5 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

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.

I think the main reason Fenix won’t be on Xbox is due to it’s use of the external prosim application which either is not compatible with or allowed on the Xbox platform,  not that it is any more or less “study level.”

13 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

I think the main reason Fenix won’t be on Xbox is due to it’s use of the external prosim application which either is not compatible with or allowed on the Xbox platform,  not that it is any more or less “study level.”

Yes, the assumption is that Fenix won't be on X-Box because it's running Prosim externally. What I meant was, if you consider the DC-6 for MSFS to be "study level" on PC, then the DC-6 was supposed to be the same on X-Box (at least in the X-Box testing environment).

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

7 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

I think the main reason Fenix won’t be on Xbox is due to it’s use of the external prosim application which either is not compatible with or allowed on the Xbox platform,  not that it is any more or less “study level.”

Well, we don't yet know what new features PMDG have added to the MSFS version, if anything.  We have already seen what FENIX has added which have far surpassed anything that has been done to date in any sim.

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by Jeff Nielsen

37 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...

Well, if things stay as ii is, any aicraft using WASM wont get onto Xbox anyway.

Thanks for the clarification Iceman. It'll be interesting to see how things progress for PMDG.

The fix they need might come tomorrow or it might never come. They may fair better by starting over from scratch in WASM. It would take a few years, but at this point...

PMDG's biggest problem is being too open with the community. Leonardo, FSLabs, and others have said the bare minimum and have given 0 release timelines. Any dev that walks back on release dates 4 times will catch flak.

Hopefully Rob learned his lesson.

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by WestAir

7 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Thanks for the clarification Iceman. It'll be interesting to see how things progress for PMDG.

The fix they need might come tomorrow or it might never come. They may fair better by starting over from scratch in WASM. It would take a few years, but at this point...

I highly doubt you'll see them abandon the current project to redo it in WASM. I feel confident that RSR will get what he wants... it'll just take a few phone calls/emails to sort things out.

11 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

I highly doubt you'll see them abandon the current project to redo it in WASM. I feel confident that RSR will get what he wants... it'll just take a few phone calls/emails to sort things out.

They already are using WASM. That's the only way to compile a C++ gauge in MSFS (the alternative being an HTML gauge, which doesn't obscure the source code - not ideal for payware). It replaced the old way of compiling into a .DLL in P3D/FSX, which was also unsafer. However, this doesn't affect how the code is written at all, only how it's built/compiled into an executable format once it's ready to be put in the sim. It's as simple as specifying some different command line options, as you can see in our code:

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L26

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L61

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L114

 

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by IcemanFBW

16 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Thanks for the clarification Iceman. It'll be interesting to see how things progress for PMDG.

The fix they need might come tomorrow or it might never come. They may fair better by starting over from scratch in WASM. It would take a few years, but at this point...

PMDG's biggest problem is being too open with the community. Leonardo, FSLabs, and others have said the bare minimum and have given 0 release timelines. Any dev that walks back on release dates 4 times will catch flak.

Hopefully Rob learned his lesson.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with saying you're shooting for this and that.  People just need to understand that stuff happens.  People seem to think that anything a dev says is a 'promise'.  

14 minutes ago, IcemanFBW said:

They already are using WASM. That's the only way to compile a C++ gauge in MSFS (the alternative being an HTML gauge, which doesn't obscure the source code - not ideal for payware). It replaced the old way of compiling into a .DLL in P3D/FSX, which was also unsafer. However, this doesn't affect how the code is written at all, only how it's built/compiled into an executable format once it's ready to be put in the sim. It's as simple as specifying some different command line options, as you can see in our code:

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L26

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L61

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L114

 

Thanks for the clarification

12 hours ago, IcemanFBW said:

I'm not usually one to comment on issue involving other devs, but I feel the need to point out something that simply isn't true.

There is absolutely nothing regarding the SDK that presents a blocking issue to aircraft development besides a custom weather radar API.

I can say that with 95% certainty having worked with aircraft development in MSFS for nearly a year and a half, and having spoken to numerous other devs and with Asobo developers themselves. Although we primarily use HTML gauges at FBW, we also use WASM gauges for systems and autopilot/fly-by-wire, the same technology that payware aircraft use for all of their code. And if Aerosoft is able to put out the CRJ as a complete product (with the exception of WX & terrain radar), I don't see why others cannot do the same.

 

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

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.

I agree with abrams_tank completely. Frankly, I find judging one developer's stance based on another's statements to be nonsensical. Developers aren't building the same aircraft, they are evidently (see Fenix) not all using the same approach and they surely don't all have the same background or business plan. PMDG never said complex aircraft weren't possible with MSFS or the SDK. They said their aircraft have run into issues they need worked out, which is why I believe the above statement from Iceman missed the point - no offense. What PMDG say doesn't have to be true for others, while what FBW say also doesn't have to be true for others. Especially since no one here even knows what the issue that is stopping PMDG even is. If Aerosoft is able to build the CRJ, they obviously don't need whatever it is that PMDG need and I have no idea why one should invalidate the other.

 

Interesting.... it would appear a CM has reached out to PMDG directly on their forums 

1 hour ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

Honestly, I don't see any problem with saying you're shooting for this and that.  People just need to understand that stuff happens.  People seem to think that anything a dev says is a 'promise'.  

Between you and me, I love the open communication Rob gives. What you said is also true though, that people think release dates are promises.

Leonardo, GSX, FSLabs, FenixSim, FBW, PMDG... none of these devs have released their major anticipated products, but only PMDG has a negative public approval rating from not releasing, and it's entirely because of Rob's oversharing.

As much as I love reading what he has to say, he has to realize that the larger community just isn't prepared for that sort of open door honesty.

14 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

Interesting.... it would appear a CM has reached out to PMDG directly on their forums 

nice. 

12 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Between you and me, I love the open communication Rob gives. What you said is also true though, that people think release dates are promises.

Leonardo, GSX, FSLabs, FenixSim, FBW, PMDG... none of these devs have released their major anticipated products, but only PMDG has a negative public approval rating from not releasing, and it's entirely because of Rob's oversharing.

As much as I love reading what he has to say, he has to realize that the larger community just isn't prepared for that sort of open door honesty.

Yeah, you can't win either way...hehe

30 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

Interesting.... it would appear a CM has reached out to PMDG directly on their forums 

All due respect to SeedyL, I don't think he's really the one to talk to....lol.  He's just trying to help.  It sounds like PMDG is already talking to ASOBO, they're just NOT getting the answer they need.  They may not be understanding what they want and how to implement it.

Edited January 16, 20224 yr by Jeff Nielsen