Now, now children. If you don’t stop fighting there will be no dessert.

🧁🧁🧁🍪🍪🍪🍰🍰🍰

5 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

I think weather system in MSFS is too complex and tightly integrated with the system

I don't think they should be using that as an excuse, if that's the case it just shows that they themselves are unable to make an SDK for something as complex like weather.

6 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Camera system, I don’t think is about being locked or not, is just the SDK for that part is missing (the FSX stuff don’t work).

Pretty much. It's not really the "SDK" as technically MSFS does have an API already that can delete and create cameras in the cameras.cfg, it's just that some (actually ALOT) of simconnect variables are either missing or don't function as intended, one of them is interfacing with the camera system (there isn't any simconnect variables for it at all!) and it's required to move and pan around the cameras externally.

.They're also slacking in the terrain and weather radar department, but I assume they're too busy patching other things first before doing something that should've been in the simulator already.

6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

... is not constructive by suggesting more accurate information could be obtain in MSFS forum, why?  People here (myself included) browse thru many forums ... your generalization was unsubstantiated.

I think this is common sense.  If you want more accurate information about Ford, you don't go to the Tesla forum.  If you want more accurate information about Tesla, you don't go to the Ford forum.  If you want more accurate information about Windows, you don't go to the Mac OS forum. If you want more accurate information about the Mac OS, you don't go to the Windows forum.  If you want more accurate information about P3D, you don't go to the MSFS forum.  If you want more accurate information about MSFS, you don't go to the P3D forum.

Note that I said to  @Dreamflight767, "I think you need to get your information from outside this forum for MSFS."  If @Dreamflight767 goes to the MSFS forum to ask questions about MSFS, especially technical questions about MSFS such as what are the limitations of MSFS, don't you think @Dreamflight767 would get a more informative answer there?

 

6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I do not have Fenix/ProSim for MSFS so I have no comment.

I do not have access to PMDG source code nor inside information so I have no comment. 

Your position suggested you either work for PMDG and/or Fenix since your claim was the concept of "two workflows" ... your reference was Aamir's post who also doesn't work for PMDG. 

No, my position is how tightly coupled the Fenix A320 code is to the MSFS SDK, relative to the PMDG 737 code.  My position is that the Fenix A320 is less tightly coupled to the PMDG 737 code.  The two parties that know best are the employees for Fenix, and the employees for PMDG.  Let's simplify this to Aamir for Fenix and Randazzo for PMDG, since they lead those companies.  But already, one of those people in this equation, has already commented and compared the amount of coupling to the MSFS SDK and commented on the other party. And that comment came from Aamir who represents Fenix:

Quote

I feel the need for you all to be aware of the fact that PMDG and Fenix have vastly different development workflows; at Fenix we are mainly working with much more mature aspects of the MSFS SDK, whereas there are some areas of the SDK that have remained almost untouched in nearly a year, and certainly in need of significant improvement if its to be utilised fully. If those aspects of the SDK are central to PMDG's workflow it's absolutely understandable they'd be engaging with Asobo to see them improved.

Aamir, who represents Fenix, is already providing an answer that implies the Fenix A320 code is less tightly coupled to the MSFS SDK than the PMDG 737 code.  In addition, I provided further evidence of Randazzo's comments himself, that PMDG is waiting for changes from Asobo likely related to the SDK (from Fabio's interview of Randazzo on Fabio's stream).  I also provided evidence that Fenix did not suffer as much as other 3rd party developers after SU5 and SU7, which logically implies that Fenix's code isn't as tightly coupled to the MSFS SDK.  

I don't think Aamir is going to sit down with Randazzo, and definitively answer the question of how tightly coupled their code is to the MSFS SDK, relative to each other.  The comment from Aamir above, plus other tidibits of evidence, is the best that we will probably get on this answer.

 

6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Do you think linking to a thread PMDG vs FENIX would ever be constructive? 

I'm disappointed you would say this.  Again, my  position is how tightly coupled the Fenix A320 code is to the MSFS SDK, relative to the PMDG 737 code.  I am linking to Aamir's comment, who leads Fenix. Like why do you think I am linking to a random PMDG vs Fenix thread?  I am linking to Aamir's comment.  And Aamir is providing us evidence of how tightly coupled the Fenix code is to the MSFS SDK, and even comparing Fenix to PMDG's code.  Aamir leads Fenix.

Isn't Aamir's quote very relevant to my position? The guy leads Fenix, and even better, he commented on the Fenix code and how the Fenix code compares to the PMDG code, with respect to the MSFS SDK. Why do you think I am linking to some random PMDG vs Fenix thread?

6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I do know the work I've done on my own personal MSFS project using the SDK and shared some (not all) of the issues I've had which is consistent with the same issues of my two competitors (nothing to do with aircraft).  My continued frustration with MS/Asobo's lack of communications between developer and their SDK/architecture and their seemingly inability to affect change because it doesn't meet their objectives or they just don't have time ... I honestly have no idea why the SDK is so incomplete this late in the game.  

Ok, I want to stop there.  Whatever troubles you are having with the MSFS SDK, that's unfortunate.  But I want to stress that this is outside the scope of my answer to @Dreamflight767.  I am not here to defend the MSFS SDK, which has its share of problems. My original answer to @Dreamflight767 was to explain that it's possible to go the Fenix route and avoid some of the limitations of the MSFS SDK for complex aircraft.

6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Anyway, sorry I offended you, not my intent, I often say it as I see it rather than pause for reflection. 🙂 

No problem. Like I said, I am trying to provide better information here in the P3D forum about MSFS.

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

59 minutes ago, arwasairl said:

I don't think they should be using that as an excuse, if that's the case it just shows that they themselves are unable to make an SDK for something as complex like weather. 

Hmm I don't know to be honest what is the real reason. It could be they just don't want to expose it in the SDK for whatever reason they have. 

6 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I think this is common sense.  If you want more accurate information about Ford, you don't go to the Tesla forum.  If you want more accurate information about Tesla, you don't go to the Ford forum.  If you want more accurate information about Windows, you don't go to the Mac OS forum. If you want more accurate information about the Mac OS, you don't go to the Windows forum.  If you want more accurate information about P3D, you don't go to the MSFS forum.  If you want more accurate information about MSFS, you don't go to the P3D forum.

 

Exactly.  But YOU have come to the Ford forum to talk about Tesla's.  So you are in the wrong place not the other way around.  The topic itself is about PMDG delaying P3D updates.  A theme in the discussion might be people stating they don't like MSFS, or dev's saying they are having major challenges developing for MSFS.  Nonetheless these are opinions held by a good amount of people and perfectly reasonable.  I don't understand why you feel so compelled to immortalize a sim in a place where people have listed numerous objective reasons why MSFS doesn't work for them.  

Bottom line - Super disappointing about PMDG to screw P3D customers - just push the updates while they work on MSFS.  Heck, by the time DC-6 V5 installer comes and P3D v6 should be out (probably in 6 months) - then we are back to square one where is the darn installers for all the birds.  Probably not going to get released the way they are thinking.

 

We need new player on the scene to dethrone them - I am betting on FSLabs, Leonardo and Majestic (How good is TDFI? I have no idea about them)

 

Bottom line is it is always about the profit, and I get it (I am a business, man too) b/c as a business you need revenue coming at all times (one has costs, employees etc) but if money is the issue ----- Just charge few bucks for some upgrades come on --- that way everyone is happy.

 

We are in best of times and worst of times in the world of flight simming

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

We need new player on the scene to dethrone them - I am betting on FSLabs, Leonardo and Majestic (How good is TDFI? I have no idea about them)

in someways fslabs and leonardo and majestic have already dethroned them.  But not in every way.  PMDG is no longer on top alone.  They are on top with the company of others.  

3 hours ago, micstatic said:

Exactly.  But YOU have come to the Ford forum to talk about Tesla's.  So you are in the wrong place not the other way around.  The topic itself is about PMDG delaying P3D updates.  A theme in the discussion might be people stating they don't like MSFS, or dev's saying they are having major challenges developing for MSFS.  

Because I was answering the original question by Dreamflight767 here?  Once I answered that question, if nobody else replied to my answer further, then the discussion could move on and I would have stopped posting (but somebody did reply and I had to defend my response).  So if nobody responds to this and I am not forced to defend myself further, then the topic can move on.

3 hours ago, micstatic said:

  I don't understand why you feel so compelled to immortalize a sim in a place where people have listed numerous objective reasons why MSFS doesn't work for them.  

Immortalizing?  Are you sure?  I don't want to rehash everything  I wrote before, but I mentioned multiple problems and lack of features with MSFS in my original response to Dreamflight767. 

Anyways, like I said, best is not to respond and put me in a position to defend myself and I will stop posting.

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

49 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

I am betting on FSLabs, Leonardo and Majestic

That exactly has been my top for quite a long time now. 😉

49 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

How good is TDFI? I have no idea about them

I don't have good experiences with their B717 and I was one of the early adopters.
For me definitely not the same league as the above mentioned. But others' opinions may vary of course.

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by Rafal

UE5 engine + complex simulations in totally different environment with PMDG and FSL in it....hmmm, I'd rather put my money on stable MSFS in year 2026. 🙂  

30 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

I'd rather put my money on stable MSFS in year 2026.

Even that isn't a guarantee.

Have a look at Star Citizen.  9-10 years later and it is still an absolute cluster bleep.  Proof positive of a project that picked the wrong engine to develop on.

I'm purely speculating, but perhaps MS isn't interested in creating a complex simulation similar to PMDG/FSL/LH at all,  and this is one of the reasons why Aerosoft is so excited about MSFS prospects, since their simplified versions of A320/330 and CRJ perfectly fit into this "pop-niche". 

2 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

I'm purely speculating, but perhaps MS isn't interested in creating a complex simulation similar to PMDG/FSL/LH at all,  and this is one of the reasons why Aerosoft is so excited about MSFS prospects, since their simplified versions of A320/330 and CRJ perfectly fit into this "pop-niche". 

Apparently they were working together and ran into issues.  That's very different than "not being interested in creating a complex simulation" 

They already created a complex simulation. It's lacking some comparable functionality to P3D which was also lacking that functionality out of the box until add-on dev's figured it out.  Honestly, in my opinion that's closer to conspiracy theory and plays into the MSFS is just for "gamers" fallacy.

Aerosoft is excited for one reason, money. 

Not even sure what pop-niche means in regards to flight simulation...  

 

@Rob_Ainscough I think your personal frustration is showing here and understandably so.  I'm not disagreeing about the issues at all I'm just saying your perspective and objectivity seem to be a bit skewed and anti MS/Asobo at the moment.  I hope SU8 fixes your development issues so you can get your MSFS project released, get some revenue and perhaps turn things a bit more to the positive.   Working for one of the largest software companies in the world (Top 10)  who is on version 17 of our own Operating systems that still breaks things in prior releases, have code dependencies that inadvertently break things and just honestly looking at what LM has done with point releases breaking simconnect, breaking add-ons until they are updated some of which never get a proper update and get stuck on prior versions and "still" to expect Asobo to have all the answers from day 1 is certainly not my software development and release expectations.   Maybe I'm a bit immune to these issues at the scale we operate, it's why we offer long and short lived releases but honestly expecting any new release to have all of this sorted day 1 and not being able to figure out why some things still break other things after 16 months is just not my idea of a realistic software release expectation. It looks like 5.3 has a couple of imperfections and some things it broke as well.  It's par for the FS and software course or maybe I'm just immune 😞  

Similar to LM's, my customers are the largest in the world, in some cases entire governments and they have all the same complaints you just lobbied against Asobo with every major software manufacturer they work with,,, This isn't unique to Asobo and it's nothing LM is immune to either.  This is my daily world and sadly seems pretty normal and quite honestly not much different than some issues LM is STILL running into.  If we gave up on P3D after 16 months where would we be now? It took 3 years to get from V1 to V2 alone then 5 releases in 2 years fixing and breaking things. Then we hit OOM and resource constraints until V4 and 64 bit 7 years after initial release.  But Asobo don't care because they didn't have it all ready on day 1 or after 16 months? Honestly I find that harsh but that is just my perspective.

I know I wouldn't be sitting here flying the PMDG 777-300 with ASP3d, PF3, Pac-X on a client machine over wide-fs with EZCA modules for all my opencockpit devices, modules for Linda, GSX V2 flying over add-on landclass, textures, mesh, add-on AI, FSUIPC, Simshaker modules etc etc etc if I had your expectations of P3D 16 months in to V1...  

I'm sorry, I don't agree they don't care because they didn't get it right day 1 and 16 months later are still making mistakes.  If that was the case then no one has ever cared about flight simmers... 

Edited December 20, 20214 yr by psolk

14 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Hmm I don't know to be honest what is the real reason. It could be they just don't want to expose it in the SDK for whatever reason they have. 

I suspect the decision to keep certain things out of the platform SDK has to do with the desire to have as much parity between the fundamental PC and Xbox experiences as possible. Suppose the weather engine was fully exposed to the SDK, the likes of HiFi could deliver a full ActiveSky for MSFS, but that would never work on Xbox. Also, weather depiction has always been a key differentiator for MS vs other sims. If you open it up you allow 3rd parties to create cruddy add-ons that mess up the weather. Maybe MS doesn't like that idea. Maybe there's some proprietary tech in there they bought from someone and the licensing doesn't let them expose it. 

It's all speculation, unfortunately. Asobo is more open than many sim developers (hi there, LM!), but only in a strictly-managed PR-compliant kind of way.

Also, when a development team is snowed under - and I get the impression that the MSFS dev team has always and will always be snowed under - the less time they spend communicating, the more time they have to code. That's something I've seen all too often in my own career in software development. 

Well if you are going to quote me at least don't selectively do it...  My Entire Statement was:

Quote

"I think your personal frustration is showing here and understandably so.  I'm not disagreeing about the issues at all I'm just saying your perspective and objectivity seem to be a bit skewed and anti MS/Asobo at the moment."

    As you stated, Asobo broke your development efforts and couldn't care less.  I was able to read that frustration in your posts.  That was all I was saying, hence my comment around also hoping

Quote

SU8 fixes your development issues so you can get your MSFS project released, get some revenue and perhaps turn things a bit more to the positive. 

Not sure why you think I am picking a fight with developers, I'm merely stating objectively if we had the attitude we did to P3D 16 months "after release" and did not give them multiple releases to get it right we wouldn't be here now. It took LM 5 years post release to get to V3 and that was on an already existing ESP platform.

Again, Still not sure why anyone who says anything to defend MSFS is viewed as picking a fight.  As for development time frames it took LM one of the biggest companies in the world 3 years just to get from V4 to V5 on established code and a bunch of stuff still broke and had to be fixed in the process. PMDG released the 777 3 years after LM's release of P3D.   5 different releases in 2 years on V3 alone and the major simdirector changes didn't come until 2015, 5 years after release of an already established platform.  So if that is the case hopefully Asobo can get it done this year... 

But sure, Asobo should have had all of this figured out day one and certainly 16 months "post release" right?  Honestly most flight simulators take 5 years to mature or die.  According to you they are 5 years in now. We have typically looked at games from their release date not their beginning development date which would have been pre 2007 for ESP, P3D got good around 2015...  

Who knows which direction MSFS will end up.  It took LM 5 years to iron out what they inherited into V3 which is where the major changes began to really take place.   

Perhaps you are right and it is just a poorly developed game that doesn't care about simulation and should have had an SDK ready day 1 and is acting like a 5-6 man team or perhaps they are having genuine growing pains doing something only a handful of developers have ever done from scratch on a scale we haven't seen before...  Criticism is warranted, they've broken a lot of stuff since release, still no SDK mature enough to handle complex add-ons, no major weather add-ons but all I am saying is if we look at it relative to other simulators in the same time frame I don't see anything abnormal in the current timeline.  

Or perhaps like you said they don't care about simulation and it will flounder which I fear would drive Flight Simulation back into the shadows where it's been for 20+ years.  

I'm done commenting now  as I don't want to be perceived as picking a fight with developers... My surgery is in 15 hours so I have more important things to concern myself with but wish everyone a very happy holiday season! 

 

PS. I'm not anti P3D or Asobo but I do "hope" Asobo get it right and we get all our P3D add-on functionality in the base sim they built...  Hopes and dreams right 

Edited December 21, 20214 yr by psolk