PMDG - still no proper DME ARC

[thepilot 584]

16 minutes ago, threegreen said:

You actually think developing systems down to a depth you're not ever going to notice as a simmer including extensive failures simulation means targeting the casual pilots and newcomers?

Curiously, they didn't do much marketing with these features. If I recall correctly, even the NGX had those already, and it's unclear how much has really been changed or added in the meantime.

Also, you (intentionally) missed the little word anymore, because naturally in the past PMDG has targeted simmers looking for study-level addons. (They used to be way ahead of others in terms of technical features.)

For the marketing of the NG3, there was a lot more focus on visuals and sounds, but very little on systems-related stuff. So yes, I see a paradigm shift there – and it is motivated from a business point of view.

[lwt1971 7,446]

2 minutes ago, tfm said:

It would be better if something that deserves mention on their forum, was also mentioned on the product page visible at the time of purchase...

Well true enough, not just PMDG but all devs would serve themselves better to keep important information front & center (even if as links) at all the main touch points on their websites, product pages, forums etc etc... a lot of useful information they put out as posts gets drowned in their forums/discords/etc which then results in questions coming up again and again, not to mention misinformation starting to propagate, etc.

Now mind you all those features on PMDG's list are *new* never-seen-before features on their aircraft, so I wouldn't call them "shortcomings" per se. And they are due to arrive for free to all the MSFS 737 products in the next 2-3 months (and of course will be in their MSFS 777/747 coming afterwards). That timeframe has been stated by PMDG multiple times.

[lwt1971 7,446]

11 minutes ago, thepilot said:

... because naturally in the past PMDG has targeted simmers looking for study-level addons. (They used to be way ahead of others in terms of technical features.)

For the marketing of the NG3, there was a lot more focus on visuals and sounds, but very little on systems-related stuff. So yes, I see a paradigm shift there – and it is motivated from a business point of view.

For all those who've never flown a PMDG 737 before in P3D, this initial offering in MSFS is plenty "study level". Just because PMDG's initial MSFS offering is at parity with the P3D version at systems-related stuff (and better visually of course) does not mean there is a paradigm shift.  The amount of P3D 737 users are a tiny fraction of PMDG's MSFS audience, so it's not like they really need to cater to that small subset with their initial offering.  In any case, most of the new systems related stuff like LNAV 2.0 as they've stated depends on debugging capabilities that Asobo has yet not provided them, but have promised to soon.

[threexgreen 3,152]

2 minutes ago, thepilot said:

Curiously, they didn't do much marketing with these features. If I recall correctly, even the NGX had those already, and it's unclear how much has really been changed or added in the meantime.

Also, you (intentionally) missed the little word anymore, because naturally in the past PMDG has targeted simmers looking for study-level addons. (They used to be way ahead of others in terms of technical features.)

For the marketing of the NG3, there was a lot more focus on visuals and sounds, but very little on systems-related stuff. So yes, I see a paradigm shift there – and it is motivated from a business point of view.

There is no paradigm shift at all, which you can clearly see by what the product includes and that's why the word 'anymore' isn't relevant.

The reason why many of the forum posts talked about visuals and sounds is because this is where MSFS brings the most improvement over previous sims with capabilities that developers can use that weren't even possible before. Logically, this gets a big cut of the spotlight. Besides that, the product description and some of the videos all include things like systems, failures, and aircraft config options. Just because not a lot has changed in this department doesn't mean it's targeted to newcomers or casual pilots, as it still includes a lot that goes way beyond what your typical newcomer even knows about. None of this makes the plane any less "study level".

[jcomm 5,963]

Did they ( PMDG ) state that the EFB will be free for those who purchase the entry 737 product just released ? 

If I bought it I wouldn't really like to find out latter on that in order to get some of the above mentioned features I had to buy an additional model .... 😕

Edited May 14, 2022 by jcomm

[threexgreen 3,152]

22 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Did they ( PMDG ) state that the EFB will be free for those who purchase the entryu 737 product just released ? 

All of the upcoming updates, including the EFB, are free for anyone that owns the 737 (all variants) for MSFS, as stated in the announcement.

Edited May 14, 2022 by threegreen

[lwt1971 7,446]

Ignore... already answered above.

Edited May 14, 2022 by lwt1971

[B777ER 2,492]

6 hours ago, tfm said:

I just tried to track this down on PMDG’s forums and based on what I found, I now feel fairly astonished. Mr Randazzo admitted in March 2019 that LNAV was basically the same as in 2002 and that an overhaul of LNAV was “long overdue”. That’s over 3 years ago 😶

 

I made a post there. I expect it will receive the usual dismissive response, or no response. 
 

What perplexes me the most, is the attention lavished on silly details like sound effects from the cabin and textures of knobs and so on, plus seemingly endless time available for making long-winded videos to post on YouTube, when something absolutely fundamental to the functionality of the aeroplane is knowingly left in this unfinished state.

I asked about the years long promised LNAV update about a month ago on their forum. RSR took offense amd his drink the kool-aid followers piled on. I'm done with him. Will buy the Fenix amd eventually the FSL stuff. PMDG still using 2002 LNAV code, what an utter joke.

[B777ER 2,492]

2 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

 In any case, most of the new systems related stuff like LNAV 2.0 as they've stated depends on debugging capabilities that Asobo has yet not provided them, but have promised to soon.

They can fully debug it in P3D and export to MSFS but have chosen not to.

[lwt1971 7,446]

14 minutes ago, B777ER said:

They can fully debug it in P3D and export to MSFS but have chosen not to.

Not sure if the dev workflow is easy as that for some kinds of debugging, where only real-time debugging in MSFS directly can be of help. Seems like for those scenarios they need the capability from Asobo rather than debugging in P3D and then planting the debugged code in the MSFS version. I don't see why they'd intentionally choose to hold back LNAV 2.0 if they could fully implement it in the MSFS 737-700 right now, it's not like they're planning to provide that feature for an extra fee later.

Edited May 14, 2022 by lwt1971

[level7 175]

 

1 hour ago, B777ER said:

They can fully debug it in P3D and export to MSFS but have chosen not to.

Exactly this ... Especially since they supposedly planned to do LNAV 2.0 in P3D  and they already said they debug in P3D in one of the Asobo complaint posts. Doesn't seem to prevent other companies like Leonardo to have a better LNAV.

I don't think there is a need to parrot the stuff "woe is us" "Asobo doesn't support this" from PMDG. Like when they say they couldn't do some EFB stuff and then people assumed no one else could ever do it. People then we got a response like this from Aamir (Fenix).

On 4/20/2022 at 8:27 PM, Aamir said:

Hi, sorry - but this is incorrect. 

We have full FPLN uplink, wind uplink, AOC and ATSU functionality that simply pulls your flight plan and WX from online. 

All you need to do is plan your flight in simbrief, then head into the aircraft and hit INIT UPLINK on the MCDU INIT A page - as occurs IRL. It will then pull and auto-populate the relevant and correct MCDU data entry fields, and the flight plan. We've done more here also, but will be shown in time. 

Navigraph charts also function fine on the EFB. We've shown a fair few shots of this functioning in sim.

It's worth mentioning, of course, that we use different parts of the SDK owing to the different development approaches. The limitations imposed on other developers may not apply - and vice versa. 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by level7

[lwt1971 7,446]

1 hour ago, level7 said:

 

Exactly this ... If they supposedly planned to do LNAV 2.0 in P3D anyways and they already said they debug in P3D anyways in one of the Asobo complaint posts. Doesn't seem to prevent other companies like Leonardo to have a working LNAV.

I don't think there is a need to parrot the stuff from PMDG. Like when they say they couldn't do some EFB stuff and then people assumed no one else could ever do it. ... People then we got a response like this from Aamir (Fenix)

 

Lol a lot of conflating and assumptions going on here... it's not "parroting" but pointing to what the source (in this case PMDG) are saying.. if some choose to not believe them and/or think up conspiracy theories as to why feature X is not released now, well go at it, but it's not fact.

Like I said above, the key is real-time debugging which PMDG does not have now for its WASM/C++ based development workflows... Leonardo already didn't have to develop anything *new* for their LNAV code so it was just a straight port from their P3D codebase to MSFS.  For PMDG, since it's a new LNAV codebase they're developing, they have to be able to do direct and real-time debugging in MSFS... so debugging it in P3D and then shifting that codebase to MSFS is not going to cut it since it needs to be debugged while running/testing in MSFS.

Similarly, they have given valid reasons for why stuff like simbrief integration is not there yet given internet connectivity limitations in the WASM/C++ workflow in MSFS, which is what PMDG uses. What's key to note in what Aamir says is this: "It's worth mentioning, of course, that we use different parts of the SDK owing to the different development approaches. The limitations imposed on other developers may not apply - and vice versa". (also important to note Aamir is responding to another post here speculating that the Fenix potentially will have the same network connectivity limitations). 

I suppose some basic understanding of software development, how different software frameworks and development methods can make or break things, debugging, porting, etc (along with actually reading what the aircraft developers actually say) will go a long way in understanding the facts... as opposed to imagining supposed nefarious intentions on PMDG's or other developers' parts.

Edited May 14, 2022 by lwt1971

[level7 175]

Why should we care about these frameworks? PMDG have chosen to use frameworks that don't enable a full function set. Do we look at the FBW and say oh this isn't good because it isn't WASM enough? Ultimately it's about the features delivered and looking around there is stuff missing.

Perhaps people here have faith they will improve and add things later but recent track record suggests that may not happen at the pace users would expect.

[MySound 407]

I love it that Fenix seems to be the absolute reference now. 
 

A vaporware. But hey. I’ll enjoy the 737 and the show here. Even without a DME Arc. 

[threexgreen 3,152]

2 minutes ago, level7 said:

Why should we care about these frameworks? PMDG have chosen to use frameworks that don't enable a full function set. Do we look at the FBW and say oh this isn't good because it isn't WASM enough? Ultimately it's about the features delivered and looking around there is stuff missing.

You essentially answered your own question. Not every programming language is equally supported in MSFS at this point and this is what accounts for many of the differences in functionality between different aircraft addons. PMDG are having a bit of a hard time here and there using WASM, which however is their preferred approach to developing and they will have a good reason for this, otherwise they would just be shooting themselves in the foot. AFAIK it's what they have been using in developing for a long time, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to switch everything over to a completely different development approach.

Other than that, calling out elements in an addon that aren't included yet or in need of an update and at the same time say why should we care about the framework is basically saying I'm going to complain but don't care about the reasons behind what I'm complaining about, which is a bit disingenuous.