLabs incident (which wasn't made in any malicious intent to the honest of this community, but explicitly targeted a particular pirate. Sadly putting many others at risk), I challenge you, or anyone else here, to bring up a single incident where malware or any other security threat has occurred in this community. Can't? Not surprised and hackers/virus makers know it. They have far bigger fish to fry. Porn and other games that have a far bigger footprint, overlapping with many who play with flight simulators, are far easier and more worthwhile to exploit than our hobby.

[honanhal 1,420]

20 minutes ago, JB3DG said:

This is something that the folks in this forum seem to be missing. We aren't flat out refusing to do anything for the new sim. We are refusing to use the tools *that are currently available, not the tools that might potentially be available in a couple months or years time*. Somehow this community is interpreting that as "Developer XYZ isn't going to do anything for MSFS and we can't understand how they can be such idiots for missing out point X/Y/Z which is the reason why they should invest in it etc etc etc".

I can't speak for others, but I'm not missing this at all. Look, you're obviously free to wait and see whether the tools that would allow quick and easy porting of existing code to the MSFS ecosystem will exist in the future. I just don't understand how you can talk about potentially waiting *years* and not think that competitors -- especially newcomers without the baggage of existing sunk-cost code -- are going to absolutely eat your lunch in the meantime.

James

[ca_metal 2,025]

1 hour ago, JB3DG said:

Its already happened. An update was released not long ago that destroyed compatibility for a number of 3rd party planes and if I recall (I'm totally up for correction here) some of the default aircraft as well. Weird things were happening with various instruments not working at all, flight models went wonky, etc etc. Its far from stable right now.

What you said before was:

“newtech/method of coding. Now all of a sudden we again find ourselves with a bunch of code we cannot use and have to re-write everything from scratch. Its just not worth it.”

Carenado didn’t have to re-write everything from scratch, but sure they had to update their products. MS/Asobo never intended to break things by changing all their coding, they updated the sim and some features stopped working, but they worked to fix it.
 

About stability, no doubt it will be more stable in a year. No 3rd party will be forced to join now, but the clock is ticking. 

[Gilandred 690]

3 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Some of the aircraft in their catalog lend themselves to the currently available tools without much pain. Others (unfortunately the more popular ones like their KingAir and PL-21) do not.

The PL21 is rapidly being developed by the WT team in the CJ4.  They don’t seem to be having too much trouble.  And the King Air sporting the G3000 will only be a matter of time before someone steps up to take the mantle.  My guess is this will happen once Asobo gets their turboprop model sorted.  But if not, someone else will, and using all the “currently available tools.”

[raymar 969]

The advanced warning for the upcoming Dec 22nd update states the update #2 will include some work on the C-700 Longitude.  I didn't read if the G-5000 (sic) panels are included in that update or exactly what is being improved.  The Longitude needs a ton of work in almost all areas, so any improvements should be appreciated. 

Ray

[JB3DG 225]

3 hours ago, ca_metal said:

What you said before was:

“newtech/method of coding. Now all of a sudden we again find ourselves with a bunch of code we cannot use and have to re-write everything from scratch. Its just not worth it.”

Carenado didn’t have to re-write everything from scratch, but sure they had to update their products. MS/Asobo never intended to break things by changing all their coding, they updated the sim and some features stopped working, but they worked to fix it.
 

About stability, no doubt it will be more stable in a year. No 3rd party will be forced to join now, but the clock is ticking. 

This is absolutely comical. Carenado has their market base that they appeal to, more power to them. But comparing what they do with what teams like Milviz, PMDG, A2A, MJC etc do, and what's involved in updating their products is just hysterical.

1 hour ago, Gilandred said:

The PL21 is rapidly being developed by the WT team in the CJ4.  They don’t seem to be having too much trouble.  And the King Air sporting the G3000 will only be a matter of time before someone steps up to take the mantle.  My guess is this will happen once Asobo gets their turboprop model sorted.  But if not, someone else will, and using all the “currently available tools.”

I don't know what all the WT team is doing, what information they have on the CJ4's PL-21, and what all you view as a fully simulated PL-21. All I can say after going through the real PL-21 manuals for 3 different aircraft (P-180 Avanti PL-21 manual: 470 pages. KA350i manual: 666 pages. LJ60 manual: 666 pages.)  is that it is waaaaaaaay more than just "vectors legs, proper discontinuities, intercept legs, fully functional FADEC, full VNAV, RNAV with all the right sensitivities, including angular sensitivity for LPV, custom LNAV" etc.

Again, I can't go into details without breaking NDAs. Suffice to say, there are certain things that I know for a fact cannot be done with the present tools that PMDG, MJC, Milviz, and a bunch of others consider essential for porting over their work into the new sim. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by JB3DG

[ca_metal 2,025]

9 minutes ago, JB3DG said:

This is absolutely comical. Carenado has their market base that they appeal to, more power to them. But comparing what they do with what teams like Milviz, PMDG, A2A, MJC etc do, and what's involved in updating their products is just hysterical. 

Don’t want to get into a fight here, but I was just responding to your assertion about 3rd party add-ons getting broken by sim updates recently. I don’t remember any Milviz, PMDG, A2A, MJC planes for MSFS as of now.

 

Also, don’t put Milviz in the same ballpark of A2A, MJC or PMDG. That’s comical too.

Edited December 18, 2020 by ca_metal

[Bushido5 60]

I have the KA350 from Milviz in P3D and like it very much, brilliant aircraft.

Is the simulation of the PL21 of the KA350 from Milviz better than the ones of the CJ4 from Working Title ? Yes for sure, for now.

But to be perfectly honest, it take Milviz like what 8 years to develop the aircraft and its still flagged as beta when you download it (even if it is robust enough to not be considered a beta in my opinion and yes I know developing an aircraft from scratch with  the 3D model, the flight characteristic and so on take more time than just the avionics) but it only take 4 months for Working Title group to produce something rather solid already. Only Milviz now how long it take to develop the PL21 avionics only but I suspect it was the longer part compare to the 3D model for exemple.

And in a few month from now it might well be possible that the PL21 simulation from Working Title is on par with the Milviz ones.

I'm not a developer at all, I know nothing (like John Snow) about the state of the SDK etc but true think is that if your aircrafts are not available on MSFS no one will be able to buy them...

So ultimatly it's your call but don't be too late to the party because you "wait and see"

[marsman2020 1,310]

6 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Sorry but this comment is clueless as to what all is involved in targeting C++ to WASM.

And apart from the FSLabs incident (which wasn't made in any malicious intent to the honest of this community, but explicitly targeted a particular pirate. Sadly putting many others at risk), I challenge you, or anyone else here, to bring up a single incident where malware or any other security threat has occurred in this community. Can't? Not surprised and hackers/virus makers know it. They have far bigger fish to fry. Porn and other games that have a far bigger footprint, overlapping with many who play with flight simulators, are far easier and more worthwhile to exploit than our hobby.

When you have 2 million PC users and probably a couple million XBox users coming in the summer, and new site like flightsim.to popping up all over the place with lots of new mods - the attack surface is much larger than prior sims.  And they can't allow random .dlls on XBox, due to security risks to the entire XBox ecosystem getting cracked. 

I'm glad that you think it's acceptable to put password extracting malware into installers as long as it's "targeting a particular pirate" and that that doesn't have any "malicious intent" behind it toward the community.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  This is a great argument for only buying things on the official MSFS Marketplace where there is no installer and everything is vetted by Microsoft, even if it does mean updates might be delayed.  It's also a great argument for WASM sandboxing.

Quote

Again, I can't go into details without breaking NDAs. Suffice to say, there are certain things that I know for a fact cannot be done with the present tools that PMDG, MJC, Milviz, and a bunch of others consider essential for porting over their work into the new sim. 

I'll take the word of people who are actually developing in the sim and haven't signed any NDAs over the word of 3DPs hiding behind the NDA any day.  That Twitch stream was a bunch of unprofessional whining with half-truths and outright falsehoods thrown in for good measure.  I especially loved the part where a bunch of work had to be thrown out on one of the aircraft because the code was of poor quality, and "maybe we need better hiring practices".  What a thing to admit publicly!  And then start saying how terrible MSFS is in the next breath, and then come on this forum and denigrate the work of the freeware developers who are giving us great content for MSFS, while the big 3DP developers do nothing but whine and complain.

If developers want to sit on the sidelines while there are 2+ million new customers available waiting for Daddy Asobo to make all their legacy C++ stuff work with 0 changes, it's totally up to them.  Good luck with that.

Edited December 18, 2020 by marsman2020

[JeffChrisope 67]

Just to throw in another question, since I reeeeally have no interest in sitting through then whole disturbing-sounding stream for an answer:  since MilViz is more or less waiting on Asobo to do much substantive for MSFS, did they explain why they also have done so little porting of their existing P3D products to P3Dv5?  That was supposed to be happening as well, but I haven’t seen much evidence of it ... are they waiting for something more from LM as well?

[kaosfere 3,115]

4 hours ago, Bushido5 said:

it only take 4 months for Working Title group to produce something rather solid already

To be fair, and not to diminish the massive amount of work my comrades and I have put into things, we didn't have to start from scratch.  There was already an existing framework there to work from, which greatly accelerates development.

That having been said, as @MattNischan has well conveyed here, there is also a huge amount of original code in our stuff now, too.  Just the new flight plan management logic alone is thousands of lines of new code.   Our new G1000 UI that's just now seeing the light of day is also a massive, from-scratch project.   So, yes, we have stood on the shoulders of those who have come before, but, to completely torture and mangle a metaphor, we have bionically re-engineered those shoulders and attached Wolverine claws and laser cannons to them.

(Completely realistic and true-to-life claws and cannons, I assure you.)

And we've managed to do it in a short amount of time because of the flexibility and speed of development in the "new paradigm".

I'm not naive -- I have two decades of professional engineering experience behind me and have architected and delivered some extremely complex projects.  Others on the team are much the same.   We well understand the needs and the complexities of commercial development at scale and that sometimes a tool or a platform just won't work. 

But we've also learned what other folks in the thread have noted:  technological advancement is a merciless juggernaut, and when it comes your way you have only two choices:  you evolve, or you die.  I'm not going to attempt to convince the developers who've been creating commercial flight sim product for years to throw away their collection of experience, tooling, and libraries just to hop onto a new train.  Nor am I going to insult them, demean them, or wish for their failure.

But, if only so they can stay competitive and continue to enrich our hobby as they have been doing for years, I'd really encourage even the most skeptical developer to spend some time learning the new methods and assessing how much of their work could be done that way, instead of holding out for a bump-free road to be paved for them.  Because while they're doing that, someone else more nimble who can handle a few bumps in the road might be beating them to the punch.

Edited December 18, 2020 by kaosfere