Strong sales of CRJ may lead holdout devs to prioritize MSFS

[omarsmak30 4,068]

20 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

(weather radar and terrain radar) because Aerosoft refused to write even a portion of the aircraft in JS/HTML so they could deliver features that other versions of the aircraft had and insisted on doing it 100% in WASM. 

I think even in JS/HTML, still there is no way to access these data. But sure, it will happen soon.

[marsman2020 1,310]

5 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

I think even in JS/HTML, still there is no way to access these data. But sure, it will happen soon.

The stock G1000 has both weather radar and synthetic vision, and is written in JS/HTML.  So the data has to be accessible. 

[The Flight Level 2,116]

XP12 will need a significant improvement in default scenery to take a bite out of MSFS sales for individuals new to flight simulation. It is just a matter of time when aircraft for MSFS are at the level of those aircraft termed “study level” in the other sim platforms. There will always be developers devoted to XP but the gap in sales will continue to increase without a significant jump in the default appearance of the XP12 scenery. The incredible rebound in Flight Simulator sales is do to the high level of detail in the landscape with the introduction of new technologies and the average gamer wanting to choose a plane and just have fun experiencing the visuals of flight.

[omarsmak30 4,068]

13 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

The stock G1000 has both weather radar and synthetic vision, and is written in JS/HTML.  So the data has to be accessible. 

I don't know how is it done but it is not accessable as I said, you can jump to FBW discord and ask there or even check this Q&A here https://fsnews.eu/flybywire-simulations-livestream-summary-20-3/

 

Q: ARE YOU ABLE TO IMPROVE THE WEATHER RADAR, OR IS THE SDK LIMITING YOU?

As of right now, the SDK is limiting the developers to make any significant changes to the weather radar in the aircraft. It was explained that the current version of the SDK makes it only possible to change the colors of what is displayed. FlyByWire is in touch with Asobo in regards to this topic.

[Gilandred 712]

17 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

The stock G1000 has both weather radar and synthetic vision, and is written in JS/HTML.  So the data has to be accessible. 

It’s cloud radar, not true weather radar showing precipitation intensity.  If it’s important to see how thick and fluffy a particular cloud is, then it works perfectly.

[MatthewS 761]

Why doesn't PMDG release a "Lite" version ASAP with excellent 3D modelling + basic systems?  737/777/747/DC3 surely it's not too hard to "recycle" those already excellent 3D models for use in MSFS?

Then release a "Pro" version later, with the study-sim systems we are used to... 🤔

I've not spent a cent on PMDG (for P3D) since MSFS came out and I never will again... only interested in MSFS now-a-days. 🤷‍♂️

[marsman2020 1,310]

11 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

It’s cloud radar, not true weather radar showing precipitation intensity.  If it’s important to see how thick and fluffy a particular cloud is, then it works perfectly.

Yes, so just leave it out entirely (saves works for Aerosoft after all) vs implementing what the sim has right now.

Knowing where the clouds are is useful to avoid flying into a bunch of icing.  But I guess tubeliner pilots probably don't care since they have FIKI capability.  Still, I find it a lame excuse to leave out things that the freeware CJ4 or A32NX have in a $50 paid addon.

Edited March 21, 2021 by marsman2020

[Gilandred 712]

46 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

Knowing where the clouds are is useful to avoid flying into a bunch of icing.

It doesn’t really tell you that either.  Returns on the current weather radar will show clouds regardless of altitude.  There’s no way to tell whether you should climb or descend.

[RXP 2,338]

@marsman2020 My 2 cents is if they didn't decide to include the stock "radar", it is because it is not achieving the level of performance they are expecting for their aircraft. After all, a Wx Radar is supposed to serving a specific aeronautical purpose, it is not there for graphics only, and it seems the default is not at all a Wx Radar by all measures.

Here is for example what is a realistic and useful Wx Radar (included also under license in one of the PMDG aircraft for a reason):

 

@kaosfere

8 hours ago, kaosfere said:

I've been saying for ages that folks who were willing to actually embrace the new platform and invest in figuring out how to build something in a way that's supported now rather than holding out with an "incomplete SDK" as an excuse would get a huge first mover advantage in the market.

I agree with you, but I also believe you can't ignore there are other 3rd party vendors willing to embracing the new SDK, but lacking any communication and support whatsoever from Asobo. I know a few of them in this situation (not just me), both renown and in this business for decades. Because although I'm glad the CRJ is now released because it shows what is possible (as well as what is not nonetheless), it is also freeing Asobo devs so that they can start helping others, directly. And I wouldn't be sure we'd get the CRJ as soon, and as complete as it is, without the direct and daily assistance from Asobo developers working hand-in-hand with Aerosoft developers. Not all vendors are running the race from the same starting blocks here.

And even if I'm also claiming I'd like Asobo to push the JS/HTML layer first (if not only) to 3rd party devs, and I'd like them ditching the WASM layer (1), you can't also deny the JS/HTML layer can only go as far as they think 3rd party devs are needing and doing, and it is not always the most efficient way (2).

The most notable products I've seen in this industry, during the last 2 decades I've been exclusively working for, are all implemented around and beyond the SDK pre-defined functions and services. And there is a reason for this: Asobo can't envision what 3rd party vendors will want to do, nor how it will be the most efficient way to do it. You've shown creativity can be strong with 3rd party devs, and Asobo are talented devs, definitely, but they can't know in advance what we'll want or need to implement. For this reason, the more open and the more low level the SDK is, the more creative 3rd parties can be and deliver (notwithstanding higher levels constructs and layers for lowering cost of entry for newcomers). And in terms of low level SDK unfortunately it is not at all what they have in mind, and I don't believe they even know how low level 3rd parties need to go to deliver their add-ons. (this doesn't show in the FSX-SE telemetry survey unfortunately).

I'd rather prefer the WASM layer supplement the JS/HTML layer for what wouldn't be as easily feasible in JS, instead of making this just a tool for helping the first few aircraft vendors to quickly port their legacy code.

Otherwise I'm glad PMDG is now communicating they are more confident in delivering their first Airliner for FS2020. Not only because their products are top notch and highly regarded, but also because this sudden raise of confidence is telling me the SDK is not a problem at all, as long as you can work hand-in-hand with Asobo.

 

(1) to me, the WASM layer was solely meant to helping porting legacy code, which in turn is under delivering compared to FSX or P3D because it is not offering the same level of SDK feature, is sandboxing access to the system preventing accessing external data and the hardware, and is infusing its legacy FS5 area SDK constructs into the JS/HTML layer in such a way it is perpetuating the wrong doings of the FSX SDK.

(2) I'm not talking about JIT here, but is it really necessary every single add-on must run it own custom made HTTP server in WASM just to feed external data to their own JS/HTML gauges? And what about the HTTP protocol state-less with header overhead, vs websocket for the communications between the two? (is the SDK supporting JS/HTML <-> WASM via websockets?!?). And I won't even start to guess is their any communication latency and throughput guarantees with these? (what I mean with this is for example, we've built for the RXP GTN and GNS V2 a MPMC Inter-Process Queue with nearly the same throughput as a memcpy and near 0 latency).

 

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by RXP

[Bobsk8 12,826]

Flying up the shoreline between Chicago and Milwaukee, my FPS started drooping to mid 20s in spots. Cant wait to see the reaction from people getting a PMDG aircraft when they find out their current PC which can fly GA aircraft perfectly fine, , gets mid teens for FPS with PMDG. 

[Concodroid 84]

2 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

It is because humans are tribal by nature.

Hence XPlane adherent see MSFS as a threat that is "stealing" their developers who would otherwise work on XPlane addons and MSFS users see XPlane people as a threat who are always trying to denigrate and sabotage MSFS.   meanwhile PC users see Xbox as a "threat" that will lead to "dumbing down" of their hobby and Xbox users see PC flight simmers as elitist and a threat to a successful Xbox roll out.

Human nature.

Humans are brilliant idiots, aren't we? Everthing listed is, if the people arguing would take a step back, good.

 

Xplane stealing - good. Means XP 12 or 13 will need to be much better.

XP threat - good. Means MSFS will continuously get better, if there's community outcry, and developers for 1st and 3rd party addons will know what we want.

Xbox threat - good. Means more people in the hobby. More addons. Cheaper addons, meaning more expensive ones will need to be better and better.

Threat to Xbox - good. Means that the product you're given will be of a very high quality.

[Concodroid 84]

1 hour ago, MatthewS said:

Why doesn't PMDG release a "Lite" version ASAP with excellent 3D modelling + basic systems?  737/777/747/DC3 surely it's not too hard to "recycle" those already excellent 3D models for use in MSFS?

Then release a "Pro" version later, with the study-sim systems we are used to... 🤔

I've not spent a cent on PMDG (for P3D) since MSFS came out and I never will again... only interested in MSFS now-a-days. 🤷‍♂️

It's a great idea, on many levels. First off, people who are wary get to see the best of the best. Second, PMDG doesn't lower their name by releasing a lower-quality addon separately, calling it "lite" is a perfect move. Third, it allows us to at least fly the plane. I, for example, really want a good Concorde in FS2020. But I don't really care about systems, I'm not at that level yet. I just want to fly at Mach 2.02 and at 60,000 feet. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Concodroid

[Concodroid 84]

2 hours ago, flyforever said:

I agree. You can split the one million and you'll still get a fairly large number.

For reference, imagine each person downloaded the addon an average of 6 times. That's probably high, but should be fine. That's 166k people using a mod for a game.

If you stacked each person that downloaded that on top of each other, You'd make a tower 176 miles high (average height 5.6 feet, times 166k), which is 2.63 times the maximum height of the X-15 (67 miles).

If each person downloaded it five times, they're 50 miles from the international space station.

Four times, well, the ISS would hit them 14 miles below the top of the human tower.

That is a lot of people.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Concodroid

[Cognita 1,110]

13 minutes ago, Concodroid said:

Why doesn't PMDG release a "Lite" version ASAP with excellent 3D modelling + basic systems?  737/777/747/DC3 surely it's not too hard to "recycle" those already excellent 3D models for use in MSFS?

I wondered why the did not take this kind of approach, release a decent model with basic working systems and then add on to it as functionality is enabled. I think this is what Aerosoft did and it was probably a sound move. There is now a very well modeled CRJ with multiple systems reflecting basic day to day functioning that we can use now, and things like weather and terrain radar will come later as those functions are made available. We all appreciate the limitations and teething issues but also look forward to when these functions become available. 

For the audience in MSFS, an approach similar to what Majestic did with the Q400 -- a basic, pro and training version -- may be quite beneficial. That way you have a less expensive version -- an excellent model with basic and competent systems sold to many people while those who really want to see every system internally modelled and to program multiple cascading failures can do so, but they pay the additional price for this. 

[BostonJeremy77 519]

Nah. I think PMDG's name is associated with a certain level and they are not willing to move the bar much lower. To them, it's either doing it their way or no way at all.