Jump to content

JB3DG

Commercial Member
  • Content Count

    679
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

200 Excellent

About JB3DG

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/26/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Africa

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    Yes
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

2,454 profile views
  1. This is absolutely comical. Carenado has their market base that they appeal to, more power to them. But comparing what they do with what teams like Milviz, PMDG, A2A, MJC etc do, and what's involved in updating their products is just hysterical. I don't know what all the WT team is doing, what information they have on the CJ4's PL-21, and what all you view as a fully simulated PL-21. All I can say after going through the real PL-21 manuals for 3 different aircraft (P-180 Avanti PL-21 manual: 470 pages. KA350i manual: 666 pages. LJ60 manual: 666 pages.) is that it is waaaaaaaay more than just "vectors legs, proper discontinuities, intercept legs, fully functional FADEC, full VNAV, RNAV with all the right sensitivities, including angular sensitivity for LPV, custom LNAV" etc. Again, I can't go into details without breaking NDAs. Suffice to say, there are certain things that I know for a fact cannot be done with the present tools that PMDG, MJC, Milviz, and a bunch of others consider essential for porting over their work into the new sim.
  2. Sorry but this comment is clueless as to what all is involved in targeting C++ to WASM. And apart from the FSLabs incident (which wasn't made in any malicious intent to the honest of this community, but explicitly targeted a particular pirate. Sadly putting many others at risk), I challenge you, or anyone else here, to bring up a single incident where malware or any other security threat has occurred in this community. Can't? Not surprised and hackers/virus makers know it. They have far bigger fish to fry. Porn and other games that have a far bigger footprint, overlapping with many who play with flight simulators, are far easier and more worthwhile to exploit than our hobby.
  3. The CJ4 already had a lot of the ground work in place so it isn't comparable to starting from scratch. Not even close. If there is a possibility that we can get Asobo/MS to implement features in the SDK that will allow us to do our work without starting from scratch, we will rather put our effort into working with them to get those features. So far, they are at least working with PMDG who faces the same challenges that we do. So we are taking a wait and see approach to see what comes of it. This is something that the folks in this forum seem to be missing. We aren't flat out refusing to do anything for the new sim. We are refusing to use the tools *that are currently available, not the tools that might potentially be available in a couple months or years time*. Somehow this community is interpreting that as "Developer XYZ isn't going to do anything for MSFS and we can't understand how they can be such idiots for missing out point X/Y/Z which is the reason why they should invest in it etc etc etc". Far from the truth. The fact that Milviz has a C310 in the pipeline for MSFS proves the exact opposite. Some of the aircraft in their catalog lend themselves to the currently available tools without much pain. Others (unfortunately the more popular ones like their KingAir and PL-21) do not. Its already happened. An update was released not long ago that destroyed compatibility for a number of 3rd party planes and if I recall (I'm totally up for correction here) some of the default aircraft as well. Weird things were happening with various instruments not working at all, flight models went wonky, etc etc. Its far from stable right now.
  4. I will give an extra little insight into the hesitancy and why C++ is preferred. In order to cope with the rapid slew of updates that were expected in P3D and when DTG was getting into FSX, developers go to great lengths to make their code base as platform independent as possible. Meaning that with some small exceptions on how displays are handled, as well as the input methods from clickable cockpits, the code is highly portable between any platform so long as that platform supports C++ integration. This makes it vastly easier and more affordable to keep up with changes in technology because C++ is a really great language that is used the world over in almost every platform. To have that portability removed makes things very difficult to deal with the future. Lets say after MSFS has been out for a while, a new update is made that uses a totally new tech/method of coding. Now all of a sudden we again find ourselves with a bunch of code we cannot use and have to re-write everything from scratch. Its just not worth it. Allowing low level code access is actually critical to keeping up with changes in technology and platforms, rather than staying in the past.
  5. This is not quite correct. We have found instances of users cracking the Asobo DRM rather easily. Its no where near the protection systems we have available in C++ where we can make it really difficult, if not impossible to debug when disassembling. its not Javascript WASM that we are after. Its C++ that we want.
  6. As Slayer mentioned, there is the issue of protecting our IP. Going the route that you are taking is essentially the same as leaving our source code open for the world to see, which we cannot, and will not do. Neither will PMDG, nor A2A, nor any other high end developer. The only route to protect our code currently is the WASM system, and for reasons I will not go into here due to NDAs, it is not ready for our plans, or PMDGs plans etc.
  7. The KA350i has a v5 release in the forums and both T-38s went out v5 ready a while back (the C only for those who already have it)
  8. There is a lot about this setup that wasn’t realistic. CW “Mover” Lemoine breaks down why in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziCQqmEllZo
  9. Incorrect. The T-38A ADV Redux was recently released for v5 and those who bought the T-38C while it was available got updates.
  10. Well there is the AGM-122 SideARM which is basically a sidewinder with a AR seeker...
  11. Link please. Several recent posts on PMDG forums state the exact opposite about abandoning P3D.
  12. You are missing a key point. None of those features will be available in MSFS WASM unless MS decides to give access to them. And unlike P3D and FSX, where we can resort to low level code injection and hooks to get what we want if we need to, WASM explicitly prevents circumventing the SDK features.
  13. Trying to lock out poor quality programmers and their addons usually has the side effect of locking out exceptional quality programmers and their addons as well. Which is why PMDG is porting their birds to Aerofly oh wait oops not 🙂 .
×
×
  • Create New...