A lot of information and videos;

Feature Review & Dev Update – 08DEC2021 – Fenix Simulations

Nice update! How about this:

"We’re very happy with the direction of MSFS and it’s respective development tools – Sim Update 7 has improved our ability to quickly iterate new testing builds, and overall our development rate has accelerated significantly as new updates release for the title."

After all negativity at lease some developers happy! LOL

3 minutes ago, Sethos said:

A lot of information and videos;

Feature Review & Dev Update – 08DEC2021 – Fenix Simulations

Quite the change in tone from RSR and PMDG. Quite refreshing! 

4 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Nice update! How about this:

"We’re very happy with the direction of MSFS and it’s respective development tools – Sim Update 7 has improved our ability to quickly iterate new testing builds, and overall our development rate has accelerated significantly as new updates release for the title."

After all negativity at lease some developers happy! LOL

RSR is a big talker. I appreciate what PMDG does but RSR always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He's definitely a politician at heart. It's always everybody else's fault - he can never seem to take ownership of his own issues/short comings. Oh well. I hope a new dev works on more Boeing aircraft. 

These differences may be the result of where these aircraft families lie within the larger context of multiple platforms, etc. Fenix is designing specifically for MSFS, while PMDG probably wants to maintain as much code as possible in common with its P3D add-ons. To do otherwise would create all sorts of problems down the road. Those developers who are "all-in" on MSFS have an advantage here. 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma for further explanation of the challenge faced by established firms competing with upstarts.

PMDG is building with the Xbox in mind. He wants his code to be both working on PC and Xbox. It's part of their strategy

5 minutes ago, liamp51 said:

He's definitely a politician at heart. 

and a novelist 😉

1 minute ago, liamp51 said:

RSR is a big talker. I appreciate what PMDG does but RSR always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He's definitely a politician at heart. It's always everybody else's fault - he can never seem to take ownership of his own issues/short comings. Oh well. I hope a new dev works on more Boeing aircraft. 

Yes he creates a lot drama. Something that could be said in few short senesces became an art of lot of words about nothing and few "blues clues". If I were to abbreviate his response using telegraph it looks like "No 737 by Christmas STOP  Ready when it's ready STOP" LOL 

13 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes he creates a lot drama. Something that could be said in few short senesces became an art of lot of words about nothing and few "blues clues". If I were to abbreviate his response using telegraph it looks like "No 737 by Christmas STOP  Ready when it's ready STOP" LOL 

As a media and journalism major I can't stand when people are purposefully verbose lol. It's also always bothered me that so many in the flight sim community seem idolize RSR and view him as a sort of demigod. Yes, PMDG makes great products, but they have also been resting on their laurels HARDCORE in the past several years. Like someone else said above, I think a lot of this has to do with them not being willing to completely rewrite their code base for MSFS. I can't say I blame them, but then don't throw your partner under the bus when you inevitably run into issues as a result of your decision. It's just not a good look. 

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by liamp51

He just Bloviates. 

32 minutes ago, liamp51 said:

RSR is a big talker. I appreciate what PMDG does but RSR always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He's definitely a politician at heart. It's always everybody else's fault - he can never seem to take ownership of his own issues/short comings. Oh well. I hope a new dev works on more Boeing aircraft. 

Keep in mind that much of the systems emulation by the Fenix A320 is done in an external process running Pro Sim.  From what I understand, because of this, the Fenix A320 relies less on the MSFS SDK and that’s why when SU5 broke a lot of 3rd party add-on planes, Fenix said SU5 didn’t impact them as much.  How could one of the most complex airliners ever made for a simulator not be impacted by SU5 while less complex planes were broken by SU5?  Because Fenix is using the external process running Pro Sim for much of its systems emulation, rather than going through the MSFS SDK.

The PMDG 737 relies much more on the MSFS SDK because PMDG also want to release it for the X-Box (I assume because of the external process running Pro Sim, it’s a core reason why the Fenix A320 won’t be released for the X-Box).

So it’s not an apples to apples comparison when you compare the struggles that PMDG is going through, with what Fenix is experiencing with SU7.  Its very possible that SU7 has made things easier for Fenix because Fenix is using a different architecture of running the systems in an external process using Pro Sim, while making things harder for PMDG because the PMDG 737 is more heavily tied to the MSFS SDK.

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

37 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Nice update! How about this:

"We’re very happy with the direction of MSFS and it’s respective development tools – Sim Update 7 has improved our ability to quickly iterate new testing builds, and overall our development rate has accelerated significantly as new updates release for the title."

After all negativity at lease some developers happy! LOL

I just read the news from PMDG in FSelite and i started to swear with Asobo, then i saw this, Asobo you are forgiven.

That electrical demonstration video is stellar. Thanks for going above and beyond @Aamir.

All it needs is the ability for bulbs to burn out over the years and we'll have every reason imaginable to actually use our checklists. 🤣

These updates are just ridiculous - in the best way possible. Each time I read through one of these I start thinking "oh come on - no, no, that's too much, that can't be real". Case in point: the annotations video. So you have a simulation of a tablet running within a simulation of an A320 with all of it's systems and flight model, running in a simulation of the environment, and you built an application on said tablet to draw comments?

And that's just one tiny example - the tip of the iceberg. The level of detail going into this is stunning. I am now 99.99% sure we are all living in a simulation, and I am typing this on a simulation of a computer, within a simulation of the environment, within...

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by enright

14 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Keep in mind that much of the systems emulation by the Fenix A320 is done in an external process running Pro Sim.  From what I understand, because of this, the Fenix A320 relies less on the MSFS SDK and that’s why when SU5 broke a lot of 3rd party add-on planes, Fenix said SU5 didn’t impact them as much.  How could one of the most complex airliners ever made for a simulator not be impacted by SU5 while less complex planes were broken by SU5?  Because Fenix is using the external process running Pro Sim for much of its systems emulation, rather than going through the MSFS SDK.

The PMDG 737 relies much more on the MSFS SDK because PMDG also want to release it for the X-Box (I assume because of the external process running Pro Sim, it’s a core reason why the Fenix A320 won’t be released for the X-Box).

So it’s not an apples to apples comparison when you compare the struggles that PMDG is going through, with what Fenix is experiencing with SU7.  Its very possible that SU7 has made things easier for Fenix because Fenix is using a different architecture of running the systems in an external process using Pro Sim, while making things harder for PMDG because the PMDG 737 is more heavily tied to the MSFS SDK.

I get that, and I really do respect that PMDG for trying to do all this natively. I just wish they'd communicate a little more efficiently lol. I guess it's more of a personal gripe.