16 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Then why is it that the MSFS platform is still that closed for 3P Devs ? 

WASM is to make the simulator more stable.  The reason for WASM is that a bug in 3rd party add ons can cause the sim to crash, especially in a 3rd party DLL.  By using WASM, this will help to make the simulator more stable from 3rd party bugs.

But of course, people will say MSFS is not as stable now and sometimes you get CTDs.  This is true.  Many of the bugs are probably from Asobo's code that are causing stability issues.  However, over time, Asobo will iron out these bugs and MSFS will become more stable.  When they do that, by using WASM, bugs from 3rd parties are less likely to crash the simulator.

Edited May 18, 20215 yr by abrams_tank

Come on guys this is a "young" flightsim and 7 or 8 months on the market with this projekt is just nothing; we have to wait and be a bit patient and i know this is not an easy part, not for me too

but for shure within two years we have some "goodies" in here  ( PMDG and so on ) and for shure CS is coming allso with the more study level stuff - I am confident of that !

The sim is growing also the SDK at the same way, but we have to wait !

No other Flightsim has a future like this one and if i would have other sims i never would go back once i was in MSFS !

 

cheers 😉

21 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Then why is it that the MSFS platform is still that closed for 3P Devs ? 
Sure, scenery design is what the MSFS SDK supports best. But complex ac is another story.

 

It's like some of you folks don't even read what people say in the threads you reply to.  I cited upthread these words from the the mouth of the PMDG founder himself:

 

Quote

From the standpoint of development, we are not currently seeing any major limitations to prevent us from bringing our product catalog into MSFS.

To put that another way, quoting me as saying "MSFS isn't ready for PMDG" is a bit like someone in 1971 using a 1959 quote of the NASA administrator saying "We don't have the technology to land on the moon." Sure- that was true at the time it was uttered- but no longer a factor.  

 

So now ignorance is no excuse:  the "MSFS isn't ready for complex aircraft" line is a total canard, unless you have a different definition of "ready" than the guy the "serious simmers" often look at as the Godfather of Study Level.  Anyone who repeats it in this thread past this point is either clueless or trolling.

Unless, that is, they can provide a rational argument for why they disagree with PMDG's assessment.

 

34 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

MSFS has 2M+ Pilots, a store that guarantees more $$$ to fund further development, an unprecedented marketing / engagement strategy, a commitment to continually develop the sim (like "VR" after the release), and the lists goes on and on...and their future is bright and clear...set in stone on a roadmap. This....this is reigning supreme with respect to flight simulation

MSFS has lost nothing....

Asobo said from that start that they were initially relying on 3P Devs to bring the higher fidelity aircraft / systems....after some feedback, they decided to partner with WT to bring more...to the core.

You can't fault Asobo for what 3P Devs bring to the table, you will have to "wait" for the better planes to come (or take the plunge to make your own), surely that will take time.

 

I agree with you.  MSFS is a bulldozer.  You can get out of the way, or you can adapt.  Either way, it's going to bulldoze the flight simulation industry and there is no stopping it.

P3D risks becoming obsolete.  Just in the P3D forum, there is a thread complaining about how so many 3rd party P3D devs have jumped ship to MSFS.  This is not surprising.  And X-Plane is sweating too.

3rd party devs will go where the $$$ is.  And the $$$ is in MSFS right now.  Increasingly, the $$$ for P3D is drying up for 3rd party devs.  And X-Plane will face the same pressure as MSFS gets more sophisticated and more advanced airliners come out for MSFS (not the 777 from CS of course).  I am guessing we will see a decent initial lineup of high fidelity airliners in MSFS over the next 2 years.  That's 2 years of time for P3D and X-Plane to up their game.  Maybe P3D or X-Plane will have revolutionary change in their next release.  I doubt it though.  The improvement for each P3D and X-Plane release have been incremental, rather than revolutionary.

4 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

 

It's like some of you folks don't even read what people say in the threads you reply to.  I cited upthread these words from the the mouth of the PMDG founder himself:

 

 

So now ignorance is no excuse:  the "MSFS isn't ready for complex aircraft" line is a total canard, unless you have a different definition of "ready" than the guy the "serious simmers" often look at as the Godfather of Study Level.  Anyone who repeats it in this thread past this point is either clueless or trolling.

Unless, that is, they can provide a rational argument for why they disagree with PMDG's assessment.

 

I agree with kaosfere.  It's frustrating. Some people in this thread seem to be misinformed.  PMDG saying this means all the tools are there in the SDK now.  And of course, Working Title and the FBW devs are also saying all the tools are there.

That's 3 different respectable sources saying the tools are there for high fidelity planes in MSFS: PMDG, Working Title, and FBW Devs.

24 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

  The reason for WASM is that a bug in 3rd party add ons can cause the sim to crash, especially in a 3rd party DLL.  By using WASM, this will help to make the simulator more stable from 3rd party bugs.

I'm sorry to intervene in this topic but this is not what they are saying at all about the reasons behind WASM.

I've compiled both their official statements here:
https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/582275-rxp-gtn-750650-and-gns-530430-for-fs2020/?do=findComment&comment=4524732

 

Edited May 18, 20215 yr by RXP

8 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

So now ignorance is no excuse:  the "MSFS isn't ready for complex aircraft" line is a total canard, unless you have a different definition of "ready" than the guy the "serious simmers" often look at as the Godfather of Study Level.  Anyone who repeats it in this thread past this point is either clueless or trolling.

Unless, that is, they can provide a rational argument for why they disagree with PMDG's assessment.

Yeah the definition of a serious simmer here in Avsim, when you have a sim with ancient technology and you literally need to buy add-ones (even lights and some effects) to cover every single part of the sim. If something that covers most of that (which is of the came of MSFS), it is called a "game" and anti third party developers 😄 

7 minutes ago, RXP said:

I'm sorry to intervene in this topic but this is not what they are saying at all about the reasons behind WASM. I've summarized their official statements here:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/582275-rxp-gtn-750650-and-gns-530430-for-fs2020/?do=findComment&comment=4524732

 

Hi, I read that response.  I think that was just one reasoning that Eric is citing for WASM.  I would be surprised if Asobo is only using WASM to protect user information. Because if that's the case, Asobo can always encrypt the user information and give 3rd party devs access to DLLs.

My guess is Asobo is using WASM as it was designed for, straight from the WebAssembly site:

Quote

The security model of WebAssembly has two important goals: (1) protect users from buggy or malicious modules ... ...

https://webassembly.org/docs/security/

I think Eric's answer isn't comprehensive.  He probably just cited one reason, but not the whole reason why Asobo is using WASM (like I said, if Asobo really wants to protect user information, they can encrypt it and still give 3rd party devs access to DLLs).

Edited May 18, 20215 yr by abrams_tank

24 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I agree with you.  MSFS is a bulldozer.  You can get out of the way, or you can adapt.  Either way, it's going to bulldoze the flight simulation industry and there is no stopping it.

P3D risks becoming obsolete.  Just in the P3D forum, there is a thread complaining about how so many 3rd party P3D devs have jumped ship to MSFS.  This is not surprising.  And X-Plane is sweating too.

3rd party devs will go where the $$$ is.  And the $$$ is in MSFS right now.  Increasingly, the $$$ for P3D is drying up for 3rd party devs.  And X-Plane will face the same pressure as MSFS gets more sophisticated and more advanced airliners come out for MSFS (not the 777 from CS of course).  I am guessing we will see a decent initial lineup of high fidelity airliners in MSFS over the next 2 years.  That's 2 years of time for P3D and X-Plane to up their game.  Maybe P3D or X-Plane will have revolutionary change in their next release.  I doubt it though.  The improvement for each P3D and X-Plane release have been incremental, rather than revolutionary.

 

One thing you excluded. The freeware community revolving around MSFS right now is unprecedented. Just look at flightsim.to. It's a continuing pile of of freeware (and a majority of it high quality and some even ground breaking at that) literally flooding in the likes of which FSX, P3D, X-Plane has ever seen.

That is absolutely embarrassing for X-Plane as that simulator and community use the freeware market as their biggest selling point for the sim itself

Edited May 18, 20215 yr by styckx

8 minutes ago, styckx said:

 

One thing you excluded. The freeware community revolving around MSFS right now is unprecedented. Just look at flightsim.to. It's a continuing pile of of freeware (and a majority of it high quality and some even ground breaking at that) literally flooding in the likes of which FSX, P3D, X-Plane has ever seen.

That is absolutely embarrassing for X-Plane as that simulator and community use the freeware market as their biggest selling point for the sim itself

Absolutely agree.  I think the freeware community is a result of the large number of people that purchased MSFS.  It's really impressive the amount of freeware that has been released for MSFS in the first 8 months since the release of MSFS.

19 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

My guess is Asobo is using WASM as it was designed for, straight from the WebAssembly site:

protect users from buggy or malicious modules

Which is vastly reading differently to me than what they are officially saying:

Quote

When you ship a DLL, you never know what it is going to do! It has access to personal informal information and result in having security issues. Using WASM, we are sure that 3rd party content only accesses designated files!

I read the above as the following:

"We must protect customers from 3rd parties who would otherwise ship add-ons which would be accessing their customers personal files and do who knows what with it"

I concede my interpretation might be due just because I'm a 3rd party vendor and English is not my mother tongue, but making such statement insinuating "stealing" and "3rd party developer" in a "Developer Q&A" is not the best message to me. They should have stick to Eric's comment in my opinion because it was actually a good technical answer from a developer in a developer Q&A.

 

Edited May 18, 20215 yr by RXP

1 hour ago, FlyBaby said:

MSFS has 2M+ Pilots

"Pilot"...I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Just now, abrams_tank said:

Absolutely agree.  I think the freeware community is a result of the large number of people that purchased MSFS.  It's really impressive the amount of freeware that has been released for MSFS in the first 8 months since the release of MSFS.

It's absolutely bonkers actually. Every day it seems like someone uploads some new freeware and it's like

"I had some free time on my hands so I recreated the entire North Shore of East JaBip. Oh and also redid all the lighting and LOD.. TeeHee.. Enjoy!"  

This simply never happened in any other sim, including FSX. You have people that have never opened the SDK before suddenly churning out high quality freeware.. 

5 minutes ago, RXP said:

 

"We must protect customers from 3rd parties who would otherwise ship add-ons which would be accessing their customers personal files and do who knows what with it"

 

 

I call that BS because for example the Just Flight Arrow does access personal files to check for your license, including your email address, every time you lauch it.

I should note, as a follow-up to my earlier statement, that there will be people with very specific needs who currently can't do what they need to do to do what they want in MSFS.  RXP is an example of this:  he lacks access he needs to produce his gauges at the quality level his customers expect.

However, to head off folks using this as a counter-example and saying it means MSFS isn't ready for "complex aircraft":

Saying "because RXP can't make his gauges it's not a real sim" would be, in my mind, on par with saying "an F1 car isn't a real race car because it doesn't have the suspension and steering bias necessary to operate efficiently on a steep bank and therefore it can't race on a NASCAR oval".   You can always come up with a counter-example if you try hard enough.

Doesn't change the fact that the founder of the company that makes highly realistic aircraft that people willingly pay over $100 for because of that fidelity said "It's ready now."