Milviz twitch live stream

[cavaricooper 2,611]

Ray-

I for one will wait until the reviews (yours especially) post.  The last version was not stellar, and I would be very glad to hear you love it.  The Aerosoft distribution that I am waiting for is the Twotter.  It is an aircraft I dearly love and was overdue a few updates in P3D.  If they pop those in and manage to keep or improve the flight model and engine simulation- it will knock it for a six!  Our current iteration of MSFS would benefit from such a versatile aircraft, and I have several Caribbean, Alaskan and New Guinean trips already planned out.

Best- C

Edited December 14, 2020 by cavaricooper

[raymar 969]

1 hour ago, cavaricooper said:

Ray-

I for one will wait until the reviews (yours especially) post.  The last version was not stellar, and I would be very glad to hear you love it.  The Aerosoft distribution that I am waiting for is the Twotter.  It is an aircraft I dearly love and was overdue a few updates in P3D.  If they pop those in and manage to keep or improve the flight model and engine simulation- it will knock it for a six!  Our current iteration of MSFS would benefit from such a versatile aircraft, and I have several Caribbean, Alaskan and New Guinean trips already planned out.

Best- C

I think everyone loves the Twotter.  This one will have all the optional big tires, floats, skis. It is probably end of the first quarter next year.

[HUSSAR 254]

4 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

IMO there's nothing wrong with humans and animals eating food whenever and however they want.

Try it the next time you are in a meeting and you want people to take you seriously.

[raymar 969]

12 hours ago, MattNischan said:

This is somewhat of a strange position to take. Our CJ4 is about to have a totally new flight plan system, complete with stuff like vectors legs, proper discontinuities, intercept legs, the list goes on. Most procedures look totally correct to the charts, even with stock NavBlue data, because we're now parsing all the procedure data ourselves. The FMC is basically almost entirely new code, and has a has a pretty high degree of completeness.

The SDK is really no impediment with the right combination of JS/TS and C++/WASM. The soon to be released version of the CJ4, on top of the total navigational overhaul, will have a fully functional FADEC, full VNAV, RNAV with all the right sensitivities, including angular sensitivity for LPV, custom LNAV, and a bunch of other stuff.

I have no beef with MilViz, and they seem like great folks, but there seems to be a curious disconnect, just in my opinion.

-Matt

This is music to my ears. Sounds like the only thing missing is some basic documentation and a introductory flight tutorial.

Unless you happen to work for Flight Safety or a have a good friend that flies a CJ4 for a living, you are left out in the cold.  Gone are the days when one could download the documentation with a simple online search.

Regards,

Ray

[MattNischan 3,778]

16 minutes ago, raymar said:

This is music to my ears. Sounds like the only thing missing is some basic documentation and a introductory flight tutorial.

Right now we have this, and we'll be doing a couple of additional videos for the new features as well.

(250) How To Fly the Working Title CJ4 - YouTube

-Matt

[raymar 969]

Back to the Aerosoft CRJ - Mathis just posted a very early pre-release Vol1 of 5 for review and comments  (48 page pdf).  You have to be signed in to the Aerosoft Forums to download this manual.  Neat. Thanks Mathis.

  13 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

As there are a lot of new simmers who have never used more complex add-ons and we understand they are worried about the complexity. But we have a lot of people standing by to assist and we will have an extensive manual. Attached is Vol1 (there will be 5 manuals). This is VERY much an initial version and will get many many tweaks before and after release.

If anybody has any comment, do send it to Mathijs.Kok@aerosoft.com. If you like to help translating, please do. We intend to share this manual in 8 languages.

Vol1.pdf 3.28 MB · 11 downloads

Few comments already; I’ll get to it tonight and go through the whole document. Easy one to start: CRJ700 metric unit specifications on Page 9 should be reviewed; it bounces between metric and imperial.

[abrams_tank 7,387]

13 hours ago, MattNischan said:

This is somewhat of a strange position to take. Our CJ4 is about to have a totally new flight plan system, complete with stuff like vectors legs, proper discontinuities, intercept legs, the list goes on. Most procedures look totally correct to the charts, even with stock NavBlue data, because we're now parsing all the procedure data ourselves. The FMC is basically almost entirely new code, and has a has a pretty high degree of completeness.

The SDK is really no impediment with the right combination of JS/TS and C++/WASM. The soon to be released version of the CJ4, on top of the total navigational overhaul, will have a fully functional FADEC, full VNAV, RNAV with all the right sensitivities, including angular sensitivity for LPV, custom LNAV, and a bunch of other stuff.

I have no beef with MilViz, and they seem like great folks, but there seems to be a curious disconnect, just in my opinion.

-Matt

This is pretty much consistent with what IcemanFBW said.  From what you and IcemandFBW are saying, the MSFS SDK is complete, provided you are willing to follow their API, and use a new coding methodology (ie. Javascript) to develop your plane for MSFS.   Seems like some 3rd party developers just don't want to use a new coding methodology, don't want to follow the new MSFS API, don't want to write new code, and just want Asobo's SDK to convert their legacy code for them.

[marsman2020 1,310]

14 hours ago, MattNischan said:

This is somewhat of a strange position to take. Our CJ4 is about to have a totally new flight plan system, complete with stuff like vectors legs, proper discontinuities, intercept legs, the list goes on. Most procedures look totally correct to the charts, even with stock NavBlue data, because we're now parsing all the procedure data ourselves. The FMC is basically almost entirely new code, and has a has a pretty high degree of completeness.

The SDK is really no impediment with the right combination of JS/TS and C++/WASM. The soon to be released version of the CJ4, on top of the total navigational overhaul, will have a fully functional FADEC, full VNAV, RNAV with all the right sensitivities, including angular sensitivity for LPV, custom LNAV, and a bunch of other stuff.

 

Oh man, I just tried the WT CJ4 for the first time this weekend, mostly just a manual flight with HDG mode since I didn't want to delve into the details of the FMC.  This sounds awesome!

7 hours ago, MattNischan said:

The WT G1000 that just went to beta on our Discord is redone entirely from the ground up, has more features, and is insanely smooth. I get 10-15 fps more with it loaded now.

Can't wait for this!

I do think that some 3DP developers should just "rip off the bandaid" and consider redoing their aircraft with, to borrow Matt's term, the "right combination" of the two provided new APIs.  It will only benefit them in the future as MSFS moves forward.  Or at least make written PR statements and not long rambling live streams. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by marsman2020

[Slayer68 63]

On 12/13/2020 at 8:53 AM, Torsen said:

MV was even not willing to invest into an FMS for the p3d 737... What do you expect? I am a huge fan of the MV range and have nearly all of their stuff... But what can I fly atm with a dual setup of v5 and msfs? The KA is heavily bound to reallight and trueglass which make it barely usable in v5 with a moderate setup. And yes, the problem is exactly the paradigm shift in development for msfs. New tool sets needed, new programming skills etc... Training costs, new hirings needed... Especially the smaller devs have a problem with this... And some bigger are still not willing to make the step for various reasons... Still interesting times 😉

Cheers T.

Sorry Torsen that is not entirely true. There was an FMS in FSX and pre 64 bit P3D. The developer that made the FMS is no longer with Milviz and we didn't have the code to port it to 64 bit as he took it with him. Redeveloping another FMS and autopilot for a product that was already released was just not going to happen as many people are not willing to repurchase the aircraft again. The cost of developing a new FMS probably would  not pay for itself in new sales as many in the community think it is a simple "port". The hard decision was made to remove the FMS and not develop another one was a hard pill to swallow but not worth the financial investment.

[tweekz 2,165]

On 12/13/2020 at 10:16 AM, abrams_tank said:

IcemanFBW from the FBW team, who has looked at the SDK in depth, has said the SDK is complete if the developer is willing to use the new API, and use new coding methodology (ie. learn Javascript, etc): https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/590623-fbw-team-is-making-a-separate-ap-for-its-a320/?tab=comments#comment-4419833.

The issue is some 3rd party developers don't want to throw out all their code and learn the new API, learn Javascript, etc.  They want the SDK to magically convert all their legacy code so they don't have to do as much work.

I think you have exactly nailed the point here.

As I've always said: There are those who complain, and then there are those who take their chance. FBW, WorkingTitle, etc. certainly did.

Edited December 14, 2020 by tweekz

[MattNischan 3,778]

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

This is pretty much consistent with what IcemanFBW said.  From what you and IcemandFBW are saying, the MSFS SDK is complete, provided you are willing to follow their API, and use a new coding methodology (ie. Javascript) to develop your plane for MSFS.   Seems like some 3rd party developers just don't want to use a new coding methodology, don't want to follow the new MSFS API, don't want to write new code, and just want Asobo's SDK to convert their legacy code for them.

I don't want to go too strong here and say it's just stubbornness or aversion to new technology overall. I think the only thing that I'm trying to get across is that there is an avenue forward that does already exist, and that the platform is capable of amazingly full systems depth today, despite some misunderstandings. Whether or going in a new language or API direction makes sense from a financial and risk perspective is an entirely different question.

The other thing I will add is that the JS/TS API has a total of zero documentation. It does, however, have a ton of examples, with all the current planes being built in it. So, I get it, there are definitely plusses an minuses. But it isn't a platform issue, it's a time/knowledge/cost/risk issue. The platform is plenty good for all manner of complex systems and navigation sim.

-Matt

[cwburnett 1,809]

@MattNischan covered pretty much everything re: the SDK and developing for MSFS, but I'd definitely invite @Slayer68 or any other 3PDs that are struggling with the JS/HTML SDK to join us on our discord server, and I'm sure the same is true for the FBW discord server. While historically payware aircraft developers (at least on the FS/P3D side) have kept their methods and processes pretty secret and all the code has been locked up tight without much sharing going on, this new sim is ripe for collaboration and sharing - that's why we see so many cool open source projects for this sim on GitHub - a totally new phenomenon for the flight sim community I've been part of for over a decade. I suspect one of the reasons a lot of 3PDs shun the HTML/JS/CSS side of the SDK is because they don't want their code readable with just a text editor, and I guess I can appreciate that position, but...we've found that we can do most things we need to there - with the exception of a couple things like FADEC where we needed WASM.

With respect to the FMC, all I can say is that we've done most of the work to bring a full-featured PL21 to MSFS...and there's no reason I can think of that anyone that has already built an aircraft and flight model for an aircraft that uses the PL21 shouldn't want to jump on that and bring other PL21 aircraft to market....Can anyone think of any developers that recently built a high fidelity aircraft model that uses the PL21? 😉

I don't encourage anyone to just try and pick up our code and sell it as their own - I think a lot of the community would find that troubling, but we're a pretty easy-going bunch of simmers and we believe that "sharing is caring," lol. We love simming, we love planes, some of us are real pilots with PL21 + lots of Garmin experience and others are full time devs and architects... Working Title discord link in my sig...

 

[Slayer68 63]

I am not a developer but I can say it is not because our developers are resistant to other forms of code or hoping that there is some magical way to port our P3D/FSX stuff over.

While freeware and community mods are are great, they do not protect our IP and we cannot in good faith include community work and then turn around and charge people for it. That is not the way Milviz does business. Do it right or don't do it at all...

There are other concerns that I can't / shouldn't get into or may be covered by an NDA. Trust me we would like to deliver Milviz quality products to you and they are coming but progress is slow right now for the reasons discussed in the video stream. 

[omarsmak30 4,061]

Okay, let's wait for the first airliner from Aerosoft to see how they have done it. I am pretty sure many third party developers are eager to see the CRJ to learn on how they have done it. 

[taguilo 33]

57 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

With respect to the FMC, all I can say is that we've done most of the work to bring a full-featured PL21 to MSFS...and there's no reason I can think of that anyone that has already built an aircraft and flight model for an aircraft that uses the PL21 shouldn't want to jump on that and bring other PL21 aircraft to market

Yeah, of course would be awesome to put a PL21 aircraft in MSFS, but not at a cost of throwing hundreths of thousands code lines and starting from scratch, that will mean perhaps years of development time. That's Milviz vision today. May it prevail? perhaps. Change? perhaps too. IMO this uncertainty is what Colin referred about.

Tomas