Whaaaaa???
Hundreds of thousands??? Not hardly.
Why do people state supposedly ridiculous statements as fact???
It has taken a considerable amount of time so far to release any new aircraft, why is anyone’s guess as no one has stated a factual answer.
Unfortunately at present this product still very much feels and behaves like a game so I don’t see much hope for improvement.
MS/Asobo themselves can’t even make a G1000, G3000, or FMC that works properly. Weather is a mess many months in. I play it for what it is…pretty scenery contained in a game.
I don’t hold out for seeing any good 3rd party aircraft for a very long time.
That is why I used the word “yet”. I can tell the avionics are much improved, but other systems seem somewhat vanilla.
I am sure you will get there, just as the sim and 3PD will in time. I love your Garmin mods too.
It still leaves me wondering though why the major 3DP said that the SDK does not support complex code well enough.
After all PMDG and a few others simulate fluid physics, proper heat soak of the engines, fuel cooling in low ambient temperatures and avionics to be ARINC compliant etc…
My main gripe with any of this, is that it looked like Microsoft build the new sim with 3DP assistance from the get-go judging from the PR material. But now we learn that the SDK is not at all suited for the needs of said 3DP. What Aerosoft now does with Asobo I thought happened during development.
All possible with what is there right now, I promise you. People focus on the wrong things. All of that stuff is totally outside the sim, and doesn’t require sim or SDK support specifically to create. In fact, that has been the case in FS2000, FSX, and P3D. There’s no special SDK support for fluid sims or engine heat soak or any of these specialty aircraft systems. That’s all just aircraft code. We already do advanced engine management with the CJ4 FADEC, such as correctly modeled flat rating.
There was a lot of third party input, but I think Microsoft expected a much bigger positive response to the new tech stack given its large advantages, especially as far as developer effort and time are concerned. It’s really fast to iterate on.
However, the third parties have kinda put a line in the sand and won’t move over, for the most part. So the complaints are about the legacy C++ part of the SDK, not about really anything else. So, when you hear “the SDK is incomplete and I can’t do X with it”, that really means “the legacy C++ side of the SDK is incomplete and we’ve decided not to move to the new technologies yet.”
I own the P3D PMDG 737NG. As far as things not currently possible on the legacy SDK side, the list is not very large, but potentially troublesome. Getting navdata from the sim is still a WIP, you wouldn’t be able to get the exact weather radar return as you would on the real thing. I’m struggling to think of other stuff, though. Someone who’s on that side might have a more comprehensive list.
So perhaps this is a case of evolve or die, or at least get left behind? If there are no significant problems with allowing the ported C++ code to work, then why not. But if this could lead to a stumbling block down the road for any reason, and could hold back further development once 3rd parties have got their feet under the table, as it were, that could stifle development. They wouldn’t want to upset those 3rd parties, or rather not upset the revenue stream.
It’s certainly possible, although I hope not. It’s one of the reasons I chime in on these types of threads, so that folks know what can already be done in the sim (which is a ton). I really don’t want to see these great developers go away, like some did in other sim transitions past.
Technology will always have to keep moving forward, at some point.
Yes, I am aware that most of the code is external. To me as a layman it just seemed that the sim for some reason is offering enough support for that.
I can totally understand the 3DP side though. Sounds like you would have to develop every aircraft twice to conform with FS2020 architecture. Because P3D is not going away soon. Why does FS2020 not support C++/C# properly?
Have I lived under a rock? I thought these were very common languages still? Why not revamp that functionality instead of earmarking it legacy and move to something else entirely?
From what I gathered reading your convo with CptLucky there seems no distinct advantage with the new tech stack.
I appreciate you takingthe time.
PS Would you say the CJ4 performance is by the book yet. I get climb rates over 5000 ft/min even at heavier loads and above Vx.
I think when we meet resistance to common sense, on the Asobo side, it may well be worth keeping in mind the multi-platform nature of this title, and it’s heading for the XBox.
I think in terms of sales, P3D has already gone away, talking to some people on the inside. I don’t think you’ll see much more development on it from the big third parties. And, it isn’t so much that it doesn’t support those languages properly, it’s that MS took the time to focus on a tech stack that has a much lower barrier to entry for development and a much faster development lifecycle.
C++ is becoming less and less common over time. C# is still quite popular, though, and engines like Unity use that as the user facing code layer. But, when you don’t have to code your own rendering framework over the bare API, and can just draw on canvas or make SVGs or pop up quick divs and layouts, that’s where the new technology stack really, really shines.
Want to make an EFB? OK, in the old way, you’re going to have to write a whole UI system in C++ by hand over D2D or GDI+. Now? Whip up a HTML page and immediately start seeing real time feedback, that you can hot reload in the sim while it’s still running with no compilation time at all. Don’t like the placement or color of that EFB button? OK, edit the CSS in real time and watch the button update. The old way? Go into the code that is drawing the button and change the pixel coordinates, then rebuild the project and wait for everything to compile, then go back into the sim and wait for the whole plane to reload.
The difference in iteration time is absolutely massive, I cannot possibly overstate that. Just a completely different ballgame. That’s the distinct advantage, and it’s really, really big if you’re a developer. Fewer and fewer devs want to sit around waiting for their tooling to give them a result, and hiring C++ devs is not particularly easy these days as there are so few (relatively) who do it daily anymore.
I would indeed. Our climb rates match the POH very closely. I’m not sure where Textron is sourcing that climb rate from, as there are rates far in excess of that in the books themselves. For example, empty climb at 160kias is listed at about 6000fpm at ISA with a 36% climb gradient. Book time to 45K feet is only like 22 minutes, I believe. When we implemented the FADEC we made sure to doublecheck against the POH in a variety of scenarios while tuning it. Most of the time we were within single digit percentages. It absolutely is a rocket in real life, confirmed by both our in-house former CJ4 pilot and a few others who have reported back to us.
Thank you for all these insightful replies. I suddenly realized that there’s a huge opportunity for new developers who are not hinged on the legacy support to provide us top quality aircraft. Quicker iterations could also mean shorter development time and potentially lower cost which would make product more competitive.
I’m not sure where Textron is sourcing that climb rate from, as there are rates far in excess of that in the books themselves.
Maximum Climb Rate 3,854 fpm (1,175 mpm)
Not sure either what weight was used here. I read 28 minutes to 45k, but don’t have access to the POH.
Thank you very much for the programming insights! The way you phrase it makes sense. Although it’s a bit odd that 3DP we came to trust over decades would be “drawing a line in the sand” and refuse to make the leap to the new tech if it holds so much potential as you say. Especially if revenue from other sources is in decline. Sounds like either a no choice or no-brainer scenario. Maybe both.
With these study sim devs, the potential customer base was always smaller to begin with. I thought that simmers that strive for the ultimate IFR experience with external flight planners like PFPX and a PMDG 777 for example, would not go for the pretty graphics over functionality. So while FS2020 might generate more sales overall, the niche of study sims might be less affected.
But of course, that is all speculation and hearsay.
Hangar 9- they’re the ones who started on the 787 but work ground to a halt because MS won’t unlock the files for them. They’re well on the way with the 757. Their discord has pics and status updates. It’s going to be nice when it’s finished.
My opinion on PMDG is the entire company was basically built around P3D…It grew out of FSX but It’s P3D to the core- so they have to completely reinvent themselves in order to work within the Asobo ecosystem. Other developers may not have this “baggage” to overcome, and this makes it easier to adapt and switch gears. I never really bought that the SDK was the root problem. It certainly wasn’t for Aerosoft, QW, you guys and FBW…
It won’t be for another year. But, things will only get better from here on out, and I believe that the worst is over. Within a matter of weeks/months, we’re going to see a lot of momentum start to build, especially with study-level jets and utilities that make the sim better. So, we made it through the teething process at least- now we just need to sit back and watch the sim grow:-)
here: “We were at 17,000ft in four minutes, where we levelled off. Cessna says the CJ4 can get to 45,000ft in just 28 minutes so you can get above the weather and airliners. Again, that’s a brochure figure at standard temperatures and pressures – some have seen a considerably quicker climb to the max operating altitude.” Cessna CJ4 - P1 Magazine (p1-mag.com)
I also had P3D in my blood for a while- invested thousands, spent thousands of hours flying (mainly in PMDG products), but I drifted over to X-plane because I got tired of waiting for the P3D world to look good. X-plane wasn’t much better, but I could do much more for a lot less on that platform. Now we have a great looking world in MSFS but lousy aircraft lol.
Sim-limbo.
You bring up some important points that help to contextualize all of this- and they kind of reinforce my suspicion that developers who were tied to one platform need to reinvent themselves and really start from scratch with MSFS. That can be challenging for the heavy-hitters in P3D because their entire existence was cemented around that platform, and so was their mindset.
I wonder what the marketplace will look like by the time they make it over here? There’s so much active development going on, particularly on the freeware front, that a good 737 could easily show up before PMDG gives us theirs.
I was kind of apalled when it came out too. But, then I remembered that MSFS opened up a whole new world of simming to a global marketplace. It’s definitely not as niche as P3D, and even X-plane wasn’t as far-reaching as our new sim is today. So we’ll see the spectrum of users here, not just the hardcore, system-loving, realism seekers out there. So, cheap jets will become the norm which is fine by me. At the very least, we’ll see a lot of really good YouTube videos…
Amen. If the 737 had good wing flex, I’d use it for making Youtube videos. At some point, the model may be useful for AI too- so for that price, I’d get it just for that.
I spent a fortune on jets in P3D. I didn’t spend a dime on them in X-plane. I actually enjoyed the Zibo better than the PMDG bird once I switched sims. Better sounds, better cockpit, it had a cabin, a EFB, and crew announcements too.
Looking at the FBW and a whole bunch of jets being created by talented teams of volunteers right now- I don’t know if we’ll ever NEED to spend a fortune on jets in the future.
I’m certainly hesitant to spend 120+ dollars for a PMDG bird unless there are no alternatives at the time and I’m desperate for what they have to offer. There will always be jets worth the money- but MSFS is a whole new world, and what was the norm on the other sims won’t apply here anymore:-)