7 hours ago, Keirtt said:

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)

That was a good bit of info and wish he'd have posted it as part of the official update 🙂 ... seems like things are going really well with their 777 given the positive but very short updates RSR has been giving, maybe they're holding back for a bigger reveal/preview soon-ish. I am still guesstimating/hoping for a release by 4Q23 at the latest.
 

3 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

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.

I meant that more in line with, based on assumptions, you have your EFB which does it's usual internet connections and anything required by the plane would be passed through lvars with some kind of serialisation protocol to deal with big data as Lvars don't support complex object. If PMDG made a javascript interface that specifically did internet requests for the WASM and nothing else, seems.. odd to me, as that functionality could easily just be tied into the EFB. I'm betting on the former though.

 

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

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.

I don't really agree with this analogy. Yes we can have the whole semantics of fly-by-software, but fly-by-wire is an actual software layer between pilot inputs and control surface deflection. Implementing FBW does matter because you need to have your flight model and you need to program your FBW whereby the plane will perform differently when there's direct control or the FBW is intercepting pilot input's. Whereas an aircraft with no FBW is just flight model tuning, I'm over-simplifying a lot but hopefully that gets it across.

Its just like Joerg stated at his presentation at FSExpo…they’re starting to bump up against the limits of what the FS2020 engine is capable of….

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

That was a good bit of info and wish he'd have posted it as part of the official update 🙂 ... seems like things are going really well with their 777 given the positive but very short updates RSR has been giving, maybe they're holding back for a bigger reveal/preview soon-ish. I am still guesstimating/hoping for a release by 4Q23 at the latest.
 

I agree - I wish he had included that information in his original post. That's the information I think most of us would like to read about.

Hopefully, you will be to disable the EFB. They are unrealistic for old school flying and immersion killers. If the EFB is mandatory, I will have to park the 737 in the hanger.

23 minutes ago, rjquick said:

Hopefully, you will be to disable the EFB. They are unrealistic for old school flying and immersion killers. If the EFB is mandatory, I will have to park the 737 in the hanger.

What are you smoking? I want some...

25 minutes ago, rjquick said:

Hopefully, you will be to disable the EFB. They are unrealistic for old school flying and immersion killers. If the EFB is mandatory, I will have to park the 737 in the hanger.

Careful... I got shot down for not liking an EFB on the Fokker 28! It's like they need their comfort blanket.

Just now, BMIBaby said:

Careful... I got shot down for not liking an EFB on the Fokker 28!

Wonder why you got 'shot down'

Quote

It's like they need their comfort blanket.

Oh, giving them attitude.

4 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

I don't really agree with this analogy. Yes we can have the whole semantics of fly-by-software, but fly-by-wire is an actual software layer between pilot inputs and control surface deflection. Implementing FBW does matter because you need to have your flight model and you need to program your FBW whereby the plane will perform differently when there's direct control or the FBW is intercepting pilot input's. Whereas an aircraft with no FBW is just flight model tuning, I'm over-simplifying a lot but hopefully that gets it across.

Isn't this what I said just into more detail though? My point was since it's a flight sim aircraft on a computer, it's the software that makes it fly on the PC like the real thing (or not), and there's obviously no mechanics. So whether the real thing flies by cable or FBW, it's your code that makes both behave as they should, so just because a virtual 737 is obviously software driven doesn't mean it flies like a 777 with FBW. Obviously, for the latter you still simulate the actual FBW.

It's definitely the first time though I've seen someone say they're not going to fly the plane anymore because it has an EFB, unlike everyone else who aren't flying it because it doesn't have one. 

18 minutes ago, threegreen said:

It's definitely the first time though I've seen someone say they're not going to fly the plane anymore because it has an EFB, unlike everyone else who aren't flying it because it doesn't have one. 

Which is funny because the people who are so against an EFB, probably has a secondary monitor, navigraph running and everything they need handy in a sort of... EFB 😅

15 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Which is funny because the people who are so against an EFB, probably has a secondary monitor, navigraph running and everything they need handy in a sort of... EFB 😅

I can understand when people prefer no EFB in a Fokker 28 given the era it mainly flew in, but a 737NG with an EFB being an immersion killer is definitely a first I think.

Anyway, flying in VR with no EFB is annoying to me but even I think the EFB saga is a bit comical. 

45 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Isn't this what I said just into more detail though? My point was since it's a flight sim aircraft on a computer, it's the software that makes it fly on the PC like the real thing (or not), and there's obviously no mechanics. So whether the real thing flies by cable or FBW, it's your code that makes both behave as they should, so just because a virtual 737 is obviously software driven doesn't mean it flies like a 777 with FBW. Obviously, for the latter you still simulate the actual FBW.

Ah i maybe mis-interpreted what you were trying to say. Apologies 🙂

1 hour ago, BMIBaby said:

Careful... I got shot down for not liking an EFB on the Fokker 28! It's like they need their comfort blanket.

I’m just not really sure how you want to configure your aircraft that doesn’t require a second screen? 

personally I don’t use it for navigraph or similar convenience features but I do need to set my weight and balance, I do need to open doors and enable ground power etc. where do you suppose I do that? 
 

EFB has its uses to simmers to do things that can be done irl but we can’t physically do them in-sim.

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by Lucky38i

34 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Which is funny because the people who are so against an EFB, probably has a secondary monitor, navigraph running and everything they need handy in a sort of... EFB 😅

Or a sort of.... printer? 😅