Milviz twitch live stream

[cwburnett 1,809]

I want to clarify something because I see some pretty negative posts in here directed at Milviz. I don't speak for Matt, but I know him well - neither of us have any ill will towards Milviz or any 3PDs and I think we're both fans of the work the Milviz team has done over the years. Our comments are about adapting to a new world order and to be super clear, it was our intention to offer assistance, not to judge or criticize. We're in this to have the best simming experience possible and if we can help 3PDs get there, we're happy to do it. We have an open line of communication with Iceman/FBW and have communicated directly with Asobo as well as many other 3PDs, including members of the Aerosoft team bringing the CRJ to market shortly. We're really excited about this new sim and want to see the ecosystem develop with as much third party content as possible - freeware and payware alike. We don't have an us and them mentality, and I hope the same for other community members. I cringe when I read some of the more critical and harsh comments on avsim - and we don't want to be part of that cycle of negativity. Anyhow...

On 12/12/2020 at 5:45 PM, raymar said:

No doubt, maybe Milviz will start with a work around like this and upgrade or update the panel when MFS2020 supports a bonafide FMS.  I think Colin said he was interested in what the community thinks of this type of fix.  I would go along with it, depending on the total cost to get it flying with the 3rd party gauges.  Thanks for the info.

I neglected to mention this before, but I'd also buy the 732 without an FMS. One of my favorite planes to fly around in P3D was the Coolsky DC-9, just flying old school routes with VORs and NDBs was a fun change of pace compared to the button pushing of more modern planes. So I'd support this with a purchase on day 1 if it were brought in initially without an FMS. My $0.02.

Edited December 16, 2020 by cwburnett

[MattNischan 3,778]

49 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

I want to clarify something because I see some pretty negative posts in here directed at Milviz. I don't speak for Matt, but I know him well - neither of us have any ill will towards Milviz or any 3PDs and I think we're both fans of the work the Milviz team has done over the years. Our comments are about adapting to a new world order and to be super clear, it was our intention to offer assistance, not to judge or criticize. We're in this to have the best simming experience possible and if we can help 3PDs get there, we're happy to do it.

I can't possibly stress this enough. My stance here, and I hope it has been clear enough, is not that third parties are bad people, or lazy, or greedy. These people carried the corpse of our hobby to this point and have given us some absolutely awesome stuff that I still fly to this day. It's just to point out the misunderstandings of the state of the SDK and offer hope for the platform, and make sure that the hobby can be as healthy, vibrant, and thriving as possible for as long as possible. Our whole goal is to make this simming platform as approachable and easy to develop on it can be, paving the way for the next generation of awesome products and projects, both payware and freeware. 

We're happy to and welcome collaborating with anyone and everyone. Our knowledge is your knowledge. It can only make this hobby we all love better and stronger.

-Matt

[JB3DG 225]

I will give an extra little insight into the hesitancy and why C++ is preferred. In order to cope with the rapid slew of updates that were expected in P3D and when DTG was getting into FSX, developers go to great lengths to make their code base as platform independent as possible. Meaning that with some small exceptions on how displays are handled, as well as the input methods from clickable cockpits, the code is highly portable between any platform so long as that platform supports C++ integration. This 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.

[Ricardo41 5,949]

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. 

[EvidencePlz 276]

15 hours ago, TravelRunner404 said:

Now, if Simmmarket would fix their 2007 website

To call it a 2007 website is an insult to the year 2007. Please don't. 🤣

[honanhal 1,420]

50 minutes ago, JB3DG said:

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.

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

[abrams_tank 7,417]

Hi.  I want to add that we, as the MSFS community, should correct the record about the SDK, since so much misinformation or misunderstanding was spread about the SDK.  After we correct the information about the SDK, so that more of the community understands its capabilities, I think we should also give feedback to PDMG, and other 3rd party developers, that we know it's possible to create a high fidelity airplane for MSFS, and that they should prioritize putting resources for MSFS.

At the moment, some of the 3rd party companies seem to want to put the blame on Asobo, and their followers seem to get this misunderstanding about the SDK, which allows the 3rd party company to go back to prioritizing P3D or XPlane.  In a weird way, it seems some 3rd party companies have whipped up an air of misunderstanding, thereby placing the blame on the MSFS SDK (perhaps they didn't intend to do this purposefully but this has been the effect of it), and then using that as an excuse to go back to prioritizing P3D and XPlane.  If the MSFS community understands the MSFS SDK capabilities better, then they can start enquiring with these companies and ask them why they won't write new code, but are sitting there waiting for Asobo to convert their legacy code instead. 

[ca_metal 2,023]

35 minutes 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

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

I think it’s easier to follow the transition path as costumers as we don’t do it for a living. But if MSFS becomes the main platform for most simmers, those devs not willing to change will be in trouble.

Changing the way things are at this stage would have some costs to MS/Asobo, wouldn’t it? Why would they absorb those costs when they believe their way is the better way?

I think we will feel the environment better after Aerosoft’s CRJ release.

[ca_metal 2,023]

15 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Hi.  I want to add that we, as the MSFS community, should correct the record about the SDK, since so much misinformation or misunderstanding was spread about the SDK.  After we correct the information about the SDK, so that more of the community understands its capabilities, I think we should also give feedback to PDMG, and other 3rd party developers, that we know it's possible to create a high fidelity airplane for MSFS, and that they should prioritize putting resources for MSFS.

At the moment, some of the 3rd party companies seem to want to put the blame on Asobo, and their followers seem to get this misunderstanding about the SDK, which allows the 3rd party company to go back to prioritizing P3D or XPlane.  In a weird way, it seems some 3rd party companies have whipped up an air of misunderstanding, thereby placing the blame on the MSFS SDK (perhaps they didn't intend to do this purposefully but this has been the effect of it), and then using that as an excuse to go back to prioritizing P3D and XPlane.  If the MSFS community understands the MSFS SDK capabilities better, then they can start enquiring with these companies and ask them why they won't write new code, but are sitting there waiting for Asobo to convert their legacy code instead. 

Look, I wouldn’t be so concerned about that. Sure we should come clean when see false claims being spreaded. But the MSFS’ environment is already thriving. A lot of freeware/payware being developed and distributed.

It would be sad not having all the more traditional developers on the new platform, but I’m sure new ones will fill in the gaps, it can take some time, all depends on the return expectations the developers have. 
 

Like I said above, we will probably have a more clear view of things after we have the sales numbers of the Aerosoft’s CRJ. That will raise or lower the interest of 3rd party devs.

[omarsmak30 4,068]

1 hour ago, JB3DG said:

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

Okay look, I am software engineer and I am dealing with these kind of decisions with the product managers always in my work. We need first to know exactly if it worth it or not, there is a lot of risk and investment that need to be thrown at. But that is how it is in the software market, you'd need to do a risk analysis and see yourself where you stand, if the outcome of your analysis indicates that ROI is not much, then I'd definitely agree with you, is not worth it. However, if your analysis indicates that the ROI will be good and it is worth to invest, then throw at it your money. 

However to conclude my post here, with all respect with the legendary add-one developers like Milviz that with them they have enriched our hobby and jump to rescue FSX when MS abandoned, I do understand the risk, the amount of work needed to go to MSFS, the new tech that could be overwhelming to learn and uncertainties which is perfectly fine.  I think what suits MSFS is a fresh blood in the third party development that could be comfortable with these new technologies and hence would be easier to get on board.

[kevinfirth 1,396]

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. 

Therefore those Devs would be required to not only develop their product essentially from scratch again, but also maintain development across different platforms and code bases/languages, when only one iteration of their product will have a commercial return.

It's not all about us, and never was....

Edited December 17, 2020 by kevinfirth

[ca_metal 2,023]

2 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

It's not all about us, and never was....

Well, within MSFS it is. MSFS isn’t a professional software. But what you say is true, and others said the same above, if the ROI isn’t good enough, they shouldn’t bother to develop for the platform and focus where the money is (at for them and their products), there’s no shame on that.

Which isn’t right is to raise false claims about the new platform. Saying things are not possible, when others are being able to accomplish those things.

Aerosoft for example, thinks it worths the risk. We will see.

[omarsmak30 4,068]

5 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Well, within MSFS it is. MSFS isn’t a professional software. But what you say is true, and others said the same above, if the ROI isn’t good enough, they shouldn’t bother to develop for the platform and focus where the money is (at for them and their products), there’s no shame on that.

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? 

[cavaricooper 2,615]

That is the conundrum.

I have not spent one Cent on a P3D product since MFSF was released. I have however, spent many Dollars in that product ecosystem. I don’t think I’m an anomaly.

I do not envy the traditional houses who have to keep their employees fed whilst grappling with their moved Cheese. They are MONTHS or more from having a new finished product (as is FBW, WT etc.). We are FAR FROM anything we had in the older sims (other than visuals). The difference is that the professionals (only in the pecuniary sense) have payroll.

As a consumer I MUST appreciate the freeware developers (some of whom will go on to payware after cutting their teeth) AND support payware in this new sim. I have read estimates that MSFS will capture 85% of the entertainment sim market (remember, some of us still use FS2000 and FSX). That too makes professional development planning treacherous.

I say all this, to say, above all else- be kind. These are exciting times for us, less fantatic for some. Water finds it’s level and so will this tempest in a teacup.

Happy Xmas!

C

 

 

[Gilandred 690]

As has been the case since the beginning of time, there will be supply if there is market demand.  Zibo, LES, and IXEG found that market in XP, while PMDG, FSLabs, Majestic and Leonardo made names for themselves in FSX/P3D.  We are now witnessing the same thing happen with the Working Title and FBW teams for MSFS.  I completely understand if “legacy” companies don’t want to get onboard with the new sim in town for whatever reason, but just know that while Sears invented the shopping catalogue, Amazon now owns the market.  Someone will come along to fill the market need.

There is already a beautifully modeled King Air in the base sim.  All it needs is some Working Title-esque magic!
 

One other important point, I think.  XBox will be to MSFS as mobile is to XP.  In other words, from a market growth standpoint, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

Edited December 17, 2020 by Gilandred