1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

and stumble across this same old same old. 

Well, maybe you should enter with something a bit more positive than the above yourself then?

Oh, and just because someone "was a long time XP11 user" does not make it right to enter here with a condescending tone.

I was a long time Microsoft Flight Simulator user (up to FSX!) and I got grilled many times "by you guys" over there 😉

Lets blow this not out of proportion over semantics, I would say and get back to discussing XP12 news.

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by Janov

14 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Is there something wrong with that? Your tone is very unwelcoming and sarcastic. I was a long time XP11 user. I can pop in here as much or as little as I feel like. Without the sarcasm, thanks. 
 

Same old same old. Not much changes in a whole year of XP development other than a few screenshots. Oh and mSparks rambling on and on about fake news / linux and posting that horrible jet video for the 10th time 😵

13 minutes ago, Janov said:

Well, maybe you should enter with something a bit more positive than the above yourself then?

It wasn’t about myself, it was about people like yourself in this forum, with the same old attitude (as evidenced). 
Again, I refer you, especially you, to The pinned post at the top of this forum. - On that note, I bid you a good day and farewell. 

11 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

On that note, I bid you a good day and farewell. 

I will reread the referenced post! And good day and farewell to you as well!

Yup found 6 posts so far. Sure there's at least 4 more!

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/610636-will-x-plane-12-feature-shader-based-seasonal-effects/page/5/

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/594049-future-of-x-plane/page/5/

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/602532-what-lr-must-do/page/10/

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/597281-x-plane-the-past-present-future/page/2/

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/604550-next-gen-xplane-gen-x-choose-your-destination/page/5/

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/597513-i-hear-that-you-can-make-xp11-looks-as-good-as-msfs/page/25/

25 minutes ago, Greazer said:

Same old same old. Not much changes in a whole year of XP development other than a few screenshots. Oh and mSparks rambling on and on about fake news / linux and posting that horrible jet video for the 10th time 😵

Could be worse.

You could be using a simulator which was designed by gamers with no thought of what aircraft fly like, what the sky looks like and two years later there still isn't one aircraft available thats close to the word simulation.

I guess at some point of throwing darts at the flight model dart board it might even be a near approximation to flight then they can start working on the horrendous colour palette used in the clouds.

Then they can start on the jet/turbine engine model.

and then….

and then…

and then…ad infinitum..

 

 

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by DEHowie

Easy, Darren - they just got kicked in the ***ts:

That Messiah Fenix A320 that was to blow anything else out of the water from past, present and future went from showing cool episodes and screenshots every few days to "not much recently" as well... curious when the "complex airliners are coming" prediction comes to fruitition?

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

It wasn’t about myself, it was about people like yourself in this forum, with the same old attitude (as evidenced). 
Again, I refer you, especially you, to The pinned post at the top of this forum. - On that note, I bid you a good day and farewell. 

The post is pretty much directed a people coming in to threads, ignoring things like

 

In a topic about seasons and instead making personal and off topic posts with zero effort or value then acting offended when they get called out.

Might I suggest you both take a different approach if that isnt what floats you boat.

And if it is what floats your float plane. I just found a ton of very very angry people on the pmdg threads who really are desperate for the kind of change we see round these parts, perhaps send them this way as a way out of their nightmares, we got plenty of space in the back, fully functional DC6s, 737s, 747s, concords helicopters spitfires and more waiting for would be pilots to put on their VR headsets and take to the skies.

Some even have...... oh the horror..... weapons.

8 hours ago, scotchegg said:

Cough.

3 hours later, PMDG says ... you should probably revisit my WASM threads

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by mSparks

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

3 hours later, PMDG says ... you should probably revisit my WASM threads

‘A dev for another simulator made an unpopular post about potential delays which I also predicted, therefore my comment that other users can never admit their mistakes cannot be ironically self-referential’.

Robust logic. I recommend throwing more accusations of Dunning Kruger at users more qualified than yourself and see what sticks. 

50 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

unpopular post about potential delays

...About being cancelled until further notice.

While this thread is touching on the pretty solid timeline for getting hold instructions from ATC during

 

50 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

and see what sticks. 

The snow sticks with regional based shader effects. So far I definitely don't seem to have been wrong that its advantage Laminar, and your nonspecific references to times I may have been wrong are even less useful than a 744 issue report that master caution is activating when it shouldnt during a fire test when master caution isnt activated during a fire test. 

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by mSparks

10 hours ago, mSparks said:

3 hours later, PMDG says ... you should probably revisit my WASM threads

The problem is that WASM as a code execution layer is fine, but limiting the scope of the API you can use is not.

IMHO, WASM is not the problem at all. It is a convenient way to make cross platform code running, similar in perf most of the time to native C++, etc... except when it is done in a way which imposes strong constraints because of an Xbox term of use which they widely apply regardless it is running on an Xbox or a PC. They limit WASM to a very small subset of POSIX, and they close any form of possible communications outside the process (SimConnect doesn't offer any latency nor throughout guarantees, WASM side can't talk with the JS side, the JS side only communicates via sockets and uses lots of memory for a few bytes, and on top of that the JS garbage collector can hit you at any unpredictable time).

Should they add support for shared memory API (Open/Create FileMapping etc...) so that we can at least use the FS2020 WASM layer for anything pertaining to the game, and external C++ compiled code for anything requiring more than a tiny POSIX subset*, it would make it a much better environment for creativity. Of course, given the rest of the SDK is not giving much access to anything at the core either, there are much more hurdles than just WASM anyhow.

This is an XP12 topic and I'm off-topic, but just this to say I wouldn't mind at all XP12 also implements support for WASM and actually makes it the de-facto layer for plugins. It offers a lot of advantages even more so because XP12 runs on Linux, macOs and Windows. I'd be fine as long as this is not sandboxing to a subset of POSIX, and that it provides WASM APIs for communicating with the outside world (not just from a communication channel standpoint, but from an inter-process standpoint).

 

*for example there is no file write except on a dedicated folder, there is no support for SIMD, no support for atomics, no support for IPC, no support for threading, no support for using the GPU, the memory model is not the same as the C++11 one (which in itself could cause some manually optimized code to potentially fail - mostly in multi-threaded scenarios). WASM is also using a different floating point model than IEEE and SSE, etc... (there is certainly even more than this missing but this is a short list from memory).

 

Edited December 8, 20214 yr by RXP
added a non exhaustive list of missing items in the FS2020 WASM implementation

1 hour ago, RXP said:

This is an XP12 topic and I'm off-topic

I think its possible to keep it on topic by - at least loosely - connecting it to "shader based regional effects". Shaders are compiled from one of several programming languages, WASM is compiled from one of several programming languages, virtually no one but us reading this has any real idea when or why a developer would choose one over the other to get regional season effects.

If it seems like there is more to say just fork it into a new thread and start it with a quote.

1 hour ago, RXP said:

The problem is that WASM as a code execution layer is fine, but limiting the scope of the API you can use is not.

WASM is a brilliant solution to what seemed like an impossible problem at the time.

My #1 problem with WASM was and is how immature the tools for it are, making it difficult to debug and test, at least on par with building and debugging shaders - Maybe more because for shaders there is Nividia Nsight which has seen production use for ages.

That situation is manageable when you are not limited by external constraints (such as building shader based trees and terrain for an in house engine), but a game of minesweeper when locked into someone elses sandbox. 

PMDG and their users are finding this out the hard way.

1 hour ago, RXP said:

Of course, given the rest of the SDK is not giving much access to anything at the core either

This is my #2 problem, just how obfuscated and overly complex "Microsoft" things already are: "Made by committee", the prospect of throwing WASM over the top of that blew my mind.

Conversely, modern shader technologies like SPIRV - Already brought into and tested on us during the XP11.50 run are designed to simplify the incredibly complex task of getting code like procedural seasonal trees up and running on diverse GPU hardware made by any number of manufacturers.

End result, yes there will be awesome shader based seasonal effects in Xplane. No, its unlikely there will be "PMDG quality" airliners in MSFS, and even if they do eventually manage it will be too late and virtually no one will care by then.

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

So far I definitely don't seem to have been wrong that its advantage Laminar,

When you give yourself the authority to apply bespoke logic such as 'I'm not afraid to admit my mistakes because PMDG said something I agreed with / foresaw', then you will very rarely be wrong, in your own estimation.

12 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

When you give yourself the authority to apply bespoke logic such as 'I'm not afraid to admit my mistakes because PMDG said something I agreed with / foresaw', then you will very rarely be wrong, in your own estimation.

The two arent related.

One was a reference to Janov and the historic way they have treated people reporting problems with the XP aircraft he sells.

The other is your claim I made mistakes and wont admit it. 

Hence references to issues like

https://github.com/mSparks43/747-400/issues/643

PMDG is only relevant because up until them cancelling until further notice their 737 a few hours after your post I was set to be wrong about never seeing "PMDG quality" airliners in MSFS - that I was saying in the months before the MSFS alpha started, just before I gave up caring about any software which is windows only.

Edited December 9, 20214 yr by mSparks

5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The two arent related.

Bingo.