Jump to content

Steve Halpern

Commercial Member
  • Content Count

    252
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Neutral

About Steve Halpern

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.flight1.com
  • ICQ
    0

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    Yes
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

2,624 profile views
  1. Hi Martin, As I understand it, there is still a level of required interpretation... and that C++ compiled code is still measurably faster than WASM. From https://wiki.osdev.org/WebAssembly: "The truth is, the name WebAssembly (or WASM in short) is quite misleading, as it's a very well specified bytecode format with a minimal interpreting environment, which does not require any Web-related technologies at all." I agree with you on the Sandbox. But this is starting to move into another thread altogether over the discussion of sandboxing. But for high-level professional use, for example, with Prepar3D in a professional training environment, this does not mix. I do not know what to exactly say about it, but I have mixed feeling about going the sandbox route. As we try to get every frame possible and add every feature possible, the sandbox may make this a lot more difficult as we need to rely on the parent application for access to almost every element (read PMDG), rather than having the developer the freedom of Windows to develop. I mean, what is special about Flight Simulator that requires a sandbox, vs other Windows applications (after removing the Xbox factor)?
  2. C++ is old, Assembly language is old, but it is still the foundation of what runs PC's (including Windows itself). The interpreter for WASM could be written in C++! WASM may provide portability, but not performance vs. compiled C++.
  3. It is far fetched... but maybe once it is realized that study level aircraft will be a long time coming it may get their attention, or possibly have some limitations. I mean, why not bring it up for discussion at least? The bridge between technologies is so wide (C++ and FSX-P3D vs FS2020 and WASM). There is a real "null zone" created in the industry and navigating a path is more difficult. At some point there may be some bottlenecks with WASM also. My understanding is that even though WASM is byte code (not text like pure javascript), it still has to be "interpreted"... like your browser interpreting Javascript. For aircraft that may use over 100,000 lines of C++ code, will WASM be viable? WASM is faster than Javascript, but slower than C++ from what I understand. This article is quite complex but it may shed some light: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc19-jangda.pdf If Xbox is the only reason to abandon C++ then that is unfortunate. PC is the core enthusiast group for study level simulators, even if a study level sim worked on Xbox (but who knows what the future of computing will entail). I do not mean to twist this thread in a different path. PMDG's announcement does say many things, and it is not limited to PMDG. It mirrors a lot of what is going on with many companies, including our company. Just because WASM is newer that does not mean it is better. It may be a great technology in many regards, but it may not be the best fit in other areas. The new FS2020 is AMAZING in many regards. If it allowed C++, maybe with a different rendering API, it could possibly be even more amazing!
  4. Here is some good reading leading up to more modern history... http://www.fspanelstudio.com/help/index.html?typeofgauges.htm If Microsoft split the sim into two different flavors... one for advanced PC use and another for mid-level simulations on Xbox, that would be best for many developers. I am sure things will progress to a certain level with WASM, SimConnect, and the SDK. I just feel two entirely different simulator groups with different goals would be better served by two different branches of FS2020. This is just discussion here. I just think Microsoft could profit from an advanced version of the sim only for PC. Edit: To answer the #3 question... Yes, the goal is for them to make a wrapper which re-interprets the C++ code. But that does not mean it will be a 1 to 1 conversion. It will be great if it was... because development can work more or less within a single branch of code. Some developers still need to develop for professional use in Prepar3D, so it causes major development issues if it is not close to 1 to 1. If it is .75 to 1, and 25% of your code has to be re-written (plus a restructure of your converted code to work with the rewrites), that could be a major development drain. If they did allow C++ gauges straight up, that would open up so much, because the Xbox user base does not require the advanced addons like the PC base. The decision to not allow DLL files is much bigger than folks may realize (or maybe folks do). I do hope they reverse course to some degree, because if we had C++ today everything would be quite different. Or that the WASM wrapper is truly a 1 to 1 conversion in the end.
  5. I usually do not jump into these threads... very interesting discussion here. I just would like to make several points. And even a small survey question! 1. Yes, it will take time to port years worth of C++ code to the new platform... Even if we had the full SDK today, it would take some time. 2. The universal inclusion of FS2020 on PC and Xbox is likely one of the major reasons for the required use of WASM. 3. And here is the point leading to the question: How many of us on the enthusiast forums are using Xbox as our main platform? Likely not many. The "advanced" simmer is PC only, where everything can be customized (hardware and software). Hypothetically, if there was a separate Flight Simulator 2020 Advanced Edition, even if it was $29.95 more, which was limited to PC only and allowed the C++ API's that 1000's of gauges are written for, would you buy it? Especially if it means waiting a lot less time for your advanced add-on? The question is obviously to help make a point. But I would not be surprised if most folks would say "Yes" if it meant many advanced simulations available much sooner. Over the years there as always been adaptation. FS2002 to FS2004, to FSX, to Prepar3D. This is the first major break from the classic system. I do hope Microsoft and Asobo consider other options. Without that, we will have to see what the SDK brings us!
  6. Hi, We got notice of this in our ticket system this morning and have been looking into it. Please note that plain passwords are not stored. Only 1-way advanced hashing of passwords are stored. We also do not save any useful card payment data (that is why you have to enter card data for each purchase). You likely do not need to change any passwords or other information (based on our preliminary examination today). If you have any more information which could be of help post us a ticket at our site. Usernames are still the same... we auto generated usernames when doing system upgrades and they will be rather generic.
  7. Tooting, The "Live" aspect is not connecting to a server getting traffic. It is about how traffic is calculated in a cause and effect system. For example, weather you may pull in from a real-time source affects what happens across the traffic spectrum. Here is what PowerPack is for (features can of course change before and after release). You will have the ability to modify the data for: - Airlines - Airports - Aircraft - And more... Allows for the import/export of repaints. For example, the tool will make it easy to import livery packs. The ability to apply NAVDATA updates and rebuild flight plans (this will be an advanced feature). The ability to create and share custom add-on schedules. Schedules could be for your VA, or for carriers with unique data. I do not often check here (I was redirected here from a 3rd party). So do post in the UTLive forum if needed.
  8. To add to this topic... You are seeing an EARLY beta... Some elements were not added at the time of the show (i.e. some cockpit animations). A lot may change and evolve on the product. At FlightSimCon, the lighting was very difficult for good pictures. You had 12 ft glass windows so cell phone cameras had to be at certain angles, and glare affected a lot. In any case, we posted a few pics over at the Level-D forum (see below). However, folks had a great time flying the plane, which was one of the goals there at the show. The display was not roped off from the public . It was hands on. On a side note, it was amazing to see what some folks can do from all walks of life in a simulator... That is what we observed at the show. From 9 year old kids with their parents, to seasoned simmers. I think everyone landed the plane nicely. Now it is time to wheel her into the hangar and continue work! Do not expect a lot of pics because of the evolving nature of things, but here are the couple pics as promised.
  9. Chrome does seem to cause issues sometimes, and it is unknown why. We all mostly use Firefox around here. It gives you a lot of freedom to configure it the way you want.
  10. Also, the version with SimConnect was posted last night, so if you downloaded early last night or before that, SimConnect was not automatically included.
  11. For Prepar3D, if you get blank gauges, I believe it is actually FSX SimConnect RTM that is the required version. This version is now in the installer. It would also be in your Prepar3D folder in the following location: PATH_TO_P3D\redist\Interface\FSX-RTM\retail\lib\SimConnect.msi
  12. Do download it again... that was fixed. With the file in broad use among 3 different sims, I am collecting reports of things that may need addressing. You can post here as I monitor that more frequently... http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=58079
  13. Charliep... It should install with the supplied key if you enter 1212 as the password and you did not corrupt the key file. Make sure any firewall software is not blocking anything also. See the instructions at http://www.flight1.com/view.asp?page=skycatcher If you are having MFD issues... I left out the navdata file in the rebuild I originally uploaded (sorry about that). If you downloaded BEFORE 8:40 PM on Tuesday the 25th, please re-download and install it again. This may affect some MFD and PFD screens. Note: the MFD does need to initialize the map data, so give it a moment to load everything after you start the aircraft.
  14. It appears the right SimConnect is SP1. If you run SP1 SimConnect, it should fix the blank MCP and flickering gauge issue.
  15. If your MCP does not work you may need to make sure SimConnect is installed into P3D. This is included with P3D and you just double click on the msi file... PATH_TO_PREPAR3D\redist\Interface\FSX-SP2-XPACK\retail\lib\SimConnect.msi MSXML4 may also be required on some machines. If you go to the Level-D support forum, the above is discussed there also.
×
×
  • Create New...