Jump to content

MattNischan

Members
  • Content Count

    499
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,032 Excellent

5 Followers

About MattNischan

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The WT G1000 NXi is not a payware addon, it is totally free, and is being developed as part of our core simulator work as part of the MSFS team. Additionally, the default navdata, while not totally perfect, is actually several orders of magnitude more accurate than anything that has been previously delivered in a sim for no cost, and is actually quite accurate in general, if you look across the whole breadth of the navdata. -Matt
  2. It's not really an issue with anything relating to the installation location. It's actually that the packages are the same as the retail packages, and thus will overwrite your retail packages when installed into the same location. These will not be compatible with the present retail build, in parts. The downloader could or course be eventually made "beta aware", but all that would amount to is automatically installing all the beta packages to a subfolder. So, it would not be any different than the user doing it. Think of it this way: if you installed a preview version of Windows into literally the same folders, partially overwriting existing libraries, I don't think it would be a surprise when the non-preview version was no longer functional and broken. -Matt
  3. Well, to be fair, we're literally on the MSFS team, a first party just like Asobo. Not sure it gets more core than that. 😉 -Matt
  4. I mentioned it in the stream, but the G3X will also get the WT treatment. So, we'll be tackling the G1000, G3000/5000, GNS430, GNS530, and G3X, on the Garmin front. -Matt
  5. Please tell me you all blended in a Wilhelm Scream. 😉 -Matt
  6. That's incredibly kind of you, much thanks! I guess the only thing I'll cheekily say here is that the GNS430/530 are also default avionics. 😉 -Matt
  7. I don't think the MSFS team misunderstands any such thing. It's one of the big reasons why we were brought on board: to make the default avionics great. 🙂 -Matt
  8. I understand the frustration, especially from industry folks, but this is a naïve view. The product is rapidly evolving because the customers demand (loudly) that it rapidly evolve. But it isn't your normal business app, and any comparison to that kind of project isn't going to quite hold up. This is a highly complex piece of real-time software with distributed server-side component, a completely unbounded problem set, 30 years of legacy baggage, and multiple millions of lines of code. The test surface is effectively infinite, and the rate of change is necessarily high. Folks who have been in the front-line business apps business, even for a very long time, rarely quite grasp what it means to test a real-time simulation. It's the functional definition of chaos theory, because even small changes in the starting state can have large changes in the ending state, and thus even with the most rigorous test plans humanity can construct, they fail under the smallest of timing changes by a tester, or even by an automated testing program. The number of available configurations is huge, and where you are in the world plays a huge part in what errors you can see, but that also changes based on what data comes down from the servers, which is an unknown from the user side. It requires a much more analysis-driven approach than just simply saying "well then just make the test plan more complete" or "well, just hire more testing resources". -Matt
  9. Well, between you and I, one of us has the sim source and interfaces amongst us all on the MSFS team daily. 😉 Not to put too fine a point on it, but that post was spot on. Lots more going on behind the scenes and it's all quite organized and analytical. -Matt
  10. This is one of the best replies to this topic that has ever existed on these types of topics. -Matt
  11. VNAV and RNAV with full vertical profile has been available in the Working Title CJ4 for around 9 months now. Both in the CJ4 and in the NXi, we do not fly with the stock sim RNAV, instead we have a customized avionics specific autopilot system that interfaces with the sim autopilot (in the CJ4, we drive using HDG and VS under the hood, in the NXi we use straight pitch and roll hold under the hood, which is more advanced). However, this is powered by data that has been in the sim since day one: the navdata available includes all the necessary altitude restriction and lateral information to fully build any type of approach possible. All of this information is freely available via the Javascript instrument APIs. Most of the reason why it's taken a while for everyone to add these features is because building them is just incredibly difficult. Creating proper vectorized flight paths for any combination of the 23 ARINC leg types is a huge undertaking; in the NXi we have an enormous chunk of the software dedicated just to the large amount of spherical trig, great circle to small circle intersections, linear maths, etc. However, the Salty 747 and the Heavy Division 787 are now using versions of the WT CJ4 era flight plan/nav/vnav code, and FBW has a more modified version of the CJ4 era flight plan code coupled with their own extensions (I understand they're still working on their VNAV). -Matt
  12. Thanks Bert, that's very kind! I'm actually somewhat amused as to how little traction or attention the NXi has gotten on these forums. I seem to recall this crowd yelling somewhat the loudest about how poor the original G1000 was, but relatively little fanfare about one that now does all the IFR stuff everyone wanted in the first place (and a good deal more). Of course, we're not powered by fanfare, so we'll keep on building the thing out, because we actually really enjoy flying it too! 😉 -Matt
  13. Because that would involve undoing all of the new autopilot, which doesn't feel like a reasonable course of action to us at the moment. We understand that it's frustrating sometimes for there to be issues, but this is an early access, bleeding edge product. It is not meant to be a production system yet, it is meant for people to opt-in to if they want to help us by providing feedback and bug reports, and in return be able to use the product ahead of real release. Things will definitely break along the way and though we work hard to keep that to a minimum, sometimes we will be moving ahead of the platform API in order to get a feel for what needs to be added to the platform itself. -Matt
  14. Not on most avionics. The majority switch from providing guidance using the inbound to using the outbound and back again as you go around the hold. -Matt
  15. I think the biggest problem here is mostly just one of expectations and in general difficulty in expressing the effort required to build some of this stuff. So, if you look at what you get in the premium edition, each one of those premium planes are maybe $8 planes, max. What I don't always quite understand is why folks would hold a third party $8 plane to a totally different standard than those. An $8 third party 787 would be rightfully assumed to be mostly a decent-ish visual model with skin deep avionics at best. Instead what we seem to have is folks wanting what I would put more into the $35-50-ish plane price range, with relatively complete systems, full RNP IFR capabilities, coupled VNAV, and manufacturer accurate fly-by-wire autopilot. These are things that I've never seen on any aircraft that are either default or at that sub $10 kind of price point, even with MSFS's expanded reach. Even though it's my opinion that there's a pretty large and head-scratching expectations gap there, I will say with 100% honesty that totally, absolutely the team _still_ wants to do right by what folks expect despite that, and that's why there is legitimately a whole strike team dedicated just to this scope. The issue is, the majority of the gap is an avionics gap, and that requires foundational work, which we are doing presently on the NXi. The intent is to bring the foundational work of the NXi to other avionics stacks as we go, but the truth is in the meantime there isn't a ton that can realistically be done with these massive glass systems. This is work that you can't just grab 10 more people and have it go twice as fast. So folks are going to have to exercise some patience while we take those planes and/or avionics out of that sub-$10 features range. I've said in a couple other places that we're 4K+ person-hours into the NXi alone, and that's just one of the many avionics systems. That's the kind of effort required to meet the hardcore sim community's expectations, and you can do your own back-of-the-envelope math to figure out for yourself that it's Not Cheap. Anyone who feels there isn't a commitment to the sim for simmers community only need look at that. It's a massive, massive commitment. I know I'm critical of the community in which I reside, but it's most often with tongue security in cheek, as I'm as much a procedures guy as a lot of folks here are. But the reality is that the stuff like world updates, like Reno, like Maverick, people do really dig that stuff too. And it really, truly does help keep the lights on, so I feel that the core sim community should be perhaps a little more forgiving and embracing. Without that set of flight enthusiasts, there would be not nearly enough to go on to continuing doing what we at the MSFS team well and truly want to do, which is continue to make progress towards the best flight simulation platform that exists, period. Despite what folks think, it's a hugely positive symbiosis: flight enthusiasts fund the really grindy, expensive technical work to make the sim a better sim for simmers, and a better sim makes it possible to make cooler things for flight enthusiasts, ad infinitum. -Matt
×
×
  • Create New...