21 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Definitely not interested in a "sim vs sim" discussion either, but just wanted to point out a categorical untruth in this statement.  There's nothing more accurately simulated about a cat III approach in the iFly in P3d than there is simulated by the PMDG in MSFS (or P3d for that matter.). That's just a marketing statement that kind of calls their credibility into question.

Yup, and PMDG uses C++ code too for their MSFS birds. That statement was weird especially about "using raw C++".. perhaps using C++ with MSFS is harder when it comes to supporting both PC and XBox (like PMDG does), but certainly is possible as PMDG clearly has shown, and definitely possible with systems external to the sim on PC only like Fenix does, etc.
 

Edited December 5, 20232 yr by lwt1971

It's amazing how many MAXs I have been flying on lately.  They are quickly becoming the norm instead of the exception across all major US airlines. 

I am looking forward to the MAX whoever produces it and will definitely buy the -8.

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Definitely not interested in a "sim vs sim" discussion either, but just wanted to point out a categorical untruth in this statement.  There's nothing more accurately simulated about a cat III approach in the iFly in P3d than there is simulated by the PMDG in MSFS (or P3d for that matter.). That's just a marketing statement that kind of calls their credibility into question.

Yup, that was definitely a weird statement.  With the Fenix, PMDG 737, A2A Comanche, and other high fidelity airplanes, almost everything that needs to be done in MSFS can be done already. And using an external module like Fenix and A2A gives the 3rd party dev the ultimate flexibility. The only thing that can't be done is a full fledged weather radar, but my understanding is that Jorg is in discussion with the weather data providers to alleviate this issue.

Maybe this is why iFly is slow to convert their 737 Max to MSFS. Sounds like iFly simply isn't familiar enough with the MSFS SDK.  Also sounds like iFly hit a roadblock with some features but they aren't willing to use an external module like Fenix and A2A, to overcome their issues.

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

and A2A gives the 3rd party dev the ultimate flexibility.

Wholly agree with your statement, just wanted to add since the recent Comanche update, it’s fully native to MSFS now. The only thing that was external was the sound engine but that’s been migrated to wise. A2A does its flight modelling among other things in WASM. It’s my understanding that a push for Xbox should occur soon.

So many wasted resources. So many great airliners to be made for MSFS and devs are not making one but TWO of the same 737 we already have with different things here and there. Sad.

On top of that and i think i remember referring this in some other thread, it's an airliner i don't trust anymore after all the deaths it caused, it's a reminder of greed and corruption.

Instant skips from me for what is worth.

</rant>

31 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

So many wasted resources. So many great airliners to be made for MSFS and devs are not making one but TWO of the same 737 we already have with different things here and there. Sad.

On top of that and i think i remember referring this in some other thread, it's an airliner i don't trust anymore after all the deaths it caused, it's a reminder of greed and corruption.

Instant skips from me for what is worth.

</rant>

Yes, but we simmers are like Starfighter pilots.... We know each flight is an unknown regarding return to base ...but we still love it 🙂

Well I confess the MAX as well as the 787s appeal to me, just as the A350 and A380 for their avionics, the big displays and their subtleties...

I bought the iFly 737 MAX for P3dv5.4 last month and it has given me a great pleasure to fly, just as the PMDG 737 in MFS...

Unfortunately the Airbuses are still tricky... The FENIX is in the good way, but still has it's quirks, I believe mostly due to the platform limitations themselves...

Edited December 5, 20232 yr by jcomm

Even if that statement about P3D was right, it‘s outright suicidal to spend anymore time developing for P3D. Even FSL understood that eventually.

38 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Unfortunately the Airbuses are still tricky... The FENIX is in the good way, but still has it's quirks, I believe mostly due to the platform limitations themselves...

All platforms come with their own set of limitations. The most skilled developers excel at thinking outside the box to overcome these constraints, much like Majestic has done with regard to P3D's limitations.

That being said, I own all FSL Airbuses, alongside the Fenix and the ToliSS A320 Neo/A340-600. Among these, there's only one option that I haven't used in over a year because of the outdated platform it's built upon. Can you guess which one?

9 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

All platforms come with their own set of limitations. The most skilled developers excel at thinking outside the box to overcome these constraints, much like Majestic has done with regard to P3D's limitations.

That being said, I own all FSL Airbuses, alongside the Fenix and the ToliSS A320 Neo/A340-600. Among these, there's only one option that I haven't used in over a year because of the outdated platform it's built upon. Can you guess which one?

I'm with you and FSLabs, but being an Airbus freak, I did even "worst" and purchased Airlinetools A32x which I use as my main training platform for the Airbus A320 🙂

It's even more dated, graphically, although better than default Aerowinx PSX, but I love it's details and functionality. It's built for RW A320 pilots to train, so no big worries with textures and sounds, reflections / PBR and whatsoever, all of the stuff most simmers look at in the very first place and it's really far from being important to the systems simulation and training qualities.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Yes, but we simmers are like Starfighter pilots.... We know each flight is an unknown regarding return to base ...but we still love it 🙂

Well I confess the MAX as well as the 787s appeal to me, just as the A350 and A380 for their avionics, the big displays and their subtleties...

I bought the iFly 737 MAX for P3dv5.4 last month and it has given me a great pleasure to fly, just as the PMDG 737 in MFS...

Unfortunately the Airbuses are still tricky... The FENIX is in the good way, but still has it's quirks, I believe mostly due to the platform limitations themselves...

Yeah and i guess most people want whatever is flying right now, whereas i rather fly older jets which are not so boring due to their lack of "way too many automatisms (tm)".

But i still hate the MAX 😄

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

4 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

On top of that and i think i remember referring this in some other thread, it's an airliner i don't trust anymore after all the deaths it caused, it's a reminder of greed and corruption.

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.

10 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Definitely not interested in a "sim vs sim" discussion

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.

17 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

The Max in its present state is the most thoroughly vetted - and therefore likely the safest - aircraft in airline history.

Yes. Though it's still a kludge.

A longer landing gear would have meant the larger LEAP engines could have been retained in the original position on the wing, rather than further forward and higher, necessitating the infamous software 'fix'. The -10 MLG wouldn't require the lower lever and shortening mechanism either.

That said, I'm no longer concerned about flying it irl and look forward to flying it in MSFS also.

16 minutes ago, Steve Halpern said:

it allows quicker time to market, ..., simpler programming and debugging)

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.