5 minutes ago, Scottoest said:

I've not seen much in the way of "whining"

There was a lot of whining at release. Especially from the old guard that had to relearn the whole approach to things. New flight model, new gauge and logic programming. Not necessarily the real big names, as they are clever enough to not rant about something that early. Especially if other companies or even community projects are able to deliver later on. Does not leave a professional impression.

I don't think MSFS SDK has any limitations that prevents complex airliners except weather radar.

This is a huge misconception I see everywhere: "Aerosoft CRJ and QualityWings 787 are coming sooner than PMDG/FSLabs etc. aircraft because they are not as complex", which is not exactly right.

If you look at FSX/P3D/X-Plane SDK, you'll see that default systems are quite simple and do not allow creating complex airliners. All of the complex aircraft you see in those simulators do not use default systems at all. This means all of the complex behavior should be simulated by the aircraft developer, not the simulator itself, which means what determines the aircraft complexity is the code aircraft developer writes, not the SDK. In order to accomplish this, simulators provide aircraft developers an environment where they can run their custom code, which has no limitations. MSFS provides that in the form of WebAssembly and HTML/CSS/JS, so developers can code any behavior to make their aircraft true-to-life.

I guess many people think that these SDKs have an interface where you configure all sorts of complex systems, failures etc. and when PMDG/FSLabs etc. say that MSFS SDK does not support complex aircraft they assume MSFS lacks those interfaces, which is not the case - FSX/P3D/X-Plane SDKs do not have such interfaces and all of the complex aircraft behavior is determined by code, which is unrestricted by the simulator.

However, I would not call PMDG/FSLabs etc. "whining". They gain literally nothing by delaying their aircraft - I would not be surprised if they are as eager as we are to see their aircraft in MSFS. Transforming code from one environment to another takes a lot of time and resources, almost as much as making a new aircraft from scratch. It makes a lot more sense for them to wait for Asobo's compatibility layer, which will "convert" legacy API calls to MSFS API calls.

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

6 minutes ago, lucianon said:

Accordingly to SDK 0.9.0.0 (but I will check again after today update, if there will be one) this is all that I can find, if I search for "Weather":

"Weather
TODO"

And this is what I can find, if I search about how to customize add-on's UI:

"UI in Microsoft Flight Simulator is developed using modern HTML 5 technologies (HTML, JavaScript, CSS).
At the moment UI is not customizable as part of add-ons, though there are plans to make it possible to include UI elements as part of packages."

Perhaps, I am missing something?

I have no problems in using different languages, I routinely use ALL of them depending on the project on which I work, but it looks than even using the new technologies, a kind of trial-error approach (or hacking) is needed, due to incomplete documentation or missing components in the SDK. And with something hacked / done not in the official way, we never know what happens to the add-on at the next sim update.

The thing is, these have nothing to do with aircraft development. While I won't deny MSFS SDK is badly documented, the parts about aircraft development and running custom code is adequately documented.

Do note when I said "whining" I didn't name any individuals or developers. I mentioned PMDG purely in relation to their pricing policy for ports.

There is more to flight simulator than PMDG and Randazzo. However, it is worth noting he was and remains enthusiastic about MFS, even as his port timelines have moved back.

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by ckyliu

21 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

 

It's been discussed in other threads here at AVSIM.  But based on the information from the Working Title developers and the FBW developers, MSFS should allow for study level planes if the 3rd party developer is willing to use new coding methodologies.

From the Working Title devs and FBW devs, the SDK is quite comprehensive.

......and yet other developers (ones that I trust 100%) are stating that this is not the case. So who do we believe? I find it rather difficult to understand why developers like PMDG would prefer to sit in the corner and sulk rather than use this "comprehensive SDK" to get an MSFS product on store shelves (and make lots of money). That equation does not add up.

4 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

There is more to flight simulator than PMDG and Randazzo. However, it is worth noting he was and remains enthusiastic about MFS, even as his port timelines have moved back.

Sure, he made it very clear that MSFS is their future platform of choice.

5 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

......and yet other developers (ones that I trust 100%) are stating that this is not the case. So who do we believe? I find it rather difficult to understand why developers like PMDG would prefer to sit in the corner and sulk rather than use this "comprehensive SDK" to get an MSFS product on store shelves (and make lots of money). That equation does not add up.

I don't believe anyone, I just look at the facts. Looking at MSFS SDK, it's really hard to see a major limitation. I explained the reason a few comments back in this thread. As I've mentioned before, coding environment provided by MSFS does not limit a developer to a simple aircraft, this is not how code works.

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

Just now, Christopher Low said:

......and yet other developers (ones that I trust 100%) are stating that this is not the case. So who do we believe?

I'd trust the ones who already deliver. Especially as the others don't pinpoint what exactly is holding them back. As stated a few times, the reason why projects like PMDG take longer is obvious. They have a massive amount of logic that works quite well.

10 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

......and yet other developers (ones that I trust 100%) are stating that this is not the case. So who do we believe? I find it rather difficult to understand why developers like PMDG would prefer to sit in the corner and sulk rather than use this "comprehensive SDK" to get an MSFS product on store shelves (and make lots of money). That equation does not add up.

I think you need to consider those other developers' intentions and target audience. They're hardly likely to admit to customers "we're waiting for Asobo to make it easier to port legacy code so we can do less work and make a bigger profit margin" are they? They want to pressure Asobo to make porting easier and deflect criticism away from themselves.

WT and FBW have no commercial or legacy interests and have developed some of the most sophisticated avionics on the platform thus far, they are definitely less biased and probably more experienced and better informed. The only other people showing that level of experience are Aerosoft (Fabian) with the CRJ.

Portability isn't a bad thing for simmers though, it will benefit those who want to fly their old tubeliners in MFS sooner, although I do worry we're going to see some very lazy ports that look outdated and run poorly.

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by ckyliu

4 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I don't believe anyone, I just look at the facts. Looking at MSFS SDK, it's really hard to see a major limitation. As I've mentioned before, coding environment provided by MSFS does not limit a developer to a simple aircraft, this is not how code works.

And to add onto that, you can also hook simvars externally correct? I really love how the in game aircraft editor is now in a UI rather than a text file. It allows real time tweaking.

Just now, Armchair Pilot said:

And to add onto that, you can also hook simvars externally correct? I really love how the in game aircraft editor is now in a UI rather than a text file. It allows real time tweaking.

Yes, SimConnect is working similarly in FSX/P3D, this is how FlyByWire people got Matlab connected to MSFS.

11 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

......and yet other developers (ones that I trust 100%) are stating that this is not the case. So who do we believe? I find it rather difficult to understand why developers like PMDG would prefer to sit in the corner and sulk rather than use this "comprehensive SDK" to get an MSFS product on store shelves (and make lots of money). That equation does not add up.

Which developers do you speak of?  For me, the Working Title dev team and FBW dev team have earned my respect and trust, because they have been able to back their talk with their walk.

I prefer to see results and the Working Title and FBW teams have delivered on their results.  The fact that they delivered on their results tells me they know the SDK better than other devs out there.  If it's just a random developer complaining but they haven't produced any results in MSFS, I am skeptical of their claims.  

For me, the de facto experts (aside from Asobo employees) on the MSFS SDK capabilities now are the Working Title and FBW teams.

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by abrams_tank

56 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

Very interested to read how easy you've found the SDK. A lot of noise from old school developers sounds like whining to me, this thread seems to indicate the SDK is perfectly able if lacking in documentation, but developers want to recycle their old code and working methods because products can be ported to market faster.

So to answer how easy I have found the sdk to pick up, firstly i come from a non coding background so in terms of coding language, i have 0 experience. I was just interested in the progress of teams like FBW and WT so i decided to snoop around the tweaking communities, found some solid reading material and videos of particular a series by newkTV on yt, he shows a solid step by step series on implementing q custom aircraft from a blender model all the way up to cockpit designing, whilst directly referencing documentation provided by asobo. So far i am still learning the ropes but its honestly built a solid framework to go on and made me interested in firstly tweaking crafts i fly regularly, such as the king air and caravan. Its not all smokes and mirrors when it comes to the depth of the sdk, alot of the stuff included works fantastically well.

6 hours ago, WestAir said:

Solution 1: PMDG decides to re-train or re-hire devs that can work in the new language. They build the NGX from scratch using the new modern code.
                  Released January 2022.

Solution 2: PMDG waits for Asobo to clean up the SDK and allow for legacy code. They port over the NGX and it's good to go.
                  Released January 2022.

Either way... we wait.

I hope and wish they don`t port over, i would like to see it in the new code so it fits perfect to the new MSFS Standard - but that is just my imaginations for that ( and other ) releases.

 

cheers 😉

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

For me, the de facto experts (aside from Asobo employees) on the MSFS SDK capabilities now are the Working Title and FBW teams.

While some complain, others are creative.