3 hours ago, WestAir said:

Iceman, no offense brother, but how can you comment when you don't even know what the showstopper is? 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your comment forces us to believe either you or Rob. 

I don't think anything Iceman has said is inaccurate though. As a proxy to check Iceman's comments, Fenix have more or less been able to do everything they wanted, aside from the weather radar.  So what Iceman is saying seems to be consistent with what Fenix is reporting (Aamir said Fenix's productivity after SU7 has been really high, while Randazzo said PMDG suffered setbacks after SU7).

One thing you have to consider is that PMDG is targeting their line of aircraft for both PC and X-Box.  The plan for PMDG was to always release the 737 and other airliners on X-Box.  To do this, PMDG has to adhere closely to the MSFS SDK.  The software development term I like to use is "tightly coupled" and it appears PMDG's airliners are tightly coupled to the MSFS SDK.

Conversely, the FBW A320 and Fenix will not be released for X-Box. FBW also pulled the FBW A320 from the PC marketplace in MSFS.  For Fenix, Aamir mentioned they only work with the very mature parts of the MSFS SDK and Aamir seemed to imply Fenix isn't using the newer parts of the MSFS SDK.  So the Fenix A320 is not as "tightly coupled" to the MSFS SDK as the PMDG 737 is.  This is probably why Fenix can do everything they want to do, because they are using Prosim to emulate the A320 systems in an external process, while the PMDG 737 systems are probably much more integrated with the MSFS SDK.

So what Iceman is saying can be true, while what Randazzo is saying can also be true.  The FBW A320 and Fenix A320 are not targeting X-Box, while the PMDG 737 is targeting X-Box, so their design and architecture can be very different.

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

I don't think anything Iceman has said is inaccurate though. As a proxy to check Iceman's comments, Fenix have more or less been able to do everything they wanted, aside from the weather radar.

One thing you have to consider is that PMDG is targeting their line of aircraft for both PC and X-Box.  The plan for PMDG was to always release the 737 and other airliners on X-Box.  To do this, PMDG has to adhere closely to the MSFS SDK.  The software development term I like to use is "tightly coupled" and it appears PMDG's airliners are tightly coupled to the MSFS SDK.

Conversely, the FBW A320 and Fenix will not be released for X-Box. FBW also pulled the FBW A320 from the PC marketplace in MSFS.  For Fenix, Aamir mentioned they only work with the very mature parts of the MSFS SDK and Aamir seemed to imply Fenix isn't using the newer parts of the MSFS SDK.  So the Fenix A320 is not as "tightly coupled" to the MSFS SDK as the PMDG 737 is.  This is probably why Fenix can do everything they want to do, because they are using Prosim to emulate the A320 systems in an external process, while the PMDG 737 systems are probably much more integrated with the MSFS SDK.

So what Iceman is saying can be true, while what Randazzo is saying can also be true.  The FBW A320 and Fenix A320 are not targeting X-Box, while the PMDG 737 is targeting X-Box, so their design and architecture can be very different.

Agree with all that, but....FENIX may also be in the same boat as PMDG at this particular time.  They might both need sim side things required for things that are not necessarily aircraft specific.  FENIX pretty much stopped making regular dev vids at about that same time RSR came out and said they needed whatever from ASOBO.  Both aircraft look fairly complete from the avionics and systems side.  I might be reading too much into this, but that's my take.

3 hours ago, WestAir said:

Iceman, no offense brother, but how can you comment when you don't even know what the showstopper is? 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your comment forces us to believe either you or Rob. 

I can comment because I know the SDK inside and out, specific to aircraft systems and avionics development. There are simply no showstoppers from the SDK side aside from a weather API (which we have already requested from Asobo and is expected to come out this year).

• Displays: there are already TWO functioning API's available for drawing displays from WASM: GDI+ and low-level. This is the same technology that Aerosoft used to draw their CRJ displays. There are no limitations here whatsoever - anything you imagine can be drawn, animated, updated, etc.
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FGDI%2B.htm
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FLow_Level_API%2FLow_Level_API.htm
• Simulation/environment data: As I said, everything is available via the SimConnect API for both reading and writing data from the sim, with the exception of granular weather data for drawing custom weather radars. The same way it was in P3D and FSX. For that, you can either choose to use the default, uncustomizable weather radar (what WT is using for NEXRAD in the NXi), or wait for a proper API which should be coming shortly (like the CRJ).
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FSimVars%2FSimulation_Variables.htm
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FGauge_API%2FGauge_API.htm
• Flight model: allows for full customization based on aircraft geometry and aerodynamic coefficients using the blade element model that X-Plane uses. Fully documented here and works perfectly fine for anyone with a proper understanding of 6DOF flight model physics. There are a couple improvements that could be made (such as further customization of speedbrake/spoilers and ground friction coefficients), but no showstoppers. Worst case scenario, you can make an external flight model like Fenix and just communicate aircraft position back to the sim via the SimConnect API mentioned above.
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Content_Configuration%2FSimObjects%2FAircraft_SimO%2FFlight_Model_Definition.htm
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Additional_Information%2FFlight_Model_Physics.htm
• Engine model: very similar to the engine model parameters that were used in P3D and FSX. However, this is a non-issue as any decent-fidelity aircraft is just overwriting the basic built-in engine model with a custom one using SimConnect. This is what we are doing at FBW: https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/tree/master/src/fadec/src
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Content_Configuration%2FSimObjects%2FAircraft_SimO%2FEngine_Config_Definition.htm
• Any other systems (hydraulic, electric, pneumatic, air conditioning, etc.) have zero reliance on sim API's aside from fetching environmental/simulation data via SimConnect. I can describe this in further detail in another comment if you wish but I'm sure you get the point now.

 

I have no ulterior motives or anything to gain from speaking my mind here - I contribute to FBW in my free time, not for a paycheck. I just want the community to know the truth and read another perspective here. Anyone who sells a payware aircraft on the other hand, has an obligation to sell as many copies as possible to recoup investments and increase profits, so they naturally have a motive to maintain a good public image of themselves, even if it means deflecting blame onto others in some cases.

23 minutes ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

Agree with all that, but....FENIX may also be in the same boat as PMDG at this particular time.  They might both need sim side things required for things that are not necessarily aircraft specific.  FENIX pretty much stopped making regular dev vids at about that same time RSR came out and said they needed whatever from ASOBO.  Both aircraft look fairly complete from the avionics and systems side.  I might be reading too much into this, but that's my take.

Don't think so, based on what I read from Aamir.  Aamir said their productivity was really, really good after SU7.  It was like a polar opposite of what PMDG are experiencing after SU7. It didn't sound like Fenix is waiting for Asobo at all.

The difference is, the Fenix A320 could be the highest fidelity aircraft ever released for a flight simulator (ie. the most "study level" among "study level" aircraft for flight sims).  My guess is that Fenix is busy getting all the failures and other details right for their Fenix A320, and that's what's taking them so long, rather than them waiting on Asobo to change the SDK.

Because we know the Fenix A320 runs on Prosim, because Aamir said Fenix only works with the most mature parts of the MSFS SDK, and because Aamir said the productivity of the Fenix team couldn't have been better after SU7, it's reasonable to conclude that Fenix has everything they need from the MSFS SDK.

I'm a little busy now so maybe I can find the quote from Aamir where he said Fenix productivity after SU7 has been really good when I am free. But I think Aamir said this about a month ago so you can check either his comments here in Avism, or check the Fenix website.

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

Don't think so, based on what I read from Aamir.  Aamir said their productivity was really, really good after SU7.  It was like a polar opposite of what PMDG are experiencing after SU7. It didn't sound like Fenix is waiting for Asobo at all.

The difference is, the Fenix A320 could be the highest fidelity aircraft ever released for a flight simulator (ie. the most "study level" among "study level" aircraft for flight sims).  My guess is that Fenix is busy getting all the failures and other details right for their Fenix A320, and that's what's taking them so long, rather than them waiting on Asobo to change the SDK.

Because we know the Fenix A320 runs on Prosimm, because Aamir said Fenix only works with the most mature parts of the MSFS SDK, and because Aamir said the productivity of the Fenix team couldn't have been better after SU7, it's reasonable to conclude that Fenix has everything they need from the MSFS SDK.

I'm a little busy now so maybe I can find the quote from Aamir where he said Fenix productivity after SU7 has been really good when I am free. But I think Aamir said this about a month ago so you can check either his comments here in Avism, or check the Fenix website.

I hear you.  Don't disagree with anything there, but remember, they were aiming to be in beta about 3 months ago.  Something stopped them cold in their tracks. Anyways, I'm probably reading way too much into this. 

I would take this much further:  "The difference is, the Fenix A320 could be the highest fidelity aircraft ever released for a flight simulator (ie. the most "study level" among "study level" aircraft for flight sims)."  from what we've seen just on the navigational side of the house, IT WILL BE the most advanced aircraft for ANY sim when released...hehe.

8 minutes ago, IcemanFBW said:

I can comment because I know the SDK inside and out, specific to aircraft systems and avionics development. There are simply no showstoppers from the SDK side aside from a weather API (which we have already requested from Asobo and is expected to come out this year).

• Displays: there are already TWO functioning API's available for drawing displays from WASM: GDI+ and low-level. This is the same technology that Aerosoft used to draw their CRJ displays. There are no limitations here whatsoever - anything you imagine can be drawn, animated, updated, etc.
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FGDI%2B.htm
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FLow_Level_API%2FLow_Level_API.htm
• Simulation/environment data: As I said, everything is available via the SimConnect API for both reading and writing data from the sim, with the exception of granular weather data for drawing custom weather radars. The same way it was in P3D and FSX. For that, you can either choose to use the default, uncustomizable weather radar (what WT is using for NEXRAD in the NXi), or wait for a proper API which should be coming shortly (like the CRJ).
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FSimVars%2FSimulation_Variables.htm
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FGauge_API%2FGauge_API.htm
• Flight model: allows for full customization based on aircraft geometry and aerodynamic coefficients using the blade element model that X-Plane uses. Fully documented here and works perfectly fine for anyone with a proper understanding of 6DOF flight model physics. There are a couple improvements that could be made (such as further customization of speedbrake/spoilers and ground friction coefficients), but no showstoppers. Worst case scenario, you can make an external flight model like Fenix and just communicate aircraft position back to the sim via the SimConnect API mentioned above.
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Content_Configuration%2FSimObjects%2FAircraft_SimO%2FFlight_Model_Definition.htm
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Additional_Information%2FFlight_Model_Physics.htm
• Engine model: very similar to the engine model parameters that were used in P3D and FSX. However, this is a non-issue as any decent-fidelity aircraft is just overwriting the basic built-in engine model with a custom one using SimConnect. This is what we are doing at FBW: https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/tree/master/src/fadec/src
  • https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Content_Configuration%2FSimObjects%2FAircraft_SimO%2FEngine_Config_Definition.htm
• Any other systems (hydraulic, electric, pneumatic, air conditioning, etc.) have zero reliance on sim API's aside from fetching environmental/simulation data via SimConnect. I can describe this in further detail in another comment if you wish but I'm sure you get the point now.

 

I have no ulterior motives or anything to gain from speaking my mind here - I contribute to FBW in my free time, not for a paycheck. I just want the community to know the truth and read another perspective here. Anyone who sells a payware aircraft on the other hand, has an obligation to sell as many copies as possible to recoup investments and increase profits, so they naturally have a motive to maintain a good public image of themselves, even if it means deflecting blame onto others in some cases.

Bud, none of that other than the WX radar, applies to what PMDG was talking about.  PMDG can release the aircraft without WX radar if they want to.  There's something else outside the aircraft side of the house they need or want.  They do other things that don't apply to any of that, which may require things from the sim side, whatever those may be.

15 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Don't think so, based on what I read from Aamir.  Aamir said their productivity was really, really good after SU7.  It was like a polar opposite of what PMDG are experiencing after SU7. It didn't sound like Fenix is waiting for Asobo at all.

The difference is, the Fenix A320 could be the highest fidelity aircraft ever released for a flight simulator (ie. the most "study level" among "study level" aircraft for flight sims).  My guess is that Fenix is busy getting all the failures and other details right for their Fenix A320, and that's what's taking them so long, rather than them waiting on Asobo to change the SDK.

Because we know the Fenix A320 runs on Prosim, because Aamir said Fenix only works with the most mature parts of the MSFS SDK, and because Aamir said the productivity of the Fenix team couldn't have been better after SU7, it's reasonable to conclude that Fenix has everything they need from the MSFS SDK.

I'm a little busy now so maybe I can find the quote from Aamir where he said Fenix productivity after SU7 has been really good when I am free. But I think Aamir said this about a month ago so you can check either his comments here in Avism, or check the Fenix website.

 

Well, I think you just convinced me to go with Fenix over PMDG at this point...

 

I'm very leery of any high-fidelity, study level add-on AC, developed to run on the Xbox platform and wedged into the SDK for same...

Nothing else than the usual Randazzo PR stunt. Hes a great communicator, PMDG's not going anywhere. Hes just trying to get what he wants from Asobo/MSFS (whatever that may be).

1 minute ago, Kilo60 said:

 

Well, I think you just convinced me to go with Fenix over PMDG at this point...

 

I'm very leery of any high-fidelity, study level add-on AC, developed to run on the Xbox platform and wedged into the SDK for same...

In all fairness, I think it's a bit premature to pick one over the other at this point.

I'll be getting both of the planes.  And equally excited for both.  But yeah, I'm also leery about something that can run on the xbox platform.  

Just now, Keirtt said:

In all fairness, I think it's a bit premature to pick one over the other at this point.

Right, both will be great aircraft.  You'll definitely want both aircraft.

Simple fact they still do all their testing and debugging in P3D should ring our alarm bells. yes, they might/may be reasons for it, but besides that, i think it proves the point that they still havent fully moved fromp legacy sims, and hence, adopted new techniques and workflows.

3 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

Simple fact they still do all their testing and debugging in P3D should ring our alarm bells. yes, they might/may be reasons for it, but besides that, i think it proves the point that they still havent fully moved fromp legacy sims, and hence, adopted new techniques and workflows.

 

If that's the case, there's no way they are going to get decent FPS on Xbox and will have to seriously gimp systems or graphics to get decent FPS...

 

Hopefully there's two versions at release.

 

The FPS in P3D take a huge hit in P3D on my NGX...

7 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

 

If that's the case, there's no way they are going to get decent FPS on Xbox and will have to seriously gimp systems or graphics to get decent FPS...

 

Hopefully there's two versions at release.

 

The FPS in P3D take a huge hit in P3D on my NGX...

How does de-bugging tools have anything to do with FPS or performance?...LOL  It simply means it takes longer to develop.

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by Jeff Nielsen

24 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

I'm very leery of any high-fidelity, study level add-on AC, developed to run on the Xbox platform and wedged into the SDK for same...

I know the DC-6 was yanked from the MSFS marketplace because the actual X-Box release of the DC-6 performed differently than the testing they did on the X-Box test environment.  But from what I understand, the DC-6 is the same on the X-Box and PC.

I'm sure the PMDG 737 will be virtually "study level" on the PC and X-Box. 

It's just that the Fenix A320 is supposedly surpassing the all other "study level" airliners on all other platforms, XP and P3D included.  I suppose the Fenix A320 is in a class of its own, if it lives up to its hype.