54 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

I mean a the sim run within a sandbox that restricts access to the sim to just published APIs.

What do you think people on xplane do or any other sim? ultimately you'll need to call these APIs. You can create a plethora of custom systems but ultimately at the end of that a call or read of the APIs needs to be done. That's how any program works when you're interfacing with it, that's not specific to sandboxing. 

You've yet to acknowledge my comment about the starship. So now you're still doubling down at this point.

3 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

What do you think people on xplane do or any other sim? ultimately you'll need to call these APIs. You can create a plethora of custom systems but ultimately at the end of that a call or read of the APIs needs to be done. That's how any program works when you're interfacing with it, that's not specific to sandboxing. 

You've yet to acknowledge my comment about the starship. So now you're still doubling down at this point.

@Matchstick, are you a software developer? FYI, I am a software developer, and Lucky38i should be one too.

Even as a software developer, I will defer to Lucky38i on this, as they are a developer on the FBW team, and they have experience with the MSFS API.

 

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by abrams_tank

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

@Matchstick, are you a software developer? FYI, I am a software developer, and Lucky38i should be one too.

Even as a software developer, I will defer to Lucky38i on this, as they are a developer on the FBW team, and they have experience with the MSFS API.

 

I've been a professional software dev since 1996 originally databases but moving to networking and middleware in the last 10 years and in that time I've met plenty of experts who've said things that aren't true.

Didn't know if you all saw the pics yet:

https://www.flightfx.io/portfolio/c750

dd

5 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

What do you think people on xplane do or any other sim? ultimately you'll need to call these APIs. You can create a plethora of custom systems but ultimately at the end of that a call or read of the APIs needs to be done. That's how any program works when you're interfacing with it, that's not specific to sandboxing. 

You've yet to acknowledge my comment about the starship. So now you're still doubling down at this point.

In all honesty I don't think the Starship as as complex as the CL650 either.

It ultimately comes down to the difference between abstracting and stimulating. 

I believe the Starship abstracts, the CL650 stimulates.

And as for doubling down I think you are wrong about the original point. Simple as that.

 

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by Matchstick

48 minutes ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

Didn't know if you all saw the pics yet:

https://www.flightfx.io/portfolio/c750

dd

I've been in the beta for a while....  everyone is really going to like it!  It's unique from the more modern bizjets, and is so fast which is fun!  

19 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

I've been in the beta for a while....  everyone is really going to like it!  It's unique from the more modern bizjets, and is so fast which is fun!  

I’m super interested in it, esp after the Piaggio got such good reviews AND since FFX said they upped their game based on feedback from that project. 
 

fun fact: the TMS B-2 Spirit seems to be in the same performance league. It’s just harder to find parking 😂

24 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

In all honesty I don't think the Starship as as complex as the CL650 either.

It ultimately comes down to the difference between abstracting and stimulating. 

I believe the Starship abstracts, the CL650 stimulates.

And as for doubling down I think you are wrong about the original point. Simple as that.

 

Good point.
I’d be very interested to see an objective analysis on that (and to be clear, I’m not opining on your position).

41 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

I believe the Starship abstracts, the CL650 stimulates.

 They both have engineering-esque displays to demonstrate their simulation, I think it's pretty insulting to Nick's effort to claim his work is an abstraction rather than a simulation

26 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

 They both have engineering-esque displays to demonstrate their simulation, I think it's pretty insulting to Nick's effort to claim his work is an abstraction rather than a simulation

I haven't seen anything that comes closer to  range and depth of the "Study" panels in the 650 eg the ARNIC 429 Browser.

So what are you thinking of ?

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by Matchstick

I don't have it and it's already in my blood, like the HJET.

dd

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by Sky_Pilot071

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

I haven't seen anything that comes closer to  range and depth of the "Study" panels in the 650 eg the ARNIC 429 Browser.

So what are you thinking of ?

Both the FBW and Fenix models the ARINC429 bus and its discrete variables. For example the LGCIU on the FBW is fully modelled to communicate on the ARINC429 standard. The lack of a panel doesn’t negate their existence. Though we do have LVARS that you’re free to read to get those bit outputs from the LGCIU.

So we’ve confirmed that study panels are possible from black square products and we’ve confirmed ARINC429 communication via FBW and Fenix.

12 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Both the FBW and Fenix models the ARINC429 bus and its discrete variables. For example the LGCIU on the FBW is fully modelled to communicate on the ARINC429 standard. The lack of a panel doesn’t negate their existence. Though we do have LVARS that you’re free to read to get those bit outputs from the LGCIU.

So we’ve confirmed that study panels are possible from black square products and we’ve confirmed ARINC429 communication via FBW and Fenix.

We're taking about the Starship and you were suggesting that there are displays demonstrating a similar depth of simulation to the CL650.

I would genuinely love to know what you are thinking on as I much prefer the Starship to the 650 to fly. 

21 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

We're taking about the Starship and you were suggesting that there are displays demonstrating a similar depth of simulation to the CL650.

I would genuinely love to know what you are thinking on as I much prefer the Starship to the 650 to fly. 

No.. we’re discussing that a 650-level aircraft wasn’t possible due to a sandboxed environment. 
 

While I appreciating the panelling information that the Hotstart provides, it doesn’t negate the fact that these things are modelled by developers in MSFS, they just aren’t presented to you as a consumer.

Aq

24 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

While I appreciating the panelling information that the Hotstart provides, it doesn’t negate the fact that these things are modelled by developers in MSFS, they just aren’t presented to you as a consumer.

I would genuinely like you to demonstrate that.

I love looking around the internals of this kind of system to get an idea of how they work.

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by Matchstick