Seafront Simulations are also having to refund Xbox users due to a glitch.

Seafront Simulations are also having to refund Xbox users due to a glitch.

I think Just Flight has the same problems with their Pipers, I'm glad I didn't invest in the Xbox platform that I intended to do from the beginning.

Edited December 14, 20214 yr by Ixoye

2 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Wow PMDG blaming Asobo/MS for not lining their pockets at the moment because the MSFS product don't fully support their product. Sounds like greed before patience pointing fingers here. Maybe they should take a step back in time and support ESP.

No one outside of Microsoft/Asobo and PMDG has any clue on what's going on there, so let's stay fair and not blindly accuse them of unfairly pointing fingers just because there's been some bad sentiment towards the developer here in the last few days.

3 hours ago, Mike S KPDX said:

I also understood that this was going to be a long road ahead when they switched the base programming from a C++ format to literally a web page engine.  The main goal of WebAssembly is to enable high-performance applications on web pages,

My knowledge of computer programming is admittedly 40 years out-of-date. But as someone who used to write in assembly language, I can't imagine that a web-page engine could perform as well as natively-written low-level code. Perhaps today's compilers and interpreters do such a superb job that it really doesn't matter anymore. About a year ago, I read a comment on this board that "I can't imagine anything less relevant to performance than what language was used to code the program." Again, my knowledge of these things is antiquated. But I can't help wondering whether people get lazy and just hope that modern hardware can mask their lack of effort.

The programming scene is as good as it gets right now.

bs

14 minutes ago, David Mills said:

My knowledge of computer programming is admittedly 40 years out-of-date. But as someone who used to write in assembly language, I can't imagine that a web-page engine could perform as well as natively-written low-level code. Perhaps today's compilers and interpreters do such a superb job that it really doesn't matter anymore. About a year ago, I read a comment on this board that "I can't imagine anything less relevant to performance than what language was used to code the program." Again, my knowledge of these things is antiquated. But I can't help wondering whether people get lazy and just hope that modern hardware can mask their lack of effort.

My understanding is that web "ASSEMBLY" is very low level.  By hand or compiler, I don't think it matters too much these days. 

Edited December 14, 20214 yr by tyrodes

17 minutes ago, David Mills said:

My knowledge of computer programming is admittedly 40 years out-of-date. But as someone who used to write in assembly language, I can't imagine that a web-page engine could perform as well as natively-written low-level code. Perhaps today's compilers and interpreters do such a superb job that it really doesn't matter anymore. About a year ago, I read a comment on this board that "I can't imagine anything less relevant to performance than what language was used to code the program." Again, my knowledge of these things is antiquated. But I can't help wondering whether people get lazy and just hope that modern hardware can mask their lack of effort.

Modern CPUs are specifically designed to run code in compatible virtual machines as close to native speed as possible and I believe WASM is explicitly intended to take advantage of these features.

Certainly you couldn't have MSFS running on both PC and XB without using some kind of internal virtual machine and unfortunately therein appears to lie the problem that PMDG have run into - despite MS's belief that the virtual machine hosting the WASM code would run code identically on both PC and XB, it doesn't and because the modules can't be tested on an actual XB (either by devs or by MS) the extent of this problem wasn't discovered till the plane was actually released.

5 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Modern CPUs are specifically designed to run code in compatible virtual machines as close to native speed as possible and I believe WASM is explicitly intended to take advantage of these features.

Certainly you couldn't have MSFS running on both PC and XB without using some kind of internal virtual machine and unfortunately therein appears to lie the problem that PMDG have run into - despite MS's belief that the virtual machine hosting the WASM code would run code identically on both PC and XB, it doesn't and because the modules can't be tested on an actual XB (either by devs or by MS) the extent of this problem wasn't discovered till the plane was actually released.

This is way over my head, but does that mean that there is no way to beta test anything that will go on an X Box?

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

What's not to like?

That I don't have enough time to paint them all? 🤔 (oh wait...that's not MS/AS or a PMDG problem). 🙂

And since, like you mention, you're humming along at lower altitudes and slower speeds than the jets of today....you're not pushing the throttles forward and a minute later you're rocketing so high you can't make a leisurely turn and enjoy this when you're heading to KLAX. like this:

 

6 hours ago, WestAir said:

Depends. Would you fly the Ford Trimotor?

Sorry to the OP but just had to comment that I went for a ride in the Trimotor at EAA Oshkosh in 2017. Original wooden seats! Very, very cool and memorable!

7 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Why? There is no money to be made from P3D. PMDG may go bankrupt if they keep making new products for P3D.

On the other hand for MSFS, PMDG sold more DC6 for MSFS in the first 12 hours, than the combined DC6 sales for P3D + XP + FSX for all time.  When PMDG makes more money in 12 hours of sales than they ever made for over an entire decade on P3D + XP + FSX, why would PMDG want to go back to P3D?

The DC6 is a very niche product : neither GA nor current airliner.  PMDG have a habit of doing these (see also the JS41 Jetstream) and I presume it was a toe in the water for them in a new and still developing simulator.  It sold in big numbers in MSFS because MSFS is so far lacking quality aircraft, certainly for big-hitters like PMDG.

That isn't the case in P3D where PMDG offer their core products, the 737, 777 and 747 and there are offerings of similar quality from other developers.  Why would the DC6 sell in big numbers there?  Why would PMDG risk the reputation of their core products in MSFS until the simulator has settled down?  No doubt that time will come but it hasn't yet.

9 hours ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

10 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

So if you believe in this, then it's imperative that PMDG go full throttle with MSFS and get their products out on MSFS  as fast as possible, to beat the coming competition.

All the more reason why PMDG shouldn't put too much resources on P3D, and perhaps even shift more of their P3D resources to work on their MSFS products.  The logic of your argument right there is counter to what @Beardyman says, that PMDG should shift their resources back to P3D.

PS. I don't think the "pent up" demand is as huge as a factor, as you claim (it's probably a factor, but not a major factor, IMO).  The market size of MSFS is just that much bigger than P3D and even XP.  MSFS is just a large market, and brought a lot of people that weren't flight simming, into flight simulation again.

Ya I get your point, but I wasn’t at all arguing whether they should or shouldn’t go back to p3d, In fact I’m not a p3d user at all anymore since msfs and don’t benefit from them developing for p3d, it’s a speculation on my part as to why the sales were so high, and unless you are privy to pmdgs or Microsoft’s hard data, your point is strictly a speculation as well, so maybe it’s the influx of users, or maybe it’s not and more so a factor of a dry market in available add-ons of that level, I’m not sure, and you can’t be sure either (unless you do have access to their hard data, which you may) 

I'm in this group.  I purchased the B737 from PMDG for FSX, but never considered the DC-6.  I purchased the DC-6 for MSFS because it was the first product for the new platform from PMDG and the first true study level product.

Releasing the DC-6 first may have been marketing genius!

11 hours ago, David Mills said:

My knowledge of computer programming is admittedly 40 years out-of-date. But as someone who used to write in assembly language, I can't imagine that a web-page engine could perform as well as natively-written low-level code. Perhaps today's compilers and interpreters do such a superb job that it really doesn't matter anymore. About a year ago, I read a comment on this board that "I can't imagine anything less relevant to performance than what language was used to code the program." Again, my knowledge of these things is antiquated. But I can't help wondering whether people get lazy and just hope that modern hardware can mask their lack of effort.

Of course they can't... 40yrs didn't / will never make that difference David...

They're surely trying to homogenize the coding, but it has it's drawbacks, and serious developers are going to find it difficult to overcome some of those, unless they opt for solutions like those of running the Flight and Systems models externally.

Some year ago when we were lacking good airliner flight simulation, in the desert between Aerowinx PS1 and Aerowinx PSX, I thought that one day companies like CAE, Thales, ... could stream their flight and systems modelling. People will buy full flight simulator clients that would then run their data across the Internet at powerful cloud-based datacentres where the core simulation was being served. OFC such a solution would require really fast & stable Internet access.

WASM-ization of the flight and systems models is being used already in a product like the FlyInside Bell 49 G, and I find it very acceptable performance wise, comparing to a few identical approaches I tried in the past in FSX, P3D and even XP. Maybe some sophisticated products can take advantage of such an approach. Maybe that was the light at the end of the tunnel A2A saw for their Accusim products port into MSFS...

Edited December 15, 20214 yr by jcomm

11 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

This is way over my head, but does that mean that there is no way to beta test anything that will go on an X Box?

Short answer - Yes.

Developers are given a software emulator of an X-Box and it appears MS testing use that as well so the first time anything runs on a real XB is when customers buy it.