737 MAX Still Planned?

[Steve Halpern 176]

OK. For us it is easier as we came from the established C++ background. Note our code in the MAX is not legacy. It was a ground-up effort.

[Lucky38i 1,099]

39 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

This is simply not true. Nothing is easier and more powerful and offers more instant reloading than javascript in debugging. C++ is widely considered as one of the most complex programming languages with a steep learning curve and many pitfalls.

How to Measure Programming Language Complexity | by Richard Kenneth Eng | Medium

So how would time to market be quicker? The only reason could be piles of legacy C++ code, which need to be migrated over. But on a greenfield project, the js guys will have completed faster any level of project complexity.

The medium link is honestly.. a terrible way to measure the complexity of a language. Not to mention I'm sure the FlightOne team is simply more familiar with C++ which is an entirely fair reason. I wouldn't call JS more powerful or easier than C++, it's more about which language allows me to accomplish what I want to do. I wouldn't write displays in C++ because JS would allow me to do that in a much more adapted format, but on the otherhand C++/Rust would be much more applicable to building simulations like pneumatics and hydraulics. I can't imagine doing the latter in JS with it's lack of strong type and loose interpretor, I'm sure it's possible, but that wholly comes from a point of familarity.

JS has it's place but so does C++ and they don't aim to replace one another. Time to market depends on the teams familarity with the languages at their arsenal, not the language in of itself.

[abrams_tank 7,426]

21 hours ago, longhaul747 said:

Take this with a grain of salt since its just pure speculation on my part.  I am thinking the PMDG 737 MAX project is likely about 80% complete at this point.  They don't want to release it too soon in order to avoid 737 fatigue which has been a concern for RSR in the past.  However they certainly want to beat IFly to the punch so its going to be pretty much ready to go!

In my opinion the MAX is becoming incredibly popular.  Ironically at SEA occasionally it seems I see more MAX planes than NG planes.  I was one of those anti MAX people for a while and than pretty much had to fly on one from SEA-JFK.  It was a pleasantly a very nice ride.  Its my opinion that its a different enough airplane that 737 Fatigue is really not an issue.  So bring it on when ready!  

 

2 hours ago, micstatic said:

I think at this point in late 2023, 737 fatigue has passed.  It's pretty clear that right now we are having airbus narrowbody fatigue with more released and planned than I can shake a stick at.  I suspect PMDG will never allow iFly to beat them to the MSFS market on this one.  But that's just a guess

I think there is a possibility that the PMDG 737 Max is complete at this point and has gone through beta testing. I would put that probability at about 20% to 30%. I assume the difference between the 737 Max and 737 NG, from a programming perspective, is much smaller than say, the difference between the 737 NG and 777. And given PMDG has released the 737 NG for MSFS, it's possible that the 737 Max is also completed but Randazzo is just staying quiet on it, to not give any information to iFly.  In that SkyBlue interview when Randazzo said the 737 Max could drop any moment for MSFS (ie. be released any moment), it seemed like Randazzo was giving a hint that the PMDG 737 Max was complete, or almost complete.

[Nuno Pinto 1,403]

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

It's worth noting that the Maxs flying today aren't the same airplane that caused the accidents.  There was a significant redesign, and the entire aircraft - not just the related systems, but the ENTIRE AIRCRAFT - was completely re-certified.  The Max in its present state is the most thoroughly vetted - and therefore likely the safest - aircraft in airline history.

Maybe, only time will tell, for now it lost all my trust. Certifications... yeah, the previous one was also certified.

The safest is the Airbus A340 which lived its life without causing a single fatality during operations.

Anyway going a bit offtopic here, i would love to see more effort put where it lacks instead of getting another very similar model TWICE into MSFS.

[F737MAX 5,659]

6 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

i would love to see more effort put where it lacks instead of getting another very similar model TWICE into MSFS.

And I love to see effort going into a similar model more than ONCE into MSFS.

What happens if an aircraft is poorly developed? You have your FSS E-jet, LVFR A320 or HH/Asobo ATR and that's it? Are we not allowed to have anything better?

[fsiscool 251]

9 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

The safest is the Airbus A340 which lived its life without causing a single fatality during operations.

Its life is not yet over ... and due to much smaller number it would be better to consider the accident rate vs the fleet size. The initial MAX had a the worst accident rate (per flight hour) of any new aircraft since the 1960s (at which time safety was standards were really much worse!).

[Nuno Pinto 1,403]

5 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Are we not allowed to have anything better?

Nobody said such a thing, but hey, if you're happy with 20 models of the same thing, have fun. I rather have a good 320, good 737, good 767, good 757 than two "over the top" 737s, but that's just me.

[F737MAX 5,659]

2 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

I rather have a good 320, good 737, good 767, good 757 than two "over the top" 737s,

Hey everybody, Nuno Pinto reckons the FBW A320neo is good enough. Fenix and iniBuilds should stop working on their versions. The 787 is done, WT saw to that. And PMDG's development is definitely faultless, there's no issue whatsoever with their efforts.

😉

[Stearmandriver 2,312]

8 hours ago, Steve Halpern said:

I think you misread the original post over at Facebook. First, It specifically refers to the use of C++, which I still believe has benefits (it allows quicker time to market, full Win32 API and disk access, simpler programming and debugging). Your re-write of what was posted is not what was said. It was never said that high levels could not be achieved in MSFS now. In fact, we are programming almost exclusively for MSFS. Plus the post says "can barely be beat"... which means there may be some equals (or technically there could be something better). Saying PMDG (or anyone) for that matter could not obtain the same level in MSFS is not what was said. Asobo is working to make system access more attainable. All we are saying is that we believe that the MAX for P3Dv5 is a top product for system accuracy. Although I am not sure what your experience is with the iFly MAX is, but if you have an issue do post over at iFly so they can take a look at it.

First, MSFS can of course use C++ natively as well; that's what web assembly is, after all.  So it still doesn't make sense to claim that there's an advantage to P3d here.

Secondly, I'm not the one who claimed there was a systems fidelity advantage to c++ on P3d; the iFly post claimed that.  I'm not making things up to point out that this is untrue.  Their post further singled out cat III approaches, giving us something specific to compare and as I explained, there's nothing more accurate about iFly's version.  

[Stearmandriver 2,312]

7 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

yeah, the previous one was also certified.

But once again you're making invalid comparisons.

The original Max was self-certified by Boeing, meaning there was very little oversight from any regulatory agency.  After the accidents highlighted the problems in Boeing's safety culture, that airplane was grounded.

The current Max has been redesigned as necessary, and not only the changes but the ENTIRE AIRPLANE have been scrutinized with the finest-toothed comb any regulatory body could find; by the FAA, the EASA, and several other global regulatory agencies.

The two "certification" processes were at complete opposite ends of the spectrum, in terms of what "certification" means.

The Max truly, objectively, is the most thoroughly vetted and proven aircraft in commercial aviation history at this point.  That is not hyperbole, and there really isn't any room for opinion either, the facts are so overwhelming.  People can believe the earth is flat too, but they can't actually justify that position.  😉

[Jviation 17]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the possibility of Asobo providing a 737 MAX as well. There's a forum here noting that a 737 MAX is previewed in Asobo's SDK. We may soon have three 737 MAX addons available to choose from.

Anyways, the iFly 737 MAX was a very nice addon when I flew it back in P3D. I recall it being the only addon that felt similar to my experiences in level-D 737 sims. The best way I can describe it is that you have to plan your movements and controls ahead of time; you cannot slam the controls from full left to full right instantly, just like you can't do so in a real airplane.

My only complaint with the iFly was the poor UV mapping in several areas that caused some liveries to look poor in areas (i.e., Southwest's stripes come to a point—like an arrow—and due to the way iFly mapped their addon, it's very difficult to make these elements look proper and tidy on the iFly). I would prefer they remapped the airplane with this iteration and took a page out of PMDG, Fenix, etc. styles and had separate roof, side, and underbelly textures to prevent this from happening; wishing for a single-class cabin option (which is splitting hairs at this point, but I'm a sucker for a nicely modeled cabin); and for iFly to move away from using default sim/external load managers and allow us to load things in-sim.

[F737MAX 5,659]

17 minutes ago, Jviation said:

surprised nobody has mentioned the possibility of Asobo providing a 737 MAX as well.

A mid-tier 737MAX certainly is a possibility, just not anticipated, if Jörg's previous comments of not stepping on third party developers' toes are to be believed. We'll know in a few months.

 

20 minutes ago, Jviation said:

My only complaint with the iFly was the poor UV mapping

I had a couple more serious ones. The horrible FSX/P3D issue of high ground friction meant idle thrust wasn't enough to keep the iFly 737NG rolling. PMDG coded theirs around this.

Also, there were no functioning windscreen wipers. Yes, all aircraft have that problem in MSFS, but I'd quite like them to work at some point and iFly hadn't added that feature when I last flew in their version.

[fsiscool 251]

On 12/5/2023 at 3:22 PM, Lucky38i said:

The medium link is honestly.. a terrible way to measure the complexity of a language

I am aware. It was just the first best link that underlines the complexity of C++ in a somewhat understable way. I was for years the sole maintainer of a large MFC application so I know also from first hand why C++ is so much more complex. These are just three keywords: dynamic memory allocation, multithreading, concurrency.

Another link supporting that point: horstmann.com/cpp/pitfalls.html

On 12/5/2023 at 3:22 PM, Lucky38i said:

I can't imagine doing the latter in JS with it's lack of strong type and loose interpretor

Typescript solves that.

[Lucky38i 1,099]

5 hours ago, fsiscool said:

These are just three keywords: dynamic memory allocation, multithreading, concurrency.

Yeah but this is a language that is primarily made to work at a low level, memory management is a part of that. Though like I said in my previous post, your original post ignores code familarity which is a major factor, assuming you have frameworks in place to reduce boilerplate

 

5 hours ago, fsiscool said:

Typescript solves that.

Oh that was just an example, I'm strictly TS if I need to work with node

[Jviation 17]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:22 PM, F737MAX said:

A mid-tier 737MAX certainly is a possibility, just not anticipated, if Jörg's previous comments of not stepping on third party developers' toes are to be believed. We'll know in a few months.

That's very true. Though it seems they've somewhat drifted away from that with their ATR, A330 from the MSFS24 trailer (which I presume will be included as a flyable aircraft), and A320neo. If I remember correctly, Asobo has also redone several airports that were already available from third-party developers. Either way, another 737 MAX would provide some nice competition and hopefully incentivize developers to push the boundaries.