6 minutes ago, steve310002 said:

That's very subjective. For many reasons.

Here are a few very good ones... 😉

 

3 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Thank you, that is what I was hoping you might say.. 😉

As you know, avionics is what floats my boat, and the current state of the flightplan/avionics implementation grates on me..

Because I know that it could all be made better!

Just sit back. Enjoy the DC-6 or the WT CJ4 for now.  Soon enough , your wallet will be empty. 

1 minute ago, fogboundturtle said:

Just sit back. Enjoy the DC-6 or the WT CJ4 for now.  Soon enough , your wallet will be empty. 

Lol can definitely see that happening...

 

G

57 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

But some developers aren't comfortable with that, either for reasons of knowledge or an interest in protecting what they may consider to be their own super-secret sauce.  (Or, perhaps, sometimes just laziness.)   There have been a number of cases of developers publicly stating "we can't do this yet", and other people taking that as gospel, when what they really meant was "we can't do this yet with our preferred technology".  Those are two different things.

I've read the rest of your post but I quoting this paragraph because it is the PMDG topic and IIRC, there was a time this was exactly what they did say: "we can't do this yet" and other people were taking that as gospel indeed. Is your comment here related to PMDG too?

8 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

As you know, avionics is what floats my boat, and the current state of the flightplan/avionics implementation grates on me..

Because I know that it could all be made better!

Likewise.   This is one of those times I really want to be able to share what we've been working on, because I think it will excite a lot of folks.  I know I'm pretty stoked, personally.  Stay tuned, cool things on the way. 🙂

Just now, kaosfere said:

Likewise.   This is one of those times I really want to be able to share what we've been working on, because I think it will excite a lot of folks.  I know I'm pretty stoked, personally.  Stay tuned, cool things on the way. 🙂

You're just a big tease!

 

Looking forward to it!

 

G

1 minute ago, RXP said:

I've read the rest of your post but I quoting this paragraph because it is the PMDG topic and IIRC, there was a time this was exactly what they did say: "we can't do this yet" and other people were taking that as gospel indeed. Is your comment here related to PMDG too?

Hopefully you can understand that I'm not comfortable naming individuals here, for a number of reasons, at least not without going back and checking comment histories to validate.    But so as not to leave the wrong impression, I can't recall a specific statement from PMDG that I would describe in just that way, no.

I hate how politician-y that sounds, but it's the best answer I can give you off the cuff.

(Also, lest there be any wondering, you're certainly not one of the folks in question.  You've been nothing but forthright with your assessment of what the sim is and is not currently able to do and supportive of some of the new techs, at the same time as you have fairly called out and accurately described the specific ways in which it currently doesn't work for you. 🙂 )

24 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

cannot (yet) override the FD, or HSI, or autopilot indicators, is that a case of the former or the latter?

22 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

but to give you honest and direct answer:  that is, indeed, a current limitation.  I'll admit it's slightly awkward saying that after the other things I said in this thread, but that much is true, and I won't dissemble about it.  I'm not that way.

It's easy for folks to misunderstand this though and get from those comments that "you can't make a functional autopilot!  MSFS is broken!"   I don't want to give that impression so having given the short answer let me elaborate a little on what I understand as the problem in question.

It's currently possible to build a fully custom autopilot system that can fly almost any real-word procedure you could imagine.   And you can display and manage the state of that system, within your own code, any way that you want

Thank you for clarifying this and for backing the legitimacy of our complaints with such statement. I've read a few comment in this topic saying Reality XP is only complaining and doesn't want to adapt its skills to the new SDK paradigm, now they'll know better.

And I agree with you, as it is currently, the SDK is perfectly capable to supporting building a custom autopilot atop the existing one, in playing some tricks and using a user-facing interface which is presenting a logical view, and an implementation detail using the system in a different way.

But this is missing one point in my opinion: this is working only for a self-contained add-on, like and aircraft. When you're considering the situation where you're mixing a 3rd party GPS with a 3rd party aircraft, the current SDK fails short though. As a matter of fact, @cwburnett said a few month ago that the issues Reality XP is facing to implementing their GPS products are the same as the ones WT is facing to making the G1000 really standalone, and there is a reason for this.

I just wanted to add my 2 cents because the last 5 or so pages of this topic are about the SDK, the lazyness of 3rd party devs, and the privilege position of the few, let alone the hypothetical secret SDK and any other conspiracy theory, and I believe it is also our duty as 3rd party developer to help simmers getting beyond such disbelief. It is best for the franchise, and it is best for all of us in the end.

 

Well, if they standardize the avionics so people don't have to write their own autopilots, that is what needs to happen. Take as much functionality out of the hands of 3PD as possible, the only alternative is to get a spaghetti mix of AP bugs every time we buy a plane from a different vendor. That should be priority # 1, # 2 is make the JS/HTML side more encryptable, MSFS can always decrypt on load, if it's not too long, and then just re-compile real-time some part, or something, I don't know. Expose everything in JS after fixing the security issues, or at least everything that doesn't cause a performance issue.

If those 3 issues are solved, then people won't have any reason to complain anymore. If at that point we don't see the old school guys come back into very active development, I'll either assume they are too rich or too dead.
 

5 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Well, if they standardize the avionics so people don't have to write their own autopilots, that is what needs to happen. Take as much functionality out of the hands of 3PD as possible, the only alternative is to get a spaghetti mix of AP bugs every time we buy a plane from a different vendor. That should be priority # 1

I can't agree more than this!

I've asked a question lately: I'm considering the core simulation is already providing a solid foundation of an autopilot system, so why do 3rd party have to rewrite their own autopilot?

I've given my point of view about this, with actual FS source code (redacted) in order to try explaining this:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/open-up-communications-with-reality-xp/392140/51?u=cptlucky8

 

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by RXP

it seems like the bottom line is, the more functionality that can be added, the better?  Isn't that why they hired more people for the SDK team?  All this seems certainly possible and seems like the direction MS and ASOBO want to go.  The more in to the core the better, right?

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by Jeff Nielsen

21 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

Also, lest there be any wondering, you're certainly not one of the folks in question.  You've been nothing but forthright with your assessment of what the sim is and is not currently able to do and supportive of some of the new techs, at the same time as you have fairly called out and accurately described the specific ways in which it currently doesn't work for you. 🙂

Thank you for you kind words!

Likewise I know you're looking through and beyond and I believe this is a vision we're not only both sharing but we're also both mutually appreciating. Let's just make sure this is not just a one way communication channel 🙂

2 hours ago, RXP said:

I can't agree more than this!

I've asked a question lately: I'm considering the core simulation is already providing a solid foundation of an autopilot system, so why do 3rd party have to rewrite their own autopilot?

I've given my point of view about this, with actual FS source code (redacted) in order to try explaining this:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/open-up-communications-with-reality-xp/392140/51?u=cptlucky8

 

Interesting discussion.

I think I agree, but am not experienced enough in that type of Autopilot thing to think of all the pitfalls of each approach. I'm a big fan of including as much functionality as possible by default, but also letting people override it entirely (or use event callbacks - usually a bit harder to manage), at least this is usually the case. That way you can get close enough to where fewer will need to modify something, but those that do still can.

It reminds me of a discussion I had at my regular day job. 

Colleagues keep giving me interfaces that have like 80 things I don't need and 2 things I actually need. At some point, I don't want their interfaces anymore... The inherent problem with all OO is everyone has their own ideas of what needs to be where and how things need to be organized. Some people will properly consider a tomato a fruit, whilst others will mistakenly call it a vegetable. 

 

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

57 minutes ago, RXP said:

Thank you for clarifying this and for backing the legitimacy of our complaints with such statement. I've read a few comment in this topic saying Reality XP is only complaining and doesn't want to adapt its skills to the new SDK paradigm, now they'll know better.

And I agree with you, as it is currently, the SDK is perfectly capable to supporting building a custom autopilot atop the existing one, in playing some tricks and using a user-facing interface which is presenting a logical view, and an implementation detail using the system in a different way.

But this is missing one point in my opinion: this is working only for a self-contained add-on, like and aircraft. When you're considering the situation where you're mixing a 3rd party GPS with a 3rd party aircraft, the current SDK fails short though. As a matter of fact, @cwburnett said a few month ago that the issues Reality XP is facing to implementing their GPS products are the same as the ones WT is facing to making the G1000 really standalone, and there is a reason for this.

I just wanted to add my 2 cents because the last 5 or so pages of this topic are about the SDK, the lazyness of 3rd party devs, and the privilege position of the few, let alone the hypothetical secret SDK and any other conspiracy theory, and I believe it is also our duty as 3rd party developer to help simmers getting beyond such disbelief. It is best for the franchise, and it is best for all of us in the end.

 

@kaosfere @RXP thankyou for some of the most informative posts yet, I've learned some things 😄

the only one i want is the 747

Edited May 23, 20215 yr by ashepherd316