47 minutes ago, honanhal said:

I'd sure love to see a list from someone who actually knows anything about programming, because I certainly don't.

James

Download and run the SDK and you would know it........

And....what´s not implemented via SDK is not officially supported! It is kind off "let´s look how long it will last and work".

But maybe @Rob_Ainscough, @simbol can provide some examples.

Form my user point of view I miss a full functional AP with proper respecting the LAWS and proper Decent calculations incl. a calculated TD....off path approaches, directs (although I tested this directs not for a while with FBW), changing route while on route already, changing stars and runways while on route.....

Even FBW did not manage this till today, or am I wrong?

Flying the FBW A320 and disconnecting the AP because some unexpected did happen has nothing to do with a proper and decent "flightsim system".

No capabilities of using (up to date) navdata either!

If the weather suddenly "clears up" because of issues with the data, neither!

It´s very basic to have these........

Just a user point of view.

Marcus

Edited February 4, 20215 yr by mpo910

@mpo910 can you please take step back and relax? 

44 minutes ago, honanhal said:

Yes, the SDK lacks documentation. Yes, progress in adding that documentation has been slower than expected. You'll get no argument from me. I hope Asobo picks it up on that.

The fact remains that there are addon developers who are currently working with MSFS and producing extraordinary content. Not just scenery. What FBW and WT are doing for addon aircraft is incredibly impressive. To be blunt, they've put a number of payware aircraft developers whose work I'm familiar with from previous sims to shame as far as both speed and quality go. To say nothing of price! I'm sure the FBW and WT teams also have their share of frustrations with the state of the SDK. But you wouldn't know it to look at what they're putting out.

Genuine question: what features (not documentation) are now missing from the MSFS SDK that an end-user simmer would benefit from, that cannot be worked around or bypassed by addon developers?

I'd sure love to see a list from someone who actually knows anything about programming, because I certainly don't.

James

I actually second that. We ear a LOT about missing this and missing that. What exactly is "this" and "that"?
 

From my perspective, wich is the aircraft creation perspective, i see no real roadblocks. The documentation is incomplete, YES, but we can still figure it out. Downside to this is longer development time. And  luckily, there are tons of work around for just about anything, since we can achieve something in many differrent ways.

 

Im not worried at all, there is a huge hidden and silent customer base that we dont hear about on forums, blogs, sites. I know a few devs that are selling crazy number of units, and even after the 30% cut, it is still VERY much worth it from a commercial standpoint.

Just now, omarsmak30 said:

@mpo910 can you please take step back and relax? 

I am relax and try to hold others a step back as they changing MY topic into a "rage against a platform" topic.

Don´t you think it´s up to me to at least try to stay on topic or remember user like you not to state anything which you can not proof or know (like someone is "hating" MSFS)?

If you come back to topic that would be great. And if you keep your false statements out here....that would even be better.

On topic things are free to post here! I love to see good comments and input and share thoughts.

FWB is just editing default Asobo airplanes and trying to improve what is there. Let me know when they do a full airplane from scratch using new 3D modeling, systems, etc. with a quality of FSLabs and PMDG. You cannot go full payware with .XML and HTML files to be used for airplane systems, controls and configuration files. People would hack your work in a matter of minutes.. so what FSW is doing (editing such files) is fine for FREEWARE but proof the point very clearly, .XML and HMTL alone to provide payware solutions is not viable.

In the meantime, I am tired of this topic.. I do not need to proof to anybody the SDK is incomplete, neither I want to spent my time doing online courses for development so people can see what is already in front of their eyes. Lots of you folks have your mind already set and I do not wish to change it, neither can I, you love MSFS as a consumer and I do understand that.

There is also lots of people who loves P3D and came back to it, so please also understand that.. the market has split and I plan to service both platforms when posible (One day the SDK might get there.. I am feeling it will take years) since my passion is Flying simulation. 

S.

 

8 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

Form my user point of view I miss a full functional AP with proper respecting the LAWS and proper Decent calculations incl. a calculated TD....off path approaches, directs (although I tested this directs not for a while with FBW), changing route while on route already, changing stars and runways while on route.....

Even FBW did not manage this till today, or am I wrong?

Flying the FBW A320 and disconnecting the AP because some unexpected did happen has nothing to do with a proper and decent "flightsim system".

 

Okay this is purely misinformation going on here. It is not there because they haven't yet implemented, they are working on it, currently it is based on the crappy Asobo. They have already implemented the custom FBW which is in WASM, they have already implemented the custom AP which is as well in WASM but still not yet in Dev as they are re-writing the whole flightplan. We are talking about re-prgramming the whole systems to simulate proper IRL which take other third party developers years to do and they have already in few months accomplished many things.  WT has already done this complete re-write. 

 

1 minute ago, omarsmak30 said:

 they are working on it, currently it is based on the crappy Asobo. They have already implemented the custom FBW which is in WASM, they have already implemented the custom AP which is as well in WASM but still not yet in Dev as they are re-writing the whole flightplan. We are talking about re-prgramming the whole systems to simulate proper IRL which take other third party developers years to do and they have already in few months accomplished many things.  WT has already done this complete re-write. 

 

And THAT exactly is a point developers like PMDG and others are struggling with. They CAN´T because the bases is not there. And they won´t do it open source with how many? devs working for free and try to figure it out how it CAN be solved but is NOT supported!

I knew there was a reason that holds them off

Just now, mpo910 said:

And THAT exactly is a point developers like PMDG and others are struggling with. They CAN´T because the bases is not there. And they won´t do it open source with how many? devs working for free and try to figure it out how it CAN be solved but is NOT supported!

I knew there was a reason that holds them off

man I am done with you really. What are you talking about? They re-implementing things, working on it, WIP, in progress like normal development sprint, has nothing to do with SDK or whatsoever! It is about the code itself, I know that because I am as well in the discord and github sometimes checking the code.,   

1 minute ago, mpo910 said:

I am relax and try to hold others a step back as they changing MY topic into a "rage against a platform" topic.

Don´t you think it´s up to me to at least try to stay on topic or remember user like you not to state anything which you can not proof or know (like someone is "hating" MSFS)?

If you come back to topic that would be great. And if you keep your false statements out here....that would even be better.

On topic things are free to post here! I love to see good comments and input and share thoughts.

What false statement are you talking about?  Well I think you started with spreading these misinformation about the SDK, about FBW ,,, etc. 

Simbol is right. I think this topic leads into the wrong direction.

I feel sorry for those who get tired of this. I should not have opened such a "try" to motivate others and share thoughts in a respectful way.

Maybe a ADMIN can close this one. I had really enough of it also.

But that´s of course up to the ADMINS.

Edited February 4, 20215 yr by mpo910

Yeah right, I'd also like Admins to close this topic. It is getting tiring to have the same arguments all over again and again 

1 hour ago, omarsmak30 said:

but we also know how much you hate MSFS and just to refresh your memory when you started these controversial baseless theories

This is what I call a false statement

Topic locked as the discussion is going downhill.