Release of Aerosoft CRJ good sign?

[737_800 434]

Hi,

is the release of the new aerosoft crj a good sign that we might expect now new airliners to be released for the MSFS or at least will see some progress in development of payware quality airliners? Am I right assuming that when Aerosoft manages to develope a payware airliner with the now available SDK other developers as PMDG etc shall be too?

[abrams_tank 7,423]

It's been discussed here at Avsim, including input from the Working Title developers (who are now hired by Asobo) and also the Fly By Wire developers.  The consensus is, the tools are available in the current MSFS SDK for high fidelity planes ("study level" if you really want to use that term). However, the developer may need to write new code to achieve this with the MSFS SDK.

It appears that companies like PDMG don't want to waste their resources in developing new code and would rather Asobo's SDK convert their legacy code for them.  So companies like PDMG are sitting there, waiting for Asobo to do the work, and focusing their developer resources on P3D and other products instead.  I suppose this is a company decision because PDMG can save money on developer resources if they wait it out and Asobo converts their legacy code for them.

Aerosoft seems to have written new code to conform to the SDK for the CRJ.  It's still possible that some of Aerosoft's code was also converted, but where it could not be converted, they likely wrote new code that conformed to the SDK.

I think companies like PDMG need to find a middle ground on waiting for Asobo to convert their legacy code versus writing new code that works with MSFS.  If PDMG expects Asobo to convert all their legacy code 100%, they could be waiting for a long time.  At some point, PDMG has to realize they can't wait forever, and work has to be started to write at least some new code (PDMG has a direct line to Asobo so they can find out which conversion parts are taking the longest and perhaps write new code for those parts rather than waiting for Asobo indefinitely).

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by abrams_tank

[devgrp 1,233]

The crj is pretty good and it satisfies my study level needs. It flies very well and I like the in game throttle calibration. Now I can manage the throttle perfectly. Don't really care about pmdg at this point. 

[Adrian123 1,015]

Hopefully, addons get better! IMO, an average introduction. FS version is better.

[Mike S KPDX 597]

Could of sworn that I just read over on their forums, that part of the CRJ code is indeed...  C++

[Drumcode 1,893]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

I think companies like PDMG need to find a middle ground on waiting for Asobo to convert their legacy code versus writing new code that works with MSFS.  

If this is true than w*f did I (and countless others) pay them for the new version of the NGX for? I thought Randazzo said that they would put as much resources on this to get this released asap. Sigh. 

[Maxis 1,865]

Yes i would really really love to see a high quality A350 or A330, On the Boeing side 757 and 787-8/9 (not sure why they chose the 10 to model when its the least subscribed.). The A220 i think is being developed. Hopefully that comes out nicely.

[abrams_tank 7,423]

13 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

If this is true than w*f did I (and countless others) pay them for the new version of the NGX for? I thought Randazzo said that they would put as much resources on this to get this released asap. Sigh. 

Well, PDMG is obviously putting less resources on it than Aerosoft.  Aerosoft just showed other 3rd party developers what can be done if you prioritize a product for MSFS.

I recall PDMG said they were moving their resources to work on other products like P3D as they wait for Asobo to "work on the SDK."  "Work on the SDK" to me is coded language for "Asobo needs to convert our legacy code because we don't want to lift a finger."

[Drumcode 1,893]

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Well, PDMG is obviously putting less resources on it than Aerosoft.  Aerosoft just showed other 3rd party developers what can be done if you prioritize a product for MSFS.

I recall PDMG said they were moving their resources to work on other products like P3D as they wait for Asobo to "work on the SDK."  "Work on the SDK" to me is coded language for "Asobo needs to convert our legacy code because we don't want to lift a finger."

Dang it. You got me all worked up now, lol.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Drumcode

[Bob Scott 7,721]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

It's been discussed here at Avsim, including input from the Working Title developers (who are now hired by Asobo) and also the Fly By Wire developers.  The consensus is, the tools are available in the current MSFS SDK for high fidelity planes ("study level" if you really want to use that term).

The definition of "consensus" is, essentially, that everyone agrees.  Sorry, but no--the developer community is FAR from consensus on the readiness of aircraft modelling tools needed to produce actual high-fidelity aircraft simulation in MSFS at this point.

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

So companies like PDMG are sitting there, waiting for Asobo to do the work, and focusing their developer resources on P3D and other products instead.  I suppose this is a company decision because PDMG can save money on developer resources if they wait it out and Asobo converts their legacy code for them.

Since I am fairly certain you are not privy to the communications and ongoing developmental cooperation between PMDG and other developers and Asobo, this characterization of the developer community as "just sitting there" is your uninformed opinion stated here as if it were fact.  If Asobo wants to complain that they are unhappy with the dev community's approach, they have the standing to do that.  You don't, because you're not part of or read into those conversations.  So please don't pretend that you are.

I think the jury will be out on the CRJ as a success or failure for some time, punctuated by the ongoing steady diet of weekly "update" assaults on platform stability.  There remain all sorts of difficult challenges ahead in overcoming the "sandboxing" limitations of the platform and how it might be made to interact with a whole bunch of missing and sorely needed external processes, like procedurally competent ATC, traffic, configurable weather, wx radar, navdata, flight planning tools etc.  It's really way, way too early to tell...it seems at first blush a small step in a good direction, even though built upon a platform of constantly shifting unstable sand.

So, in all fairness, before anyone declares victory here, let's wait and see if this add-on really does prove anything, or if a month or two from now, critical review concludes it's just a caricature of a jet aircraft--a rough approximation rather than a high fidelity aircraft simulation.  Let's see how climb profiles, fuel consumption, power settings and indications, etc look.  That it can get airborne without rolling inverted isn't a measure of model fidelity.

I still harbor high hopes...but after seven months of weekly Rocky Horror Update Show episodes, my expectations are even lower than they were after the first week.

[captaingoldfish 19]

I've heard all sides of the SDK argument, primarily over on the other forums and discord, and I think we're splitting hairs here. Legacy devs who want to bring their products over to the new sim will have to do a lot of coding in the absence of a comprehensive SDK. I don't think PMDG is a large development house, so that's asking a lot from a handful of people who were thrown a curve ball with Covid on top of the early limitations of the sim. On the other hand, for people who are coming into the sim with a fresh pair of eyes and not tethered to "old" anything will find it much easier to adapt. I think PMDG would have been better positioned to be flexible if they opened themselves up to X-plane. They would have that experience under their belt. However, they decided to cast their lot with P3D and they are definitely a P3D-based developer. Now they have to reinvent themselves moving forward. They'll do it, but it will take time.

When I hear how dozens of volunteers are working on the FBW and a gaggle of other aircraft, I can't but wonder how PMDG and other small-time shops can compete in this new environment to be honest. Only time will tell. I'm hoping that we get a different developer in MSFS who gives us a 737. I don't dislike PMDG- I just want to have some options. This new world will be big enough for everyone, and PMDG isn't the end all, be all- they were just the only game in town in P3D for all intents and purposes.

Meanwhile, back to Aerosoft- I'm really happy with the CRJ. I never thought I'd buy it again (had it in P3D), but here we are. It's refreshing to have a complex jet in the sim again. I hope it sets a standard for payware aircraft moving forward, and I'm enjoying flying it.

Edited March 18, 2021 by captaingoldfish

[Ricardo41 5,949]

2 hours ago, 737_800 said:

is the release of the new aerosoft crj a good sign 

a good sign of what? Aerosoft are in the business of making money by releasing "middle of the road" products that appeal to the widest base of simmers. They did just that. Nothing new or interesting to see here. 

3 minutes ago, captaingoldfish said:

When I hear how dozens of volunteers are working on the FBW and a gaggle of other aircraft, I can't but wonder how PMDG and other small-time shops can compete in this new environment to be honest.

IMHO, they won't be able to compete. 

[WestAir 2,522]

1 hour ago, Drumcode said:

Dang it. You got me all worked up now, lol.

Don't be. Imagine a small shop like PMDG decided to go the aerosoft route and re-write all the PMDG code to the new format. It would take them as long, or longer, than it would take for them to just wait for ASOBO to make legacy code compatible in the first place. It's a huge cost that doesn't get us a PMDG bird any faster.

Additionally a lot of functionality is not supported with the current SDK. Weather radar, EGPWS, even windshield wipers wiping away rain. If PMDG released their bird today it would have a fraction of the functionality of its P3D counterpart.

At the end of the day, the fault lies with ASOBO. It's the reason PMDG aren't the only ones sitting on the sidelines. Next to them sit FlyTheMaddog, GSX, FSLabs, Majestic, QualityWings, etc etc etc.

[marsman2020 1,310]

Quote

Imagine a small shop like PMDG decided to go the aerosoft route and re-write all the PMDG code to the new format.

Aerosoft didn't "re-write all the code to the new format".  The CRJ is C++ via WASM, they explicitly use that as an excuse for missing features in their FAQs.  And in another thread people have noticed that some bugs from the P3D version are still present in the MSFS version, which indicates at least some % reuse of code. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by marsman2020

[jarmstro 2,402]

As an X-Plane user I can say that for me the CRJ in terms of functionality matches anything I have bought for X-Plane.

There are two areas where it doesn't. 1) VNAV and course tracking etc are temperamental. 2) Something that is hard to put into words, a sort of lack of crispness. Everything feels kind of mushy. It's the same with all the MSFS planes. Click a button and they seems to mush down into place rather than with the nice firm click you would expect.

In terms of visuals it is streets ahead of the likes of the Toliss planes for instance. And of course it leaves the JRollon CRJ (still on sale for $40) way, way behind in every way.

So yes, it's a good sign.

Edited March 18, 2021 by jarmstro