Is PMDG indirectly snubbing P3D?

[Dominique_K 10,132]

2 minutes ago, simbol said:

You for real? I am the only developer? lamao.. I might have been the only outspoken developer on AVSIM.. perhaps.. so is that a bad thing? I am not keeping my mouth shut.. I believe anyone has the right to express their opinions and many things you guys believe is all whizzles and rainbows behind the scenes it is not.. so I like to bring those things to the table, if you don't like, fine.. it doesn't mean I am negative.. I am expressing things as I see it..

In passing, other developers that are not as out spoken as me.. are also being ghosted.. so your logic fails there..

And if you read all the posts I did on this thread, you will find I was supporting the decision from PMDG to develop for MSFS. So I don;t get why you do such an statement like that towards me..

S.

 

I leave you the field. Good luck.

[simbol 5,767]

3 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

This whole "incomplete MSFS SDK" conversation is getting really boring. For years, the coders at LM have tried to wean 3rd party developers off of the FSX-era SimConnect SDK. They did so by creating a P3d-specific SDK (what they call the PDK). But most 3rd party developers stuck with the archaic SimConnect SDK because it allowed them to also keep their toes in the FSX pond.

Now fast forward to the present. Asobo also wanted to ditch SimConnect. In addition to that, they dumped the ability to access the innards of MSFS by using C dynamic link libraries (DLLs). This tack frustrated the 3PD community. To make matters worse Asobo decided to use a new weather engine altogether. When the MSFS SDK was released, many SimConnect functions were broken and all weather-related calls were deprecated. With each SDK release, bugs were fixed, but some items like AI traffic functionality are still buggy.

As groups like Working Title and others have discovered, the MSFS SDK is not as bad as its online community reputationmight suggest. Coding for MSFS requires shedding the old FSX way of accessing the sim and following the rules set by Asobo. The SDK still needs a bit of work. But it is not the monstrous ogre portrayed here by a few inviduals.

 

It depends what your are trying to develop of course. The SDK has moved forward.. waiting a new drop in the upcoming update with the hope to see the particle effects systems they have included.

S.

[kevinfirth 1,392]

1 hour ago, simbol said:

MSFS SDK is not even version 1.0, while P3D PDK has 350+ functions.. the MSFS SDK for SimConnect has about 65.. which are just the same as they were for ESP 1.0 when FSX version 1 was launched. They took that SDK, copy and pasted it.. closed all the cameras, weather functionality, external DLL Libraries and blocked them from being used.. that's it.. So any custom code you had to attach to the Sim outside of SimConnect is gone.. you can throw it in the trash. Any Camera add-on.. to the trash.. any Weather add-on.. to the trash..

So the MSFS SDK is in some areas less capable than that released with FSX? Have MS/Asobo commented on what their rationale was for those changes?

[Dirk98 354]

30 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Was it a coincidence that the timing of Randazzo's post at PMDG admitting that the MSFS SDK had everything PMDG needed

Could you share a link to the above?

Thanks.

[abrams_tank 7,386]

22 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Could you share a link to the above?

Thanks.

The quote that is relevant from Randazzo is this line:

Quote

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

https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/119515-20mar21-a-glimpse-of-the-road-ahead

Notice that post from Randazzo was on March 20th.  The post from Mathias from Aerosoft saying the CRJ sales were good and "raised some glasses" was on March 17th.  So Randazzo made that post at the PMDG forums 3 days after Mathias's post at the Aerosoft forums.

Coincidence and timing?  Yeah, the timing is very suspicious ... lol

Edited May 25, 2021 by abrams_tank

[james42 257]

After reading through this discussion, and making a few comments of my own a few pages back one thing I would say is that I would really hate to be developer right now.

Our little niche hobby is coming to quite a major crossroad. On one hand you have the people that are embracing MSFS as their current and future sim and are eagerly waiting for new aircraft, sceneries, wx engines etc. Then on the other hand, you have the guys that are happy to stick with the older more tried and tested sims.

Both parties want new software developed and also older software kept updated for their respective sim. So where does that leave the developers? Move on and put more time into making things for MSFS? Or try and keep the P3D and X-plane guys happy with new and updated software? Yes, I am aware that P3D and X-plane are still actively being developed, but in terms of visuals and attracting new users they are both playing catch up.         

 

     

[NickBo 102]

1 hour ago, kevinfirth said:

So the MSFS SDK is in some areas less capable than that released with FSX? Have MS/Asobo commented on what their rationale was for those changes?

Yes, absolutely. Because MSFS is in most aspects a completely new platform. FSX was based on a platform what was already very, very old. Nothing strange or controversial about this, the MSFS SDK is quickly catching up but obvously you can't compare a 3 year old SDK with a 30 year old SDK. Developing an SDK takes time, especially when the platform you're writing the SDK for is a very fast moving target.

Talking about "their rationale" behind those "changes" seems to imply that everything is based on FSX/P3D. This is not the case here. The rationale is that this is a new platform that is currently being developed. Nothing magic about that.

 

[Gary1124 181]

MSFS is attracting new users for a couple of like reasons. First and foremost, who really thinks it would have generate this much interest and participation had it not been for a global pandemic and global stay at home conditions?  

Secondly, the xbox connection. The console crowd has interest in MSFS because they never saw the like on console before. But they are mostly short attention span youngsters. When oh awe novelty of seeing their house/town on a sim whereas off they will go back to fortnight and such. 

 

[ideoplastic 86]

4 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Your vision of the thread and, specifically of the post I was responding to, is slightly reductive.

Well looking at the specs in your system I'm surprised you can get MSFS2020 running smoothly. I will not discuss the pros and cons of MSFS2020 so may I suggest to you that you do the same in this forum?

[Dominique_K 10,132]

Just now, ideoplastic said:

Well looking at the specs in your system I'm surprised you can get MSFS2020 running smoothly. I will not discuss the pros and cons of MSFS2020 so may I suggest to you that you do the same in this forum?

Thank you for your suggestion. I will not follow it of course.  

MFS works quite well on my system, thank you very much. Dense photogrammetry is a no no and I tuned the setting at a reasonable level but MFS  is well optimized for weak machines. 

[kevinfirth 1,392]

25 minutes ago, NickBo said:

Yes, absolutely. Because MSFS is in most aspects a completely new platform. FSX was based on a platform what was already very, very old. Nothing strange or controversial about this, the MSFS SDK is quickly catching up but obvously you can't compare a 3 year old SDK with a 30 year old SDK. Developing an SDK takes time, especially when the platform you're writing the SDK for is a very fast moving target.

Talking about "their rationale" behind those "changes" seems to imply that everything is based on FSX/P3D. This is not the case here. The rationale is that this is a new platform that is currently being developed. Nothing magic about that.

 

Not saying there is, development implies adding functionality though, not taking it out?

I agree everything doesn't need to be based on FSX era tech, but if something is taken out, is it intended to replace them with different technology (said expressly or implied), and if so, do we have any idea what that is?

[simbol 5,767]

This is the entire problem with the SDK current evolution.. I have been waiting for almost a year for the Visual Effect editor, which apparently has been released today with tutorials.. The results:

Source: https://www.flightsimulator.com/release-notes-1-16-2-0-sim-update-iv-now-available/

Open the documentation, this is what I find:

No documentation, no video.. there are some references around:

But yet again you click those links:

 

You guys have no idea how frustrating is to develop like this, we have zero documentation for so many things that everything is super hard to achieve.. so is not only the lacking of variables, functionality, etc, it is also the lacking of instructions about how to do things. 

It is not just this tool, many parts of the documentation are like that, the SDK documentation is public: https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Introduction%2FSDK_Overview.htm

For that reason alone any price point PMDG put to their new products for MSFS is VERY WELL DESERVED. I am incredibel happy they can do what they can do with the platform, it takes lots of time, patience and dedication to build something so wonderful with so little information at hand.

All I have now left is the hope they update this documentation.. but my gut feelings tells me, I will need to spend incredible amount of hours to figure out everything by myself with zero help from anybody.. very UNPRODUCTIVE months ahead.. ugh!!!

Regards,

Simbol

 

 

 

[NickBo 102]

24 minutes ago, simbol said:

You guys have no idea how frustrating is to develop like this, we have zero documentation for so many things that everything is super hard to achieve

The visual effects editor is obviously not interesting enough for MS or for enough developers/users to make it a priority. Simple as that. Also, it makes total sense to not create these kind of features too early in the process because many things will naturally have to change as the other areas move forward. MSFS is not yet another FSX, things will take time. Creating a complete SDK or various visual editors before the base is mature enough does not make sense. If that does not suit you, you will just have to wait. Or contribute in other ways.

Hundreds of developers, both commercial an freeware, have successfully been developing tools, sceneries and airplanes for MSFS already. You make it sound like all developers are just sitting there waiting for a non-existent SDK and non-existent documentation but the amount of released addons says otherwise.

The interaction between Asobo and the 3rd party developers and user community compared to creators of other sims is pretty much outstanding. If you feel that it's impossible to reach them, have you thought about why? I'm just speculating here, but if you show the same kind of attitude towards them as you do here, maybe that's something to think about. I find that Asobo is very open about their roadmap, the bugs, the upcoming features and fixes. They take bug reports and feature requests seriously. I've been reporting well over 30 bugs to LM over the years. 0 of them have been fixed. Zero. For most of them LM have not even responded even though many users have reported the same bugs. There is no roadmap, no plan, no open list of bugs currently being worked on. Nothing.  I've  reported 5 bugs in MSFS so far. 4 of them have been fixed and the 5th is planned for the future. That's how you attract the community.

 

[simbol 5,767]

9 minutes ago, NickBo said:

The visual effects editor is obviously not interesting enough for MS or for enough developers/users to make it a priority. Simple as that. Also, it makes total sense to not create these kind of features too early in the process because many things will naturally have to change as the other areas move forward. MSFS is not yet another FSX, things will take time. Creating a complete SDK or various visual editors before the base is mature enough does not make sense. If that does not suit you, you will just have to wait. Or contribute in other ways.

Hundreds of developers, both commercial an freeware, have successfully been developing tools, sceneries and airplanes for MSFS already. You make it sound like all developers are just sitting there waiting for a non-existent SDK and non-existent documentation but the amount of released addons says otherwise.

The interaction between Asobo and the 3rd party developers and user community compared to creators of other sims is pretty much outstanding. If you feel that it's impossible to reach them, have you thought about why? I'm just speculating here, but if you show the same kind of attitude towards them as you do here, maybe that's something to think about. I find that Asobo is very open about their roadmap, the bugs, the upcoming features and fixes. They take bug reports and feature requests seriously. I've been reporting well over 30 bugs to LM over the years. 0 of them have been fixed. Zero. For most of them LM have not even responded even though many users have reported the same bugs. There is no roadmap, no plan, no open list of bugs currently being worked on. Nothing.  I've  reported 5 bugs in MSFS so far. 4 of them have been fixed and the 5th is planned for the future. That's how you attract the community.

 

Nick,

You opened the document link I pasted? we have missing documentation everywhere. Do not dismiss the main issue.. it is NOT JUST THE VISUAL tool, that was just an example.. just like I have been waiting for that alongside with other stuff. We always have missing documentation, on many aspects.. 

That is not what I wrote, what I wrote is that it is really hard to develop at the moment, because you have to work with not enough information to achieve goals.. you waste a lot of time figuring it out about how, what and how to do it. It makes developing really hard. Why is this so difficult to see for you guys? I am just posting facts here, open the SDK documentation yourself..

That was my point, I appreciate people that are not developers do not understand.. but picture yourself being hired in a new company and your boss telling you prepare REPORT A, with no training, no documentation, no preparation, and no information about what the company do or what the report fields can be extracted from.

That is exactly how it feels to develop with an incomplete documentation, it takes ages.. in hence my praise to everyone that has delivered content, and my coment saying PMDG, Aerosoft and everyone delivering content deserves every single penny, in fact they deserve a prize for the achievement.

So, do not make my post as it is something NEGATIVE, it is not.. it is just a post showing AWARENESS and facts of the tools we have to work with.. and it is VERY hard.. that is what I am trying to express, so if a product cost X, gets delayed, etc. it is for a reason.

S.

 

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

2 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

Not saying there is, development implies adding functionality though, not taking it out?

I agree everything doesn't need to be based on FSX era tech, but if something is taken out, is it intended to replace them with different technology (said expressly or implied), and if so, do we have any idea what that is?

The reason that certain FSX-era items were initially disabled was that Asobo tested them with the MSFS code and found those items to be non-functional. With the help of third party developers, a number of those legacy functions now work correctly.