1 hour ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

What I don't get - and I'm going to play Devil's advoate here - is, two years of development and yet we've only had MSFS2020 since last August 2020 and the announcement of it back in June (ish) 2019.

So unless they had the SDK WAY before anyone else - what platform did they start developing it for?

This is a good point. Im not a developer so I dont understand how these things work. They also said they hadnt had much contact with ASOBO which I found odd too  because all of the other big dev companies have had to have constant contact with them for their help. Im extremely excited for this product and what they're previewing but some things just dont add up. 

9 hours ago, Greazer said:

Wow amazing stuff.

See @Ricardo41 that's why I go with my gut.  It rarely fails me!

I prefer to base my assessments on evidence and facts. 

9 hours ago, Greazer said:

Wow amazing stuff.

See @Ricardo41 that's why I go with my gut.  It rarely fails me!

As Dilbert has asked once:"When your gut talks to you, what does it use as a mouth?"

😁

39 minutes ago, fakeflyer737 said:

They also said they hadnt had much contact with ASOBO which I found odd too  because all of the other big dev companies have had to have constant contact with them for their help. Im extremely excited for this product and what they're previewing but some things just dont add up

My understanding is that the simulation is running on the ProSim A320 platform, and that data is just coming out of it and being drawn to the sim displays. So that represents a very significant time advantage, when the plane is already completely simulated and it's a modeling and interfacing exercise.

Still an interesting product, but some of the claims make more sense in this light (like the nav synthesis, since all that isn't running in MSFS, so needs to be piped to the external sim).

-Matt

I guess it'll be 90$. 🙂

2 hours ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

What I don't get - and I'm going to play Devil's advoate here - is, two years of development and yet we've only had MSFS2020 since last August 2020 and the announcement of it back in June (ish) 2019.

So unless they had the SDK WAY before anyone else - what platform did they start developing it for?

I asked this question in their discord and Amair answered me that, it took them long time to their research, get references, plan ... Etc. So yeah, likely when MSFS was released last year, they had just finished from all their homework and started coding right into when is the initial SDK was out, or maybe they had the SDK from the alpha days. Rule of thumb, coding is not so complex as long you have all the proper references, proper formulas, proper documentation .. etc. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

So that represents a very significant time advantage, when the plane is already completely simulated and it's a modeling and interfacing exercise.

It is much, much more than simply a modelling or interfacing exercise. Were it, we would have released several months ago - as interfacing with the sim like this has been possible as early as I can remember.

As for the speculation elsewhere - creating something like this requires not simply code. There is a year or more of documenting behaviours, finding source material, forget about attempting to organise access to 5 (real) A320-family airframes in the middle of a pandemic. Things you do not need an SDK to do, just lots of persistence and patience. 

3 minutes ago, Aamir said:

 

Could i possibly trade a pack of cookies for a copy, when released? please? 

The choice of choc chip, double choc chip, or any other flavor (white choc and raspberry?) is entirely yours! 🙃

4 minutes ago, Aamir said:

It is much, much more than simply a modelling or interfacing exercise. Were it, we would have released several months ago - as interfacing with the sim like this has been possible as early as I can remember.

As for the speculation elsewhere - creating something like this requires not simply code. There is a year or more of documenting behaviours, finding source material, forget about attempting to organise access to 5 (real) A320-family airframes in the middle of a pandemic. Things you do not need an SDK to do, just lots of persistence and patience. 

If your attention to detail on the aircraft is anything like the quality of your engagement with the flight sim community I will have made a good purchase of your A320 when it releases. Thank you.

10 minutes ago, Aamir said:

It is much, much more than simply a modelling or interfacing exercise. Were it, we would have released several months ago - as interfacing with the sim like this has been possible as early as I can remember.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying that there is still a good deal of effort required here. Just explaining that when you don't have to write, say, the whole flight plan system, FMC, or VNAV behavior from the ground up (just as an example, since I realize ProSim also does all the systems), that is a time advantage for sure, and in that perspective the timeline makes a lot more sense. And again, this isn't meant to downplay, but someone like FSL would be writing all of what ProSim already brings to the table, so just to offer folks a bit of understanding as to why there might be a time mismatch.

Still, really neat! Bummed that this won't make it to XBox, but always interested to see how folks use the sim to build stuff. Definitely wish you all the best of luck.

-Matt

Edited July 17, 20214 yr by MattNischan

2 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Will they buy a super complex aircraft like the Fenix one ? Would you advise them to buy one ? 

I take your point, Dominique. That said, if there’s any study-level/hifi airplane that has the potential to draw in newcomers, it’s an Airbus.

Who needs an AFE when the whole aircraft philosophy is based on it being your AFE? Who needs the MSFS “highlighted checklist” when the buttons you need to press on the overhead have illuminated lights to tell you so?

I think there’s a market out there looking for exceptionally well-crafted airplanes with stellar attention to detail, but who are at best indifferent to complexity/realism. Fenix seems to think so, too.

Finally, one of the nice things about that attention to detail is that you know that if something isn’t working, it’s your fault, not the developer’s. I remember that learning how to start the Captain Sim 727 from cold and dark took me about three times as long as it should have because switches didn’t always do what they were supposed to. That’s a form of “complexity” that also can put off newcomers…and it’s pure frustration, without any upsides.

James

So that would be two simulators integrated to each other. Interesting as what I've understood so far is that Asobo didn't want to open two inner sanctums to third parties  : the flight modeling and the weather engine. 

That brings the question of how the two sims will share the CPU cores and of course, how powerful, the hardware has to be.

Another remark : I suppose that Prosim is not particularly cheap and has, I think, both a purchase price and an annual subscription fee for commercial users. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying that there is still a good deal of effort required here. Just explaining that when you don't have to write, say, the whole flight plan system, FMC, or VNAV behavior from the ground up (just as an example, since I realize ProSim also does all the systems), that is a time advantage for sure, and in that perspective the timeline makes a lot more sense. And again, this isn't meant to downplay, but someone like FSL would be writing all of what ProSim already brings to the table, so just to offer folks a bit of understanding as to why there might be a time mismatch.

Still, really neat! Bummed that this won't make it to XBox, but always interested to see how folks use the sim to build stuff. Definitely wish you all the best of luck.

-Matt

Thanks! Big respect for you and what your team at Working Title have created. 

3 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

So that would be two simulators integrated to each other. Interesting as what I've understood so far is that Asobo didn't want to open two inner sanctums to third parties  : the flight modeling and the weather engine. 

That brings the question of how the two sims will share the CPU cores and of course, how powerful, the hardware has to be.

Another remark : I suppose that Prosim is not particularly cheap and has, I think, both a purchase price and an annual subscription fee for commercial users. 

 

 

I will caveat that I've not mentioned anything about where or what the architecture comes from.. 🤓

To discuss a couple of other points you mentioned - this is not two simulators integrated with one another. That would be a very messy, convoluted, solution. We use MSFS's weather, and flight modelling - and use the SDK as intended for compliance.

And finally - on pricing. I'm happy to confirm this much - there will be no subscription. One time purchase. 

Intresting, Prosim have been around a long time and uptill now is used for cockpit builders, multi screen etc. To my knowledge have never included any graphics (trainer 2d Graphics). but the level of there sims are right up there, training etc.

Now it seems  Fenix  had the brillant idea to take Prosim and add a VC and model a aircraft......all the time using the code thats already there.

Garard use's Prosim 737 with MSFS now.

So it looks like we now all can have Prosim wraped in a VC and Model. 

Now it's much clearer why out of now where we have this level of stimulation. No wonder if it comes from ProSim.🙂

ProSim for us all....Thank you Fenix.

All good.

https://prosim-ar.com/

 

 

Edited July 17, 20214 yr by Nyxx

11 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

So it looks like we now all can have Prosim wraped in a VC and Model. 

Exactly, and that's why some people must understand about price doesn't could be " as low as they want" ( below $100 ) . For example a licensed of Prosim A320  cost @ over $1700 US, for the suite and annually renewed update subscription, for a home built cockpit user not commercial use.

In this case the statement 'consumer friendly price' take a new dimension.