46 minutes ago, spearmint_flyer said:

This is what happens when they refuse to make new innovations to their code. RSR brags about his C++ code library that is what all of their systems are based out of. If you paid attention when MSFS 2020 was launched, the major delay was that there was no way for the simulator to talk to his ancient code. 
 

Now it takes them 20 times longer to actually rewrite anything that actually works with the simulator. With that mentality of theirs I can say I’m not surprised. 
 

Then when I sit back and remember that they charged me $77.30 for a single variant of a plane that uses the old code with recycled fuel pump sounds. Just ridiculous. 
 

word not allowed. I just remembered I am writing about PMDG, let me write my full name. 
 

- Dingus Suckmyberries. 

And yet PMDG was able to figure out how to make things work within the MSFS constructs making their products available to the masses via Marketplace 2 1/2 years before iFly will even release a product that apparently wont be available via Marketplace at all.  Fenix in Marketplace?  

So the skill lacking Legacy Dev managed to figure something out while iFly is releasing their first product right as MSFS2020 becomes MSFS2024 and hasn't figure out how to make it available via Marketplace 4 years after MSFS was released.

I'm not trying to knock iFly at all just pointing out the silliness in continuing to bash PMDG in the process.  

Which 737 would Marketplace users be using if it wasn't for PMDG? Which good 737 would users have had access to for the past two years?  Would good long haul add ons would we have without the 777?  

Hmmm.  

Edited October 5, 20241 yr by psolk

50 minutes ago, spearmint_flyer said:

This is what happens when they refuse to make new innovations to their code. RSR brags about his C++ code library that is what all of their systems are based out of. If you paid attention when MSFS 2020 was launched, the major delay was that there was no way for the simulator to talk to his ancient code. 
 

Now it takes them 20 times longer to actually rewrite anything that actually works with the simulator. With that mentality of theirs I can say I’m not surprised. 
 

Then when I sit back and remember that they charged me $77.30 for a single variant of a plane that uses the old code with recycled fuel pump sounds. Just ridiculous. 
 

word not allowed. I just remembered I am writing about PMDG, let me write my full name. 
 

- Dingus Suckmyberries. 

ALL the major high-end third-party add-ons for MSFS use C++ code running under WASM for the majority of their aircraft systems. PMDG, Fenix, Leonardo etc. all use it. It is well-suited for implementing mathematically complex, real-time emulations of navigation systems, autopilots etc. For the same reason C++ is used as a primary programming language (along with Ada) for the systems on real aircraft.

Even Working Title, who have done magnificent work using (primarily) JavaScript/HTML, use C++ when high precision and speed of execution are of primary importance.

WASM support has been part of MSFS from the very beginning, and WASM-based add-ons such as the Aerosoft CRJ, Leonardo MD-80 and PMDG 737 all initially released for MSFS within a few months of each other.

The delay that PMDG experienced was in making C++/WASM code pass data to JavaScript/HTML for implementing their EFB, but the EFB was not part of their initial release of the 737 for MSFS in any case.

Your perception that a developer is not “innovating” by using something other than “ancient” C++ code tells me that you don’t have much knowledge of software development or programming languages.

30 minutes ago, psolk said:

And yet PMDG was able to figure out how to make things work within the MSFS constructs making their products available to the masses via Marketplace 2 1/2 years before iFly will even release a product that apparently wont be available via Marketplace at all.  Fenix in Marketplace?  

So the skill lacking Legacy Dev managed to figure something out while iFly is releasing their first product right as MSFS2020 becomes MSFS2024 and hasn't figure out how to make it available via Marketplace 4 years after MSFS was released.

I'm not trying to knock iFly at all just pointing out the silliness in continuing to bash PMDG in the process.  

Which 737 would Marketplace users be using if it wasn't for PMDG? Which good 737 would users have had access to for the past two years?  Would good long haul add ons would we have without the 777?  

Hmmm.  

Just because I don't agree with their business practices or have concerns about the value of the product I am purchasing does not mean I don't have opinions about those practices. While I am a customer and likely will continue to be one for both the developers, I am still entitled to point out apparent gaps in judgment and opportunities that seem to be a company culture at PMDG.

It's easy for any developer to shine when they are the only ones with a product, so right now, it's their niche. It became extremely apparent in the pricing strategy on the 777 that they know it, too. We don't have a reasonable choice for a 777 variant, so they get to charge what they want. So, I am trying to understand your comment, as it seems you're being sarcastic. Maybe I am overreading your comment, but here's my analogy to help you understand my point of view: If I'm on an island with only a couple of restaurants, and there's only one Mexican place that calls itself "Authentic" Mexican food, but it's just a fusion of Mexican and whatever that local culture is, then it's easy for that restaurant to say "The best Mexican food in the world." However, maybe I have been to Mexico, maybe I know what "authentic Mexican food is," maybe, just maybe, I can say this is "meh" at best, and by the way, they charged $70 for a fajita plate, when reasonably, I could pay $35-45 for a higher quality outside the island. 

 

So, just because they are the first on this island to bring the product doesn't make it the best. Also, just because they say they have the best doesn't mean I have to agree with their self-assessment. Or that maybe pineapple doesn't belong in my chicken fajita. (But again, maybe you're into pineapple, and it's worth the $15-20 price difference to you.)

2 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

ALL the major high-end third-party add-ons for MSFS use C++ code running under WASM for the majority of their aircraft systems. PMDG, Fenix, Leonardo etc. all use it. It is well-suited for implementing mathematically complex, real-time emulations of navigation systems, autopilots etc. For the same reason C++ is used as a primary programming language (along with Ada) for the systems on real aircraft.

Even Working Title, who have done magnificent work using (primarily) JavaScript/HTML, use C++ when high precision and speed of execution are of primary importance.

WASM support has been part of MSFS from the very beginning, and WASM-based add-ons such as the Aerosoft CRJ, Leonardo MD-80 and PMDG 737 all initially released for MSFS within a few months of each other.

The delay that PMDG experienced was in making C++/WASM code pass data to JavaScript/HTML for implementing their EFB, but the EFB was not part of their initial release of the 737 for MSFS in any case.

Your perception that a developer is not “innovating” by using something other than “ancient” C++ code tells me that you don’t have much knowledge of software development or programming languages.

You're right, and I don't have programming language experience. I am not going off what my experience is on the C++ platform. I am going off the words of RSR himself, who said on the Blue Sky Radios podcast that their modules were built long ago, and it's easy for them to integrate them with small modifications into new products. That, to me, sounds like "recycling," which is what most people do with apps and other programs: recycle. The issue I have is that the modifications to the end customer experience are minute. Then, are you charging a premium price point for it? Also, constant promises of bringing the changes from their innovations at a snail's pace. 

I understand. Writing code is complex (I've tried learning), and adapting to new platforms is challenging. But the words on his last post pointing to another charge gave me FSX to P3D days conversions where the changes to the code were again minute, and we had to spend a premium for the same code from FSX to P3D. 

For context, I am a customer. (I own every 737 and 777 for every platform.) I just spent two days flying the 737 ON MSFS, a great plane. But the value is inferior when I compare it to other developers you've mentioned, how much I've spent, and the end-user experience. 

I may not know coding, but I've spent 15 years selling and now am a Director in Customer Experience. My job is to ensure that sales grow and the product's value creates a positive reputation for the company. So, my perspective on it is not as black and white as others may be.
 

22 minutes ago, spearmint_flyer said:

But the value is inferior when I compare it to other developers you've mentioned

I've always been puzzled why FBW was able to enable keyboard inputs into the FMC whereas PMDG has not in the 738.  Plus, that the EFB doesn't even have an OFF/ON button without looking for it in an FMC.  Those are little things that might not matter to many but again, a puzzle to me.  Will def check out IFly's MAX.

40 minutes ago, spearmint_flyer said:

 
I may not know coding, but 

The  problem here is a big "BUT" LOL   Nothing in software engineering is done from the scratch. Otherwise we would wait several decades for anything to accomplish. C++ is object oriented language that support many principles like  inheritance, polymorphism , dynamic binding, encapsulation , abstraction ...You should probably guess that all this years you have been overcharged (according to your understanding) by any software company (other than start up ) including Microsoft, Adobe and etc ! 

40 minutes ago, Noel said:

I've always been puzzled why FBW was able to enable keyboard inputs into the FMC whereas PMDG has not in the 738.  Plus, that the EFB doesn't even have an OFF/ON button without looking for it in an FMC.  Those are little things that might not matter to many but again, a puzzle to me.  Will def check out IFly's MAX.

I'm pretty sure it's because FBW is a JavaScript plane while PMDG uses WASM. But that's just my layman's recollection. 

31 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

The  problem here is a big "BUT" LOL   Nothing in software engineering is done from the scratch. Otherwise we would wait several decades for anything to accomplish. C++ is object oriented language that support many principles like  inheritance, polymorphism , dynamic binding, encapsulation , abstraction ...You should probably guess that all this years you have been overcharged (according to your understanding) by any software company (other than start up ) including Microsoft, Adobe and etc ! 

Yes, as I have said, it's evident that any developer will reuse code or get code from a library as a foundation. The additional features added as part of the final product provided to the consumer will usually have a significant feature addition that adds value to the end consumer. Microsoft, Adobe, etc., will have new features that provide additional benefits to the end user; they will most likely warrant the increased prices. I can compare Photoshop from 2014 to Photoshop 2023 and not find significant improvements that the end user enjoys. If I apply that logic to the current product offering, 737, for example, that delta of change or improvements in the code is not the same standard as the programs or companies you are implying by mentioning Microsoft and Adobe. The last memorable change I remember (in the products I've owned from PMDG) that I was excited to pay for an upgrade was when they went from the 737 for FSX to the NGXu series. 

Again, while my comments may not be popular, the end user is not receiving the same "value" to provide a FANTASTIC customer experience while using the product as you may get with alternative products. But time will tell. At the end of the day, I am a supporter of all developers because I believe in growing the hobby. I've been doing this since 2003, and all of these developers have kept my dream of flying alive and inspired me. So, believe it or not I support PMDG continue to grow, I simply wish they had the customer experience in mind first.

I support PMDG continuing to grow as well.  I've enjoyed their products heavily over the years.  I think most of us do.  However, since MSFS it's clear that other developers have innovated more.  More to the point they are now driving past them.  Goal posts are always moving...

1 hour ago, spearmint_flyer said:

. I am going off the words of RSR himself, who said on the Blue Sky Radios podcast that their modules were built long ago, and it's easy for them to integrate them with small modifications into new products. That, to me, sounds like "recycling," which is what most people do with apps and other programs: recycle.

When a company has an extensive library of throughly tested and debugged code to accomplish a particular task, it makes perfect sense to re-purpose it in future products.

If the ultimate goal is to recreate an accurate emulation of a real-world aircraft system, the end result is going to look and act the same no matter who the developer is, or what programming language is used. “Innovation” is fine, but there is a limit to how much innovation can be added to a simulated aircraft without adding “features” that don’t actually exist in the real thing.

The many EFBs that are now exist for most MSFS airliners are a good example. No question that they improve the “quality of life” for sim pilots by making it easy to do things like aircraft loading or flight plan import, but most do it in a way that no real EFB would do.

“Old” is not automatically “bad”. The spherical trigonometric formulae for calculating the great circle distance and bearing between two points of known latitude/longitude were first discovered over 200 years ago, yet those algorithms are still used in the navigation subroutines of every real world and simulated FMS to this day.

 

The sounds have been a big disappoint to most.  Yes some have defended them.  But when they have a reputation of bad sounds on the 777 and then it's found they used pumps from the 737.  Well that's different than recycling other types of code.  

Flightdeck2sim with another rave review. Looks like it is better than the PMDG products, but from some of the things Blackbox said, it might be better than all other 3rd party planes as well.

Could be the product of the year.

15 minutes ago, RNAVV19R said:

Flightdeck2sim with another rave review. Looks like it is better than the PMDG products, but from some of the things Blackbox said, it might be better than all other 3rd party planes as well.

Could be the product of the year.

Indeed, just saw BLUGAMES review. The airplane is neat. Can't wait to fly it. 

32 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I support PMDG continuing to grow as well.  I've enjoyed their products heavily over the years.  I think most of us do.  However, since MSFS it's clear that other developers have innovated more.  More to the point they are now driving past them.  Goal posts are always moving...

Precisely. 

So back to the actual aircraft: I wasn't a big fan of iFly in P3D (never actually bought it, but from what I heard), it seemed like it was lacking systems depth and other stuff (e.g. that external load manager). But it seems like they did a lot of stuff right this time and since PMDG more or less cancelled their MAX (I would have preferred their MAX if it ended up 777-level qualitywise), I will definitely buy the iFly on day one. They can release it right now, it looked more than ready to me