19 hours ago, rocketlaunch said:

I was champing at the bit for 737 from PMDG but since building a new rig and losing myself in VR I have rediscovered my love for GA flying. Like you say happy to wait until they get it right for release. 

Yup! The long delay in getting tube liners into the sim and the great visuals have turned me into bonafide GA guy, VFR even, and have lost interest in procedure driven airliners.

2 minutes ago, GSalden said:

🍿 great speculation topic 🍺

It is the soap opera 'Randazzo street'. New episode every week. The Christmas special proved popular with folks discussing Christmas vacation differences in different countries.

25 minutes ago, RICHUK said:

It is the soap opera 'Randazzo street'. New episode every week. The Christmas special proved popular with folks discussing Christmas vacation differences in different countries.

To be fair though, PMDG is leading the way for other study level airliners that rely on the MSFS SDK and also want to sell their study level airliners on X-Box. I think Randazzo said that PMDG is like the lead ship sweeping the ocean of mines, while all the other ships follow behind PMDG.  PMDG will is probably helping to clear the path for other 3rd party devs like Leonardo (Maddog), Quality Wings, etc.

For the MSFS SDK, it will be a watershed moment when a study level airliner like the PMDG 737 is released.  I expect other study level airliners from other 3rd party devs to follow (assuming the PMDG 737 is the first study level airliner released for MSFS).

This excludes projects that don't plant to release on the X-Box like the Fenix A320.  It appears if the 3rd party dev does not plan to release on X-Box, they can use an architecture like Fenix, where most of the systems are simulated in an external process, rather than interfacing with the MSFS SDK.

 

 

1 minute ago, abrams_tank said:

To be fair though, PMDG is leading the way for other study level airliners that rely on the MSFS SDK and also want to sell their study level airliners on X-Box. I think Randazzo said that PMDG is like the lead ship sweeping the ocean of mines, while all the other ships follow behind PMDG.  PMDG will is probably helping to clear the path for other 3rd party devs like Leonardo (Maddog), Quality Wings, etc.

For the MSFS SDK, it will be a watershed moment when a study level airliner like the PMDG 737 is released.  I expect other study level airliners from other 3rd party devs to follow (assuming the PMDG 737 is the first study level airliner released for MSFS).

This excludes projects that don't plant to release on the X-Box like the Fenix A320.  It appears if the 3rd party dev does not plan to release on X-Box, they can use an architecture like Fenix, where most of the systems are simulated in an external process, rather than interfacing with the MSFS SDK.

 

 

Absolutely. What Randazzo says might or might not be true. In any case, I will be the first in line to purchase the 737 when it is released whatever happens between now and then. I'm sure it will be great and all that jazz..

However, my post is meant as a light-hearted joke. Randazzo has always created drama since PMDG started. It is what he does - hence the soap opera reference. 

22 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

To be fair though, PMDG is leading the way for other study level airliners that rely on the MSFS SDK and also want to sell their study level airliners on X-Box. I think Randazzo said that PMDG is like the lead ship sweeping the ocean of mines, while all the other ships follow behind PMDG.  PMDG will is probably helping to clear the path for other 3rd party devs like Leonardo (Maddog), Quality Wings, etc.

For the MSFS SDK, it will be a watershed moment when a study level airliner like the PMDG 737 is released.  I expect other study level airliners from other 3rd party devs to follow (assuming the PMDG 737 is the first study level airliner released for MSFS).

This excludes projects that don't plant to release on the X-Box like the Fenix A320.  It appears if the 3rd party dev does not plan to release on X-Box, they can use an architecture like Fenix, where most of the systems are simulated in an external process, rather than interfacing with the MSFS SDK.

 

 

FYI : I already fly a study level ac in MSFS since January 2021….

Imho PMDG is not the first, but they surely might help with pushing Asobo to enhance the SDK/Simconnect.

19 minutes ago, RICHUK said:

Randazzo has always created drama since PMDG started.

Right. I'm so happy PMDG doesn't produce planes I like. Never liked how they communicated and did their business. Can't wait for the Fenix A320!

55 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

To be fair though, PMDG is leading the way for other study level airliners that rely on the MSFS SDK and also want to sell their study level airliners on X-Box. I think Randazzo said that PMDG is like the lead ship sweeping the ocean of mines, while all the other ships follow behind PMDG.  PMDG will is probably helping to clear the path for other 3rd party devs like Leonardo (Maddog), Quality Wings, etc.

Well, that's what the says.....

At any rate, as soon as some other developer announces that they are about to release a 737, PMDG's will be out the door and in the Market Place faster than the pasties drop from the t... of a Las Vegas stripper.

Hooray!  Crisis averted... again.

Thank God Randazzo got in touch again. I wonder what he will say in the next 12 hours. 

Jokes aside, glad things are progressing either way. Haven't bought one since FSX and likely won't now either, but if it helps smoothing things over for other devs bringing other aircrafts i am all for it.

1 hour ago, MDFlier said:

The one thing he didn't actually say was that Asobo had to "fix" something.

Maybe that's because they didn't need to fix anything.

Buried within Randazzo's vague forum posts, seemingly (and successfully) to get his followers riled up against Asobo, he said that the issue was something to do with what he perceived to be a fix required to the base simulator. On that note, he also said "if we [PMDG] are right" about that -- which suggests that Asobo had already responded and disagreed with him. So, it could be that Asobo have now convinced PMDG that they were wrong. Could be the other way round. But as PMDG would not have access to, and visibility of, Asobo's code that sits below the SDK toolkit, I would probably lean in favour of Asobo being correct about -- well, whatever the issue actually was.

Either way, I also highly doubt lots of forum posts rallying against Asobo to "respond" (the other implication in Randazzo's comments being, despite his initial claim, actually Asobo did respond, just not in agreement with him) resulted in this turnaround. Asobo work for Microsoft, not PMDG, and only have the time available dictated by the development plan that comes from the top.

At least there's progress, and hopefully in future Randazzo will keep his communication between PMDG and Microsoft/Asobo, not bring gripes (unprofessionally) into the public forum, in such a way that is vague enough for people to speculate unfairly when Asobo are under contractual NDA and can't respond publicly to give their side.

1 hour ago, March Hare said:

Maybe that's because they didn't need to fix anything.

Buried within Randazzo's vague forum posts, seemingly (and successfully) to get his followers riled up against Asobo, he said that the issue was something to do with what he perceived to be a fix required to the base simulator. On that note, he also said "if we [PMDG] are right" about that -- which suggests that Asobo had already responded and disagreed with him. So, it could be that Asobo have now convinced PMDG that they were wrong. Could be the other way round. But as PMDG would not have access to, and visibility of, Asobo's code that sits below the SDK toolkit, I would probably lean in favour of Asobo being correct about -- well, whatever the issue actually was.

Yeah, the way I read Randazzo's posts, it could be that PMDG misunderstood or didn't have a complete understanding of the SDK. Asobo then sat down with PMDG and explained the SDK to PMDG and how to overcome their problem, and now PMDG understands how to fix the problem.

This could be what happened (who really knows though, I am guessing like you, we are all guessing).

Anyways, glad that hear that PMDG is clear about how to resolve the issue and can move forward.

 

Edited January 24, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, GSalden said:

FYI : I already fly a study level ac in MSFS since January 2021….

Ok give me a giggle which plane is that?

32 minutes ago, a321 said:

Ok give me a giggle which plane is that?

https://prosim-ar.com

Is  EASA FTD 1 & FNPT II / FAA Level 4 & 5 certificated good enough for you ✈️

 

Edited January 24, 20224 yr by GSalden

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

FYI : I already fly a study level ac in MSFS since January 2021….

We need to temper our expectations here. Let's work on getting the majority of users to where they can install a single copy of MSFS on a single machine before we can even consider asking them to set up a rig as complicated as yours. 🤣

Edited January 24, 20224 yr by MDFlier

4 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

We need to temper our expectations here. Let's work on getting the majority of users to where they can install a single copy of MSFS on a single machine before we can even consider asking them to set up a rig as complicated as yours. 🤣

Totally agree with you.

It would be nice if some airliners would come to MSFS with study level or near study level systems depth…