45 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I wonder how long it will take before the bashers switch to Fenix and A2A?

don't think it will happen.  the fixation with the pmdg head honcho by the same kast of karacters here is weirdly disturbingly personal.  

as bill shatner once said, "get a life!"

8 hours ago, Piotr007 said:

It makes me laugh that the tablet is more desired than all those nice planes we already have in the sim. Jeeze🤣😂😂😂🤣 rofl.

...many of which come with their own very nice tablets.......

1 hour ago, kdfw__ said:

don't think it will happen.  the fixation with the pmdg head honcho by the same kast of karacters here is weirdly disturbingly personal.  

as bill shatner once said, "get a life!"

What comments here are anti-PMDG? Aren't people talking about different ways PMDG can do the engine model?

Sounds like the tablet is going to be an unwieldly hack job that needs an external program running to work. And it will be interesting to see if the tablet design isn't as bad as FMC options design. I have a bad feeling about this one.

Without reading into it too much, I must say I’m pretty surprised by a reply Randazzo just made on their official forums regarding the performance of the T7. Looking at this post, it would seem the T7 is nearly done and with even better performance from lessons learned after working in the 737. I’m hopeful this is actually the case. (Reference here: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/258753-will-777-have-same-smooth-perf-as-737)

“Currently it is much lighter on the machine than the 737NG series, because we have learned a TON about how to optimize for the new platform that we didn't know when we started the 737.

I am pretty confident that the performance will remain this way, as about 90% of the functionality is already in place. Two items still to install are the tablet, which will go in during testing, and then we still need to texture the cabin- which is incredibly high resolution. 

Overall I think the risk factors for a loss of performance are pretty small at this juncture- and it is highly likely to release with a smaller memory footprint and a better overall performance footprint than the 737.

This might surprise some since "well gosh, it is a fly-by-wire airplane." This is sort of a hilarious smokescreen that you will see get thrown up by folks who don't really understand what FBW is or what it does. If you are flying an airplane with a flight director- then you already have about 90% of the FBW computational aspects in place. FBW then marries the AFDS control law to provide certain behaviors, which it does via control law through the AFDS and F/D.

The FBW system on most airliners is being run on a computer processor that cannot run MSFS. It likely can't even run a single app on your smart phone. The processors and memory modules and EEPROMs are laregely mid 1990s technology- excepting perhaps some of the brand new designs such as the A220 and A350, but even the processors running those machines are pretty week, pretty slow and not very razz-mataz.

To pull the curtain back a bit further: Every PMDG airplane you fly is what we call "fly by software." We don't really care if it is a cable driven flight control or a full fly by wire suite like the 777 or 747-8, because the goal is to have the math make the airplane fly like it's real world counterpart. We do this using the same techniques that a full FBW suite on n actual airplane does.

So the fact that 777 is a FBW airplane doesn't really make it any more complex for us. We are already doing all that controlling in the background to give you something that flies like the airplane.

Cool, huh?”

 

8 hours ago, WestAir said:

What comments here are anti-PMDG? Aren't people talking about different ways PMDG can do the engine model?

I think he's talking about the forums in general. This thread is actually nice, for a change there's a decent conversation about actual content going on.

6 hours ago, Keirtt said:

Every PMDG airplane you fly is what we call "fly by software." We don't really care if it is a cable driven flight control or a full fly by wire suite like the 777 or 747-8, because the goal is to have the math make the airplane fly like it's real world counterpart. We do this using the same techniques that a full FBW suite on n actual airplane does

How does that work? A 737NG in manual flight doesn't hold pitch like a 777.

http://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/447190/how-to-hand-fly-with-cu-law-aircraft

13 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

How does that work? A 737NG in manual flight doesn't hold pitch like a 777.

http://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/447190/how-to-hand-fly-with-cu-law-aircraft

I think what he's saying is just that the only goal is to make the airplane fly like the real thing with code and math since it's just software. So whether a real 737 is mechanical or a 777 is FBW doesn't really matter as long as the code makes the flight sim airplane fly like and do what it's supposed to. It seems they're using the same technique from real FBW software for their code, which they'll probably adjust to do what a 737 does. So you end up with a "FBW" 737 on your PC, since it's just software anyway, that flies like a real cable-driven 737.

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by threegreen

38 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

How does that work? A 737NG in manual flight doesn't hold pitch like a 777.

http://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/447190/how-to-hand-fly-with-cu-law-aircraft

He's saying that because you're flying the "manual flight" aircraft on a computer where your peripherals are processed by software, all aircraft in MSFS are by effect "FBW" as there's no analog possible. And so to simulate the FBW of an airliner isn't adding any more computational workload, as the sim does exactly that to begin with.

At least that's how I interpreted the Captain.

5 minutes ago, threegreen said:

I think what he's saying is just that the only goal is to make the airplane fly like the real thing with code and math since it's just software.

Fair enough, that's the holy grail.

Slight caveat is that making it handle like the real thing doesn't mean blindly following the numbers.

Look at the response to their nosewheel steering changes and look at what Fenix did. One of Fenix's previous updates had the aeroplane following the real A320 aircraft's numbers, but made their version a complete dog to land. Ended-up with following real numbers until the flare phase, where the logic was changed to allow us not to crater it into the runway on every landing attempt.

Anyway, that's actually some interesting news regarding the 777's performance on PC.

8 hours ago, Greazer said:

Sounds like the tablet is going to be an unwieldly hack job that needs an external program running to work. And it will be interesting to see if the tablet design isn't as bad as FMC options design. I have a bad feeling about this one.

It cannot be an external program since they are making the EFB workable on both PC and XBox versions of their aircraft. Precisely because of that they've had to stick to the WASM route and other SDK/software-architecture confinements that then caused all the delays due to a combination of them learning stuff and also WASM limitations. Basically, their two main requirements for all their aircraft in MSFS are to a) use their C/C++ code *and* b) also support both PC and XBox and sell on marketplace. Due to this combination of requirements they are then confined to using the WASM software framework which has limitations in sending/receiving data from within WASM (i.e. their aircraft code) and the internet, for which they had to do build their own communication mechanism. This bit of code is only for this communication layer and it's more customization code rather than hack job code, sounds like to me at least.

From a previous post of RSR's: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/248897-29apr23-various-news-bits
 The major challenge that we have faced here is that C++/WASM projects have severe limitations on their ability to send/receive data between the C++/WASM project and the outside world- whereas Typescript projects are provided with a base of capabilities by the MSFS platform natively. This necessitated an entire development cycle to design/implement/adapt communications capability between the outside world->tablet->airplane that wasn't originally anticipated.
 

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by lwt1971

8 hours ago, Greazer said:

Sounds like the tablet is going to be an unwieldly hack job that needs an external program running to work. And it will be interesting to see if the tablet design isn't as bad as FMC options design. I have a bad feeling about this one.

If it requires an external program, it won’t ever be available on XBox.

The main reason the development has taken so long, was the need to implement an internal JavaScript to C++ interface for external internet communication specifically so it can be used on the XBox.

If they were going to limit themselves to the PC platform only, the EFB probably would have been released months ago. They could have written the whole thing in C++. There would have been no need to mess with JavaScript, and running it as an external process would have been the ideal way to implement it. (That is how Fenix does it).

It remains to be seen what the quality of the UI will be. You may be right that it will be a “hack job”, or it may be very elegant. I will reserve judgement until I actually see it in action.

 

2 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

The main reason the development has taken so long, was the need to implement an internal JavaScript to C++ interface for external internet communication specifically so it can be used on the XBox.

But WASM support HTTPS communication.

1 minute ago, Lucky38i said:

 

But WASM support HTTPS communication.

It didn’t when they started the EFB project.

AFAIK, limited HTTPS support was added to the MSFS WASM SDK a few months ago, coincident with one of the sim SUs.

I don’t know if it enables all the functionality PMDG needs for full Simbrief and Navigraph charts support, or if the WASM HTTPS addition is available for XBox WASM projects. It may only be available on projects targeting PC.

15 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

But WASM support HTTPS communication.

Ya that's interesting, if it does I wonder why PMDG didn't use that protocol, unless it wasn't enough for their purposes for whatever reasons.

Also seems like http/https wasn't really supported in WASM a couple of years back (not sure if the support is a recent thing or not, and how complete it is?):
https://www.reddit.com/r/WebAssembly/comments/msrtvh/wasm_https_request/
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52102612/is-it-possible-to-submit-http-requests-with-webassembly

 

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by lwt1971