Just now, kevinfirth said:

Let's just agree that we draw differing conclusions from the evidence available, but civilly 🙂

Oh im not a fighter dont you worry (i guess you can see that from my Post/Reputation ratio 😄 ) . Im just saying that giving access to special tools, variables, logics to some and not others would be a nightmare for everyone involved. That would mean a "special" MSFS branch for all devs and testers involved, special support from asobo, and franckly, i dont see that happening. What i see however, is Asobos devs giving special attention and supports to some devellopers, wich certainly makes their lifes (the thir party devs) easier.

7 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

No...I do Not. I talk about a BETA SDK. 

300 devs would be, all of them basically, and never heard a single one talk about that. We did get a preview build of the upcoming update, with new sdk tweaks and tools, but its not branded as an extra specia beta sdk, for extra special devs.

IMO, the devs complaining about the sdk are probably lazy and dont want toget with the program. If WT and FBW can achieve what they did with the sdk, other devs should'ne have problem getting up to speed. Instead they want to their hands held or want to do things the old way. Instead of complaining, they need to roll their sleeves up and step their game up

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by devgrp

1 minute ago, devgrp said:

The conspiracy theories about pmdg lying about the sdk and why they are releasing the dc6 before the more popular 737, and how it's a quick cash grab. I find it funny that people are saying these companies are trying to do a cash grab like they are not supposed to make any money and they should just work for free. 

I did not say anything from that you wrote above. 

1 minute ago, Christopher Low said:

Can someone please confirm that it is OK for me to be posting on the AVSIM forums at all at the moment? I am taking a break from flight simulation, and I am worried that commenting about anything with wings whilst I am driving supercars in Assetto Corsa could get me into a lot of trouble. I am steering well clear of the racing pigeon forums for the same reason.

Yer right, you should be no we’re close to any flight sim forum your a disgrace to the community. 😃 But more to the point I still cannot get over with you wanting to now focus on GA flying you don’t fly MSFS. But when you come back hopefully you will see the light.

In the mean time enjoy your racing I am sure it’s great fun.

All the best and stay out of the sand traps 😀

7 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Can someone please confirm that it is OK for me to be posting on the AVSIM forums at all at the moment? I am taking a break from flight simulation, and I am worried that commenting about anything with wings whilst I am driving supercars in Assetto Corsa could get me into a lot of trouble. I am steering well clear of the racing pigeon forums for the same reason.

Steering Clear, really, good one! You know racing game, steering a car, and all that...I'm done 🙂

It's worth noting that the PMDG DC-6 was the test aeroplane for PMDG when they were mooting going with XPlane a bit more, but on completion of that, they reported that their 747 would not be making it into XPlane because there were some things which XPlane would not support which they felt were important for the realism of their 747 and so they were not progressing with it on that platform. This of course doesn't mean it was impossible for it to be done in XPlane, after all, where there is a will there is a way, more likely that they'd have to jump through a massive amount of hoops in order to achieve it which would then take it into a price-range which would be unlikely to make the game worth the candle so to speak. 

Fast forward to the advent of MSFS and it's a situation where developers comfortable with the ESP platform are having to accept some different working methods if they want to be in the game, such as the Wwise Audiokinetic system and so on. It's only natural that people in any job tend to resist things which make their long-held skills need an update or change, and I think that's a lot of what we're seeing with complaints about the SDK and production methods necessary to shoehorn the best out of MSFS rather than it being incapable of doing things, whereas for Asobo, these working methods, being pretty common in the gaming industry, are something with which they are more familiar and comfortable.

I can relate this to generally having used MSDS for making any scenery I wanted for FSX and P3D. Even though I actually train people on Cinema 4D and 3DSMax, I had to embrace using Blender because this would appear to be better suited to making stuff for MSFS, and so I had to get used to all that sequential JavaScript Object Notation malarkey, which I'd have preferred not to do obviously, but had to bite the bullet and go for it.

So back with PMDG, it appears once again they felt their DC-6 was the possibly the best aeroplane to dip their toes into the water with when it came to developing an MSFS aeroplane, as they had done with XPlane; the difference is however, that they have not said 'well, it can't do what we want, so no Boeings from us for MSFS'. This might be more because you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing, and so anything they have to do to make MSFS work as a platform for them, is something they have to embrace, rather than simply being a potential avenue to try, as was the case with their XPlane foray. So whilst it might require a bit of hoop-jumping to get their 737 etc out the door, it would appear they have, or will soon have bitten the requisite bullets to make that happen. I suspect it is a similar scenario over at Just Flight, where they are using the PA28 to get up to speed with things whilst their 747-200 waits in the wings.

The PMDG DC-6 looks impressive and from what I can see of it, does not appear to be dumbed down in terms of features compared to their venerable old banger on other platforms, so this bodes well. And in all honesty, it would really have to suck for it not to be a no-brainer day one purchase for me.

Things are coming for MSFS, and although it is requiring developers to raise their game a bit to achieve it - notwithstanding Captain Sim - it would appear to be the way the wind is blowing.

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by Chock

34 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

While I'm sure there is some resistance to changing methods in some places, the more reasonable assumption across the board is that that are not operating on a level basis. 

I think you’re assuming all developers are equally capable. An equally (if not more) reasonable assumption would be that some developers are just better with the new tech.

Just now, scotchegg said:

I think you’re assuming all developers are equally capable. An equally (if not more) reasonable assumption would be that some developers are just better with the new tech.

That is also a possibility yes, but that in itself assumes the new tech is capable of doing what those devs need it to, which may not be the case.  In some way, your proposition above may indeed have some merit in individual cases, but I'm not au fait with all devs to be able to say who, and to what extent, it may be the case with.

3 hours ago, mpo910 said:

I find it a hidden info that PMDG prioritized the DC6 before the 737. It just tells me the SDK isn't that far and DL6 isn't that complex so they can make money with DC6 and have to wait what MS does with the SDK. 

RSR said in the video, previously they had technical issues (most likely with the SDK) that slowed down the 737 but now the development is bounced. Meanwhile, there is a parallel team that was working on the DC-6 and managed to done first and thus releasing it first. All these info in the video RSR talking if you watched it.

1 minute ago, kevinfirth said:

That is also a possibility yes, but that in itself assumes the new tech is capable of doing what those devs need it to

No, it simply assumes some developers are better at getting the new tech to do what they need it to.

2 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

RSR said in the video, previously they had technical issues (most likely with the SDK) that slowed down the 737 but now the development is bounced. Meanwhile, there is a parallel team that was working on the DC-6 and managed to done first and thus releasing it first. All these info in the video RSR talking if you watched it.

To get the 737/747 into MSFS we surely need a more enhanced SDK. But perhaps with some new techniques multiple needed features can be made workable. Then parts of the ac need to be remade from scratch.

And as the DC-6 does not have complex systems it is the easiest ac for PMDG to make and compatible with MSFS and use the experience with the development of the 737/747.

 

27 minutes ago, Chock said:

you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing

 
If anything is goin' to sell
Try hard, get barred
Get back, write braille
 

18 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

That is also a possibility yes, but that in itself assumes the new tech is capable of doing what those devs need it to, which may not be the case.  In some way, your proposition above may indeed have some merit in individual cases, but I'm not au fait with all devs to be able to say who, and to what extent, it may be the case with.

The tech is in place, if it wasn't WT and FBW wouldn't have been able to do what they did. Like I said before, most of these devs want the easy way to continue doing things how they did on other platforms. This is a new platform so they need to adapt instead of being lazy. If you ask me, they are the ones trying to do a cash grab because they want to port their addons with code intact instead of building against the new system 

1 hour ago, kevinfirth said:

Let's just agree that we draw differing conclusions from the evidence available, but civilly 🙂

Thats a deveoper of the P-40 so i think imo he as the "evidence" and sorry "civilly" you dont, only your assumptions and speculations. Also you still have not given evidence that you asked another user to do to back you claim that there are 2 beta SDK.

30 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

No, it simply assumes some developers are better at getting the new tech to do what they need it to.

I think imo thats far more to the point.

Yes some developers cannot bring what they what to for MSFS becasue we all know its far from complete, but imo its not becasue there are 2 SDK. Untill someone shows "evidence" of your theory.

Kevin if you think am being agressive am sorry am not. But I did not like that you asked for "evidence" and you have none yourself, nothing but your thoughts or opinions. Thats differenct to "evidence" or proof that you asked for.

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by Nyxx