- UID
- 101626
- 注册时间
- 2020-9-18
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 精华
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 听众
- 收听
 已绑定手机
|
本帖最后由 longbow1101 于 2021-2-20 11:57 编辑
Microsoft Flight Simulator官方论坛上有一个帖子，发帖人大意就是希望Asobo尽快完善SDK，以方便PMDG等厂家开发study level的插件机，这部分属于老生常谈，不过评论区下方来自Flybywire和WorkingTitle的开发者却给出了不同的答案，下面简单机翻几条：
原帖地址：https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/advanced-sdk-urgently-needed-for-aircraft-developers/367882
总结起来就是，SDK已经完成了95%，想开发与FSX平台同样复杂度的机模并不是问题，但是很多高级插件机的关键子系统是开发者自己搭建的，新的微软模拟飞行不再兼容这些代码，需要开发者重写，因为工作量巨大，所以有些开发者希望等待Asobo推出兼容办法后再做移植，但是新锐开发者们认为这是一种懒惰的表现
回帖人：MrSprouse10（Alpha内测员）
从我与FlyByWire开发人员的交谈中得知，SDK确实有一些局限性和错误，但是它已经相当先进了，完全有可能使用我们现有的设备来制造学习级飞机。 问题是开发人员本身。 我自己不是开发人员，但是据我了解，许多传统的P3D和FSX开发人员（例如PMDG）希望能够将其当前代码简单地移植到平台上，而目前这是不可能的。 诸如PMDG 737或FSLabs A320之类的飞机从模拟器外部运行其许多系统，例如飞行模型。 MSFS不允许这样做，但是，SDK确实提供了在sim卡中创建高级系统的工具。 这不是SDK不完整的情况，只是开发人员没有时间去适应MSFS带来的变化。 我相信WorkingTitle和FlyByWire所做的工作可以证明该SDK可以正常工作。
From what I’ve learned talking to the FlyByWire devs, the SDK does have some limitations and bugs, but it is quite advanced already, and it is entirely possible to create study level aircraft with what we have. The issue is the devs themselves. I am not a developer myself, but from what I understand, many of the legacy P3D and FSX devs such as PMDG want to be able to simply port their current code to the platform, which right now is not possible. Aircraft such as the PMDG 737 or FSLabs A320 run much of their systems externally from the simulator, such as the flight model. MSFS does not allow this, however, the SDK does provide the tools to create just as advanced systems within the sim. It is not a case of the SDK being incomplete, its just that developers have not had the time to adapt to the changes that MSFS has brought. I believe the work that WorkingTitle and FlyByWire has done is proof to show that the SDK works fine.
回帖人：Iceman2152798（FBW团队开发者）
是的，差不多。 这总体上不利于MSFS生态系统，因为通常来说，着眼于与遗留系统和代码的向后兼容性将始终使您无法进行创新。
目前只有少数相对较小的问题阻碍了SDK的发展，但SDK仍然足以创建“研究级”飞机，正如社区喜欢的那样（个人不喜欢该术语） 我自己-这太主观了。
Yeah pretty much. This is detrimental to the MSFS ecosystem as a whole, because in general, focusing on backwards compatibility with legacy systems and code will always hold you back from innovation.
There are only a handful of relatively small issues that block progress with the SDK at the moment, but the SDK is still enough to create a “study-level” aircraft, as the community likes to call it (personally not a fan of the term myself - it is far too subjective).
回帖人：Nerbulus（某A330开发者）
我已经在其他地方说过，但我会在这里说：
我是开发A330的团队的开发人员，并且还观察了工作标题团队的发现。
SDK处于可以并且已经产生复杂的IFR衬里的水平（工作名称CJ4）。尽管SDK缺少许多细节（缺点和一些细节），但这并不是一个限制因素。
我相信，如果PMDG愿意根据MSFS格式对其进行重新编码/动画处理，则可以立即，在这里和立即支持完全正常运行的737“研究级” NG。正如Iceman所说，付费软件“研究级”飞机的巨头根本不愿意在新平台上前进，而只专注于遗留系统和代码。
顺便一提。 SDK与平台不同。 SDK向您显示了路径；平台就是路径本身。您可以通过反复试验测试在此平台上执行许多操作，但这并不意味着SDK会告诉您。我同意SDK尚未完成，但这不是限制因素。当付费软件巨头真的不愿意重新编程时，他们喜欢把责任推给Asobo。 Aerosoft对此是一个例外，他们拥抱了新平台并制作了（希望如此）出色的CRJ。
I’ve said this elsewhere but I’ll say it here:
I’m a dev on a team working on an A330, and I’m also observing the Working Title team’s findings.
The SDK is at such a level where a complex IFR-liner can and has been produced (the Working Title CJ4). While there are bells and whistles missing from the SDK (contrails and some details) it is NOT a limiting factor.
I believe that PMDG can absolutely support a fully working 737 “study level” NG now, here, and immediately, if they were willing to re-code/animate it according to MSFS format. As Iceman said, the titans of payware “study level” aircraft are simply not willing to move forward on a new platform and only focus on legacy systems and code.
By the way. The SDK is NOT the same as the platform. An SDK shows you the path; the platform is the path itself. You can do many things on this platform just by trial-and-error testing, but that doesn’t mean the SDK will tell you. I agree the SDK is not finished but it is NOT the limiting factor. Payware titans like to shift the blame to Asobo when its really them not willing to re-program. Aerosoft is an exception to this, they have embraced the new platform and made a (hopefully) amazing CRJ.
回帖人：Iceman2152798（FBW团队开发者）
尽管安全性是使用WASM而不是DLL的副作用，但这样做的主要原因是插件可以与需要沙箱的XBOX平台交叉兼容。
从P3D移植到平面上并不是一项艰巨的任务，尤其是在编码方面。如果您不想兑现承诺，请在此处阅读Mathijs Kok的想法。如果我做一个粗略的估算，我会说SDK已完成95％。您可以读写文件，可以通过网络发送和接收数据，可以与simobject进行交互等。
因此，如果您为P3D编写了良好且文档充分的代码，则应该能够使用MSFS中几乎所有相同的功能将其移植。当某些付费软件公司开发了具有复杂的变通办法和针对P3D的黑客手段的插件，并期望MSFS在这些系统的支持下启动时，就会出现此问题。从业务角度来说，这对他们来说很有意义（花在开发时间上的钱更少），但我认为，这对整个MSFS开发人员生态系统没有好处。它鼓励过时的开发实践以及对旧FSX时代代码的依赖。
就个人而言，我希望MSFS从空白开始，并且不使用任何FS2004 / FSX ESP（企业仿真平台）API。它们限制了许多开发可能性。总体而言，时代在变化，适应最快的人将成为赢家，并率先进入市场。
Although security is a side effect of using WASM instead of DLL’s, the main reason this was done is so add-ons would be able to be cross-compatible with the XBOX platform, which requires a sandbox.
Porting over planes from P3D should not be Herculean task, especially when it comes to coding. If you don’t want to take my word for it, read Mathijs Kok’s thoughts here 3. If I were to give a rough estimate, I would say the SDK is 95% complete. You can read and write files, you can send and receive data over the network, you can interact with simobjects, etc.
So, if you wrote good, well-documented code for P3D, you should be able to port it over with almost all of the same functionality in MSFS. The issue arises when certain payware companies developed their addons with complex workarounds and hacks tailored to P3D, and expect MSFS to launch with support for these systems. It makes sense from a business standpoint for them (less money spent on development time) but in my opinion, it is NOT beneficial to the MSFS developer ecosystem as a whole. It encourages outdated development practices and reliance on old FSX-era code.
Personally, I would have wished if MSFS started from a blank slate and didn’t use any of the FS2004/FSX ESP (Enterprise Simulation Platform) API’s. They restrict a lot of development possibilities. Overall, the times are changing, and the ones who adapt the fastest will be the winners, and the first to market.
回帖人：Bishop398（WorkingTitle开发者）
回复问题：既然我读到SDK已完成95％，我一直想知道为什么我们会得到低质量的产品？
因为还为时过早。
是的，Working Title CJ4现在可以完成IFR的所有操作，但是这样做也要花费我们数千小时和成千上万行代码。 尽管我们的ProLine 21仿真现在非常深入，并且我认为在任何平台上都最精确，但MilViz KA350除外，我想还有很长的路要走。
我还要说，复杂的飞机发展是以人年为单位来衡量的。 高质量的商务喷气机或玻璃通用航空飞机很容易成为一个5-10人年的项目，而一架高质量的客机可能在10到30人年之间，具体取决于飞机。
在模拟迷所期望的水平上，开发客机与开发整个独立游戏的工作量差不多。
Because it’s just too soon.
Yes, the Working Title CJ4 can do everything IFR now, but it’s also taken us thousands of hours and many tens of thousands of lines of code to do so. And while our ProLine 21 simulation is now extremely deep and I think the most accurate on any platform, save the MilViz KA350, I would say there’s still a long way to go.
I would also say that complex plane development is measured in person-years. A high quality bizjet or glass GA plane can easily be a 5-10 person-years project, and a high quality airliner probably anywhere from 10 to 30 person-years, depending on the airliner.
Developing an airliner is about the same amount of effort as developing an entire indie game, at the levels that simulator fans expect.
回帖人：Iceman2152798（FBW团队开发者）
回复问题：Asobo是不是藏着什么额外工具没有分享给第三方开发者
“沙盒”不影响开发时间。 它仅表示C ++代码被编译为.wasm而不是.dll的事实，因此插件可以在Xbox和PC上运行。
没有额外的工具。 他们没有退缩任何东西。 包括FBW在内的第三方开发人员几乎拥有制作插件所需的一切。 Matt上面提到的要记住的关键点是：通常，进行良好的飞机仿真需要大量的工作和时间。
The “sandbox” does not affect development time. It simply refers to the fact that C++ code is compiled to .wasm instead of .dll, so that addons will work on Xbox as well as PC.
There are no extra tools; they are not holding back anything. Third party developers, including us at FBW, have almost everything we need to make addons. A key point to remember, which Matt brought up above, is this: in general, making a good aircraft simulation takes a huge amount of work and time.
|
|
雷达卡
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
千斤顶
照妖镜
