-
Content Count
92 -
Donations
$0.00 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
AVSIM
Media Demo
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Forms
Everything posted by IcemanFBW
-
Fenix A320 Release imminent within DAYS!
IcemanFBW replied to Fiorentoni's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
Can't wait to get this bird in the air - congrats to the folks over at Fenix! It's great to see the hard work from all these developers finally come to fruition - it's going to help MSFS grow even more as a platform and we can't wait to see what the future holds.- 340 replies
-
- 17
-
Can you give this a shot and let us know if it resolves the issue? https://docs.flybywiresim.com/fbw-a32nx/support/reported-issues/#autopilot-fadec-electrical-systems-not-working-as-intended-utf8-issue
-
From what I can gather, it seems like a binding contract with Meteoblue is the reason for not allowing weather customization - quite a shame in my opinion to lock out customization while at the same time not offering something of a similar caliber. The lack of ability for third party developers to customize the flight model is also a long-standing issue we've brought up time after time. In my opinion, it seems as though management at MS/Asobo is mainly focused on prioritizing functionality for paid DLC/expansions rather than missing core sim features.
-
There is no VNAV or custom FMS v2.0 in the experimental version as of right now, only other various improvements including constraint logic and LNAV improvements.
-
What a pleasant surprise in FBW's A32NX
IcemanFBW replied to hvw's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
We plan to add an option for a PF/PM callouts - e.g. "positive rate, gear up", etc in the future. But I would say an automated copilot is out of the scope of our development, especially given how automated much of the workload is in an Airbus, compared to three crew older aircraft such as the DC-6. -
FlyByWire Simulations | A32NX | NOTAM
IcemanFBW replied to Watsi's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
We're in the process of integrating it with the flight model and fly-by-wire system. No ETA, but our initial tests with it are looking spectactular. -
FBW A320N Electrical Issue
IcemanFBW replied to Peterwk's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
See if this helps:https://docs.flybywiresim.com/fbw-a32nx/support/reported-issues/#autopilot-fadec-electrical-systems-not-working-as-intended-utf8-issue If it's a problem with the default A320, it may be something else altogether. Can you post a screenshot or video of the issue? -
Keep in mind that the T16000 has an unreliable twist axis after a couple months of use - I've had it happen to me personally with both the base T16000 and TCA sidestick, ended up getting a Gladiator NXT instead.
-
I never claimed I knew everything PMDG was trying to do. I did not state the problem did not exist - I simply said I was certain that an SDK limitation was not at fault (which is true, as confirmed in the Q&A stream). FBW is developing a complex airliner that makes use of WASM and C++ (you can take a look yourself), and had thoroughly investigated the possibility of bringing the aircraft to XBOX but realized it would not work, mainly due to licensing and workload concerns. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings - have a wonderful day!
- 164 replies
-
- 16
-
Out of curiosity, is your internal graphics library built on top of the existing low-level graphics API provided by MSFS? I was looking into the possibility of experimenting with NanoVG in some displays (currently using HTML gauges) to improve performance, but from what you're saying it doesn't look too promising and it might be worth making our own, like you guys are doing.
-
I'm going to preface this with a disclaimer: whatever opinions I have expressed in this thread are those of my own, not necessarily the FBW team. The SDK is synonymous with the platform in the context of MSFS - the SDK is the developer-side interface to the platform. If the sim (platform) is lacking functionality or implements functionality incorrectly, then the API's available through the SDK will also lack that correct functionality. IBM defines this relationship as follows: "SDK stands for software development kit. Also known as a devkit, the SDK is a set of software-building tools for a specific platform." [1]. If something isn't available on the platform, then it won't be available in the SDK. I see no reason to comment on this issue any further - I simply stated the truth, but Randazzo felt the need to resort to straw man [2] and ad hominem [3] fallacies in his frankly unprofessional response. I wish the PMDG team the best of luck in their development, and look forward to flying their aircraft. [1]: https://www.ibm.com/cloud/blog/sdk-vs-api [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- 202 replies
-
- 12
-
They already are using WASM. That's the only way to compile a C++ gauge in MSFS (the alternative being an HTML gauge, which doesn't obscure the source code - not ideal for payware). It replaced the old way of compiling into a .DLL in P3D/FSX, which was also unsafer. However, this doesn't affect how the code is written at all, only how it's built/compiled into an executable format once it's ready to be put in the sim. It's as simple as specifying some different command line options, as you can see in our code: https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L26 https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L61 https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/blob/master/src/fbw/build.sh#L114
-
I can comment because I know the SDK inside and out, specific to aircraft systems and avionics development. There are simply no showstoppers from the SDK side aside from a weather API (which we have already requested from Asobo and is expected to come out this year). Displays: there are already TWO functioning API's available for drawing displays from WASM: GDI+ and low-level. This is the same technology that Aerosoft used to draw their CRJ displays. There are no limitations here whatsoever - anything you imagine can be drawn, animated, updated, etc. https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FGDI%2B.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FLow_Level_API%2FLow_Level_API.htm Simulation/environment data: As I said, everything is available via the SimConnect API for both reading and writing data from the sim, with the exception of granular weather data for drawing custom weather radars. The same way it was in P3D and FSX. For that, you can either choose to use the default, uncustomizable weather radar (what WT is using for NEXRAD in the NXi), or wait for a proper API which should be coming shortly (like the CRJ). https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FSimVars%2FSimulation_Variables.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FWASM%2FGauge_API%2FGauge_API.htm Flight model: allows for full customization based on aircraft geometry and aerodynamic coefficients using the blade element model that X-Plane uses. Fully documented here and works perfectly fine for anyone with a proper understanding of 6DOF flight model physics. There are a couple improvements that could be made (such as further customization of speedbrake/spoilers and ground friction coefficients), but no showstoppers. Worst case scenario, you can make an external flight model like Fenix and just communicate aircraft position back to the sim via the SimConnect API mentioned above. https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Content_Configuration%2FSimObjects%2FAircraft_SimO%2FFlight_Model_Definition.htm https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Additional_Information%2FFlight_Model_Physics.htm Engine model: very similar to the engine model parameters that were used in P3D and FSX. However, this is a non-issue as any decent-fidelity aircraft is just overwriting the basic built-in engine model with a custom one using SimConnect. This is what we are doing at FBW: https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/tree/master/src/fadec/src https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Content_Configuration%2FSimObjects%2FAircraft_SimO%2FEngine_Config_Definition.htm Any other systems (hydraulic, electric, pneumatic, air conditioning, etc.) have zero reliance on sim API's aside from fetching environmental/simulation data via SimConnect. I can describe this in further detail in another comment if you wish but I'm sure you get the point now. I have no ulterior motives or anything to gain from speaking my mind here - I contribute to FBW in my free time, not for a paycheck. I just want the community to know the truth and read another perspective here. Anyone who sells a payware aircraft on the other hand, has an obligation to sell as many copies as possible to recoup investments and increase profits, so they naturally have a motive to maintain a good public image of themselves, even if it means deflecting blame onto others in some cases.
- 202 replies
-
- 23
-
I'm not usually one to comment on issue involving other devs, but I feel the need to point out something that simply isn't true. There is absolutely nothing regarding the SDK that presents a blocking issue to aircraft development besides a custom weather radar API. I can say that with 95% certainty having worked with aircraft development in MSFS for nearly a year and a half, and having spoken to numerous other devs and with Asobo developers themselves. Although we primarily use HTML gauges at FBW, we also use WASM gauges for systems and autopilot/fly-by-wire, the same technology that payware aircraft use for all of their code. And if Aerosoft is able to put out the CRJ as a complete product (with the exception of WX & terrain radar), I don't see why others cannot do the same. Also, in my personal opinion, Robert's message borders on unprofessional. Having had contact with Asobo developers for quite a while now, they have been nothing but helpful and nice. There are obviously cannot fulfill every one of our requests at once, but are understanding and help out as much as they are able, given the constraints of working on such a large platform with countless other third party developers to communicate with.
- 202 replies
-
- 19
-
@FBW and Fenix: is a phone number really necessary?!?
IcemanFBW replied to tup61's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
A phone number requirement is necessary for us as an active Discord server with over 50,000 members, in order to moderate effectively and combat scammers and trolls - it's not something we did without carefully weighing the advantages and disadvantages to our community. Phone numbers are solely used to verify that you only have one Discord account, and that you are human and not a bot - nothing else. For those who cannot verify a phone number, our new documentation site should cover almost all frequently encountered bugs and questions, providing solutions to them, in addition to comprehensive tutorials. Important announcements are mirrored on our Twitter and even here on Avsim. Our Discord originally arose as a platform mainly for us developers on the project to discuss development, but grew far larger than we anticipated. For those not too familiar with it, or comparing it to forums - I would say a more apt comparison would be to IRC, as conversation can flow fairly quickly and is separated by channels. For those who need support or have a question, you can get it answered in a matter of seconds or minutes rather than hours/days/weeks on traditional forums. Almost all support questions get addressed - if yours happens to be overlooked for a while, there's no harm in politely asking again/bumping. For less ephemeral methods of communication, we use announcement/progress channels, as well as our Github for tracking issues and features in development. -
FBW A32NX seems to get worse instead of better
IcemanFBW replied to tup61's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
Would you mind posting screenshots of the PFD (specifically the FMA at the top, during the NAV mode disconnect and ALT mode refusal you mentioned), the navigation display (showing the procedure(s) that are causing problems, and the MCDU? This will help in diagnosing the issue. -
Today Q/A Event Fenix simulations - 13. August
IcemanFBW replied to Deleted's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
I wouldn't say we're competing with Fenix at all. We're just a bunch of developers and pilots working on this plane for fun in our free time, and giving back to the community. We don't have any investors or partners to answer to, and no investment to recoup. I would say this applies to pretty much any freeware project. On the other hand, payware companies ARE competing with both payware and high quality freeware projects, as either of these which offer significant functionality can compete with sales, and payware companies do have an investment to recoup, and profits to turn. Just my two cents.- 64 replies
-
- 22
-
Fly by Wire A32NX and Navigraph
IcemanFBW replied to RaptyrOne's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
Yes -
ToLiss has AutoTCAS modeled on their A321neo's. And, of course, we plan to model it as well 🙂
- 547 replies
-
- 16
-
It costs a around a few hundred to rent one for a day, not too bad - you just need to know the right people to haul one into a real airliner cockpit. We've been planning to do some real scans for a while for our A32NX remodel (from scratch), and we might as well get some A320 CEO scans too while we're at it (all funded by donations).
- 547 replies
-
- 11
-
Where are all our major scenery developers?
IcemanFBW replied to Dillon's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
Honestly surprised that no scenery developer has done LAX or LGA/JFK, from the two most populous US cities. And I would have expected Orbx to have done YMML already, considering that's their home airport and the 2nd biggest in Australia. -
MSFS has the most advanced flight model?
IcemanFBW replied to abrams_tank's topic in Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
I'll throw in my two cents here. I'm obviously biased towards MSFS though, since I'm heavily invested in development at FBW. MSFS has revolutionized consumer flight simulation by improving the overall experience and addressing many pain points that we just grew to tolerate with previous sims. No more downloading terabytes of ZL17 ortho and buying new hard drives for it or paying exorbitant sums for small regions of high quality payware ortho. No more paying for 3rd party plugins to improve weather accuracy and appearance to a decent level. No more paying for 3rd party plugins for basic ground services, lighting, autogen, sounds, etc. And no more paying for navdata from other providers when the sim should ship with updated cycles itself. And no more hassle dealing with updating all these plugins and finding out which one is causing crashes, or even organizing scenery order in multiple folders. With the continuing improvements being made to the rough edges of MSFS, and more 3rd party devs realizing this platform is the future, I don't see how X-Plane can viable compete in the long term, in the home desktop simulation market. Even more so given Austin's dismissive thoughts on streaming ortho and scenery (something that even FlightGear, a free flight sim, has a very rudimentary implementation of). I would love to be proven wrong by the XP team however - competition is good for everyone - but at this rate, I stand by my prediction.