How to get started?

[Bill]

Folks,

Well, let me be the first to jump in here and get the party started!

Along with other enthusiasts, I dream of having a fully functional, airliner cockpit (or more probably half sized - captains chair only). I have tested a couple of add on planes and have a stack of hardware (MCP, EFIS, radio heads etc). Before I start adding gauges and integration software (think Project Magenta), I need to have a sense of whether this will all hang together and work as desired.

So far the early indications are, this will not be the case.

Take for example the release of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Do you go with the latest and greatest, or stick with FS2004? Seems that some add on developers are still stuck in the past here, despite FSX being around for almost 2 years.

Then there's the matrix of which bits of hardware are compatible with which add on planes. I won't mention any names but my supplier of the MCP hardware also turns out an EFIS module. MCP works with one of my add ons, the EFIS doesn't. No worries, I'll use FSUIPC to interface it to the add on.... except there are no key commands in the add on for the EFIS, you've got to set it all up with mouse clicks - messy. Now trying a different add on plane, it has a hardware interface for my MCP, it just doesn't work with my version of FS...

Want a CDU with that sir? Add another level of complexity and incompatibility...

So, my question for your consideration, are there any combinations of FS, add on planes and hardware that are known to work together? Sure would be nice to know before we start plunking down the inevitable big amounts of cash that are required to feed our hobbies!

Cheers,

Bill

[Lefteris Kalamaras]

As a company, Flight Sim Labs dreams of the day when we'll have a fully functional software cockpit for our users which will integrate 100% with existing quality hardware by affiliated vendors who we consider provide the best quality. Already, you have seen some of our pickings in our Affiliates column.

I can only speak of our wishes, though, so I realize 100% your difficulty in selecting appropriate combinations to design against. We try to provide as many possible software solutions as we can, given the time limitations and resource allocation issues we also have to work with.

Since I also like to "eat my own dog food", so to speak, I am slowly trying to build my own cockpit, not to the extent seen with some enthusiasts out there (whose efforts I really respect, btw) but at least enough to say that I have a flyable aircraft (which we will develop) that will be flyable entirely through the hardware we've written software drivers for - i.e. no mouse/keyboard.

We'll get there! :-)

[flyingfanatic333]

Bill,

I know a guy in my VA that is in the process of building a 737NG cockpit for around $5,000, roughly the bonus he received for serving in Iraq. He has been working on it since last November, and currently he has the MIP, both EFISs and the MCP setup. Once you get to that point, it is already flyable, even without the CDUs and the Overhead.

But the type of plane that you pick will influence what sim you chose. Idealy, the sim will have its own computer that could run FSX. But if wou wanted to build a 737NG sim, you would probably have to use FS9 because there is no good 737NG sim out for FSX yet.

I would not recommend trying to build one cockpit for all the aircraft you fly, however. The differences between just the 737 and the 757 are too great to make it possible. You could do a 757/767 cockpit, or a 767-400ER and a 777 cockpit. If you want one cockpit that you could use to fly short hauls and long hauls, an Airbus A320/A330 would do the job. There still subtle differences betweem the two (A330 has a third MCDU, gear gravity extension lever in a different place, etc...) but the differences are not as great as between, say, a 757 and a 777.

[Bill]

Lefteris & Chris - thanks for your responses.

So for the purpose of this discussion, let's focus on a B737 cockpit. Anyone have specs on a "guaranteed" to work configuration (incl. manufacturer and model numbers) of:

- FS version

- Add on plane

- MCP

- EFIS

- CDU/FMS

- Flight controllers (yoke, pedals, throttle quadrant, gear lever etc.)

- Misc. switches dials etc

- Radios

- Gauges

- Integration software

- Integration hardware (gauges and indicator controllers etc)

Maybe Chris, you could get your friend to share his experiences, frustrations, successes - warts and all! Through this process we can all benefit from those who went before...

Cheers,

Bill

[flyingfanatic333]

I'll ask him next time I see him, possibly within the next few days.

[James_Carr]

Bill

I'd say at present with the various hardware and software available the easiest aircraft to build a cockpit for is the 767.

Reasons why, well the level D 767 is availble for both FS9 and FSX and works well in both. They released a SDK(Free) with it, which a developer as written a piece of software that interfaces directly with it allowing you to use the again free Software of opencockpits SIOC to control either the MCP hardware and EFIS hardware they have released. The Beauty however of the SIOC software, is that it can be configured to interface easily even with your own built hardware and isnt like say some of the things like goflight etc that require you to be stuck with just that hardware and just what they support. Using a mix of SIOC/LEEKSCON and FSPUIC you could use both the pre built MCP/EFIS but also make your own gear leaver switches etc and get them all to interface with the 767.

To me the dream of having universal aircraft being able to interface with peoples own harware is already here, where it falls down is when the likes of the PMDG aircraft and others, dont either publish the FSPUIC offsets or develop a SDK with their software. because how it presently is, it means you either have to buy a specific piece of hardware that has a specific driver written for it in order to get it to work, but then that means that maybe the only harware you can use with it. Take for example the great 747, even if you buy the aerosoft MCP, and then the driver on top for it, and then shell out for the CDU and then again pay for the driver for it to work, you are stuck with just that hardware, it will only work the way the driver is written for it, you couldnt if you are that technically minded sit with your soldering iron and build a switch or lever and then interface with the 747, so although you have a part cockpit you are a bit limited. where as with the level D 767, I can build a complete cockpit every switch i wanted or buy some of the pre made modules and using sioc, write my own code to make it function exaclty the way i want and for a far less money. I have the MCP by opencocpits, which is a 737 mcp, however because of the ability to define what the buttons do myself I can make it work just like th 767 MCP, or in fact make it operate with any aircraft I wanted to, aslong as I either know the keycommands, or FSPUIC offsets, or the aircraft comes with a SDK.

This is what the aircraft developers need to do to allow the cockpit builders be able to build their own hardware to interface how they want with their hardware, they all need to either release the FSPUIC offsets or release and SDK with each piece of software, which allows the general domain to then do as they need to interface, not lock us down to specific pieces of harware and drivers. Back in the days of fs8 and early fs9 thats what all the cockpit builders were doing, using epic cards and the FS FSPUIC offsets etc they got their own built pieces of harware to interface with the sim exaclty how they wanted,not forced to using one piece of hardware with one driver. with my open cockpits mcp, and sioc, i simply have a set of pre written scripts that i can select to load up that basically make my mcp function however i want, so if i wanted the autopilot disengage bar to lower the gear i could make it do that. So if PMDG, and all the other developers followed suit like LEVELD, i could quite simply switch from aircraft, and just reload the new script and my MCP would fucntion perfectly for each aircraft. Unfortuntly they havent, but its why for 70% of the time I only fly the levelD 767, the other 30% im flying heli's and other light GA where my yoke and throtles serve perfectly well and dont need my MCP/EFIS and CDU.

Hope that helps and also maybe gives a hint to those that develop the aircraft! To me it shouldnt be about the hardware people building to support the software, it should be the software people making sofware that will work with the harware.

Regards

James

[Bill]

James,

Thanks for the great advice and insight. I was hoping not to be dusting off the old soldering iron, looks like that's the way I'll need to go!

Just curious, what do you have for your throttle quadrant? While you're at it, any chance you could share with us a complete run down of the rest of your gear?

Cheers,

Bill

[James_Carr]

Bill

Will come back with full sytem and link to some pics shortly, but thing is about using SIOC and opencockpits method, and the other methods i mentioned is that you have the choice, can buy pre built modules, but still configure them to how you want them to work rather than just what the driver says, so can make them function as needed with what ever aircraft you use, or if there isnt a module, or you want to make something specific then you can build it yourself and interface it to work as you need. As great as some of the GOflight, and other addon harware is, its expensive and you are stuck with it only working where there are specific drivers, and drivers which you are having to pay for again, it also means that although they may do a great piece of harware, thats it its just a limited choice, so when building a complete cockpit, you are dont have all the options. So the PMDG 747 for instant, yes i could get the cpflight, mcp, and efis, and buy the drivers for it, but that be it, i cant interface anything else with it, because there no SDK, no FSPUIC offsets published. You can kind of work around it to an extent, and people have with the PMDG 737 by writing SIOC code, to use the keyboard settings, but this has limitations and not the best way to work, and of course still needs the addon aircraft to actually have a key setting for it, and also doesnt make it easy to controll lights and LED displays etc.

This is what the aircraft designers need to start doing, to me it makes sense, it like anything nowadays, people buy the initial thing, but then everyone else builds addons for it to enhance it, the more enhanceable it is the more people will buy it. if you look at IPODS, mobile phones etc, the ones that sell the best are the ones that people can add to. Its why the IPHONE is now starting to not sell aswell, the hype as died down and people now see it cant be expanded upon, well upto now it couldnt and hence why apple have updated the software to allow for third parties to develop addons for it. This is why the LEVELD 767 is so popular, it caters for the casusl simmer, but as they get hooked they can add more and more to it, i started with a basic yoke and flew like everyone else using the mouse and keyboard, now I can pretty much go from gate to gate without touching the mouse or keyboard at all, and my setup is still quite basic compared to some you see, but flying using my MCP, CDU, EFIS, yoke, throttle and rudder, and some switches, and 3 22 inch monitors, track ir, is now the only way to fly for me...hence as much as I love the 747(having spent many hours in the real cockpit of one) I never fetch it out the hangar...till they develop an sdk or release the FSPUIC offsets it will remain that way, and if they dont do this for the new 737X they releasing I probably wont even buy it.

level D are developing a 757 also so to me building yourself a 767/757 cockpit is probably at the moment the best way to go...the 757 they doing will probably be amazing adding to what they already learnt from the 767 so you could configure for that once it relased easily and with the 767 you have a choice of FS9 or FSX so depending on your setup you can go either way, I use FSX, its not the best FS release that MS have done, but the visuals are so much better than FS9 if you got decent hardware, personally I think its FS11 thats going to blow us away because they will have written it to support multicore properly and properly support DX10 and also take advantage of both the power in the GPU and that of the CPU, which is where FSX suffers, they developed it around faster CPUs not mutlicore, and they still code it to take advantage of the CPU rather than share some of the load with the GPU, so in essence with the way computer harware is being developed FSX will never really be totally amazing, because even if you had a 128 core processor, FSX doesnt properly take advantage of it. But MS will make the next realease do so properly, so as more cores come out, with faster chips, and better grpahics cards your FS11 experience will get better each time.

Regards

James

[flyingfanatic333]

Adding onto what James said, the reason it is very hard to build basically any other Boeing than a 767 at the moment is because of the Government. PMDG has all of their coding under a patent, and the only other program that has legal access to their coding is Project Magenta. Because of this, Project Magenta can charge huge amounts of money for their program, which is the link between the actual hardware and the software, in this case, the PMDG 737. However, this patent will soon expire, and then third parties will be able to develop SDKs for it, which will drive the prices down.

[Lefteris Kalamaras]

Chris-

Project Magenta has a patent to the PMDG coding? or the Boeing coding?

Where do you get this information? Having been PMDG's Technical Director and Lead Developer for eight years, I admit it's the first time I heard all this...

[James_Carr]

I'm not sure what he meant but perhaps it was that PM have patent on their own software, and that PMDG have patent on their own coding rather than PM having patent on PMDG.

But either way, it still seems very simple to me, PM have made a succesful business out of writing software that hardware developers can build for. PMDG have made a succesful business making planes that are truly amazing in their detail. If someone combined the two then we would finally have the ultimate sim, more hardware would come onto the market. At present someone looking to comercially release harware have a limited market as to what that harware will work with. Level D have in some ways made in roads into stopping this by releasing a SDK that means hardware can easily be either bought or home built and then easily coded to take advantage of the sim. In my opionion Level D 767 failings are the cockpit, and the not so easy way to easily break the cockpit displays down into modules to use as needed in a home built system. PMDG can undock panels better. But level-d's hopefully soon to be released 757 will probably overcome this, so combined with their SDK we will have a PM style cockpit, that can easily interface with hardware, without having to wait for people to either develop expensive drivers that work with one aircraft only, and should see more and more harware released, or still give the option of getting your soldiering iron out and building a switch, toggle, button for yourself and easily be able to make it work as you want.

So Lefteris, why not write an SDK for the PMDG stuff? You say you have been collecting hardware yourself, you obvioulsy have the advantage of being able to get it to work with PMDG stuff, knowing the offsets or build you own sdk. A PMDG aircraft with an SDK, would mean users can buy it knowing they can either keep it simple and just use the old mouse click option, or as time and money permits start to invest in hardware and make it more and more real, resulting in more sales of both the software and hardware. and as PMDG have a 747, 737 coming soon, and with the level D 767 all being easlity configured to use a similar cockpit set up, people buying harware could easliy fly all 3 of them because the interface would be pretty much the same, in my setup I would just boot FS, select my aircraft, and then using SIOC simply load the config for which ever aircraft i was flying, and then all my harware would work as needed to drive which ever aircraft i was flying...reslut being i would buy more hardware, and more aircraft, costs of hardware come down, other developers jump in to build harware, and more people would enjoy FS more!

Oh what a simple world!

Regards

James

[flyingfanatic333]

Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy lately.

James hit the nail on the head. PMDG SDKs are protected and the only program that PMDG has given access to the SDKs is PM.

[Lefteris Kalamaras]

Chris-

again I ask you: Where did you get the information that PMDG has given access to Project Magenta for its SDKs? And which SDKs are you referring to?

As far as I know, there's no specific license given to any entity to code against the specific FSUIPC offsets found in older products.

[flyingfanatic333]

I'll have to ask my friend to clairfy this topic. All the stuff I'm saying he told me about two months ago, and could be wrong. I'll ask him and get back to you.

[Lefteris Kalamaras]

Posted By James on 08/18/2008 2:06 AM

<snip>

...So Lefteris, why not write an SDK for the PMDG stuff? You say you have been collecting hardware yourself, you obvioulsy have the advantage of being able to get it to work with PMDG stuff, knowing the offsets or build you own sdk. ...

</snip>

Oh what a simple world!

Regards

James

James-

indeed, what a simple world! I would agree with you, that would be ideal. It's not that simple, though - the work required for an SDK for the PMDG stuff which would generically attempt to assist hardware manufacturers to write their interface against ours would generate significant amounts of support calls for Flight Sim Labs with very little payback for the man-hours worked. To offset that cost, the SDK would have to be sold at a price perhaps reasonable for training and commercial facilities, but not really close to what the home markets should end up paying.

Another reason why we choose this path, rather than providing an SDK, is that we like to control the quality of hardware that we provide drivers for - or else we'd end up being blamed for poor hardware quality (blame it on the middle guy ;-)).

[James_Carr]

Lefteris

being a mere mortal Im not totally following your logic, surely with your present format of providing specific drivers for specific hardware, you leave yourselves open to a higher amount of support. People purchasing the hardware, which often works with other software, or diretly with FS obviously go to the hardware manufacturer for support, those using it with your drivers call on you for why the Specific driver does or doesnt do something.

Looking at the Level-D approach where they included a SDK free with their product, i've yet to see one single post inquiring about its use. Nico built again a Freeware interface which directly links into the SDK and enables you to then use the opencockpits SIOC to program hardware to work with the 767, the support needed to do so remains totally with Opencockpits, where people go for coding tips, or hardware tips in order to get the sim to function as they want. The SDK and nico's Leekscon are just there, it is what you do with SIOC that makes the harware functional and hence where the problems come up, hence why people post to Opencockpits and Nico's site rather than the level D forums.

To add further to this, although the PMDG 747 is a great product, by nature of the market its aimed at, and the way in which the Visual cockpit is designed, i believe it would struggle to be used totally functionaly in a larger comercial operation(this is isnt a criticism) So think that the market share with that still lies with the likes of Project Magenta as really its gauges that are needed rather than graphical cockpits in order to fully construct a full comercial sim. the Level D sim suffers in the same way.

Of course although LevelD and Nico provide the SDK and Leekscon for free, Im also just like the next man and like money in my bank, so Im not saying that a average charge for an SDK and Interface software isnt an unrealistic thing for you to do, but cant see that you would need to charge a large amount as indicated in your post, due to large support. To me its a case that you just provide the tools for the others to develop the hardware that will function with your sim. The quality of the Hardware will more likely to become better as the demand rises for it, and the only way this demand will rise is more software that will work with it. At present some of the great Hardware products may be great but they still have limited application due to the lack of software to run it with. Its a bit like Joysticks, in the good old days of Amiga's and spectrums, joysticks were everywhere, the standard of them, functionality etc got better as more people had the computers, and the games to use them with, games dont need joysticks now, and hence there not many joysticks around. If companies like you and PMDG follow LevelD's idea of releasing an SDK with their software more hardware will be released, prices will fall, hence more people will buy, so more developers will make more harware with better functions and standards. At present purchasing a Engravity CDU is a costly item it works with limited SIMS, and run the risk that when PMDG release the next product it wouldnt work with it, in fact if you look now at how long the FSX 747 as been out and the realse of a working driver my CDU if brought from engravity would have been sitting dead for some time. Where I can build an Opencockpits one, and be worry free because the SIOC code can be adapted to work as needed with any sim. My MCP can be used perfectly with the levelD using the SDK, and can even get it to semi function with the 747 using keyboard commands, this cant be said of the other MCPs on the market that require specific drivers. LevelD will have this funcionality in there 757, and rumours that upcoming airbuses will also follow suit...leaving PMDG somewhat behind in my opinion, which is such a shame as they otherwise make great products. I've been using PMDG for years, but the 747 still sits in the hanger these days as it just to hard to get it to work with harware leaving it feeling like a game rather than a sim.

Regards

James

[Francois]

Hi James,

long story ;-) But if I understand correctly you are proposing Lefteris just hands over his programming work for FREE !?

Possibly I am missing your point, but that doesn't sound very realistic to me. 'Something' has to put bread on the table and pay the mortgage. If it is not getting paid for many hours spent, then what is?

Or maybe you mean the airplne builders or hardware folks should pay us?

Just wondering what your business model would be and always 'in' to learn new ways of generating some revenue.

Kind regards,

Francois

[James_Carr]

Hi Francois

twas a long rambling, which you may have not have completely read as i did say

"Of course although LevelD and Nico provide the SDK and Leekscon for free, Im also just like the next man and like money in my bank, so Im not saying that a average charge for an SDK and Interface software isnt an unrealistic thing for you to do, but cant see that you would need to charge a large amount as indicated in your post, due to large support."

Their two issues here, first one is of course had the SDK been released with the original aircraft by PMDG then the cost's would be gained from the sale of the aircraft software, I cant see how an SDK would actually increase production costs as such as basically you are just opening up the code that is already actually written to have made the sim in the first place. But as FSLABS is now a seperate venture to that of PMDG then yes of course FSLABS isnt making money from the sale of the aircraft, although Lefteris is of course, hence why I said FSLABS could charge for the SDK for the extra time needed to now create a seperate SDK from the original product.

The business model I use here is you could continue to release drivers that are very specific for individual pieces of hardware, and sell them at a higher price as due to the high costs of the hardware and drivers and the limited application of the hardware, there are fewer owners of the hardware. So 10 units at ?100=1000 Or If the simming community and the likes of PMDG, LEVELD, FSLABS make the Aircraft software easier to adapt to, then more people buy hardware,prices fall for hardware, so even more buy, then even more sales of the SDK, hence more profits for you.1000 units at ?50 instead! The SDK could even be released in parts if that concerned about making maximum profits, with each SDK opening up variables to differnt parts of the SIM such as MCP/EFIS, FMC etc, bit like the specialist drivers are now, but not so locked down to specific hardware still allowing the simmer to adapt it as needed. Just like i do now with my MCP, I have a 737 MCP, which I because SIOC and LEVELD SDK allow me to make the buttons on it do as i need, so where it doesnt have quite the right set up for a 767 it still does all the functions i of a 767 by adaptation in the sioc software.

Not being aware of the relationship of PMDG and FSLABS, you could even charge them an initial cost for development of the SDK for the 747. because once again they would gain from increased sales of their 747 as it becomes a Sim that can be used better with hardware, and so unlike at present when you visit any Cockpit building forum it doesnt get slagged off as being no good for cockpit building with everyone telling people to buy LEVELD instead people would actually recommend it.

Its a bit like the IPOD, or you mobile phone and Symbian, they sell as well as they do because weather it be apple or Nokia that made it, everyone else can develop for it, when i buy one of those, i look to see if it fucntions with my other software, and hardware, if it doesnt I dont buy it. the original IPHONE sales slumped totaly for this very reason.

Regards

James

[Bill]

James,

Friendly reminder - will you be posting your set up per your note of August 7th?

Cheers,

Bill

[Francois]

Hi James,

oh yes I read your message, twice even.And that's why I got curious, because I don't see the 'logic' in it. But that may well be ME, of course.

I am the apprentice in Hardware Land.

There is NO relationship between PMDG and FSLabs. Sales of PMDG are only interesting in the sense that they MAY increase the market for part of our products, the interfaces. That goes for all software providers in this market.

As I see it FSLabs is providing middleware, just because there is something MISSING from BOTH the aircraft developers and the hardware manufacturers. That hole seems to be filled by our drivers, allowing certain software to work with certain hardware.

Only if the aircraft developers (or the hardware providers) would provide that missing link themselves we would have to look for something else to do (we ARE, actually ;-)).

So your story about the SDK's should be targeted at either the PMDG's of this world, or the hardware manufacturers. Am I right?

Francois

[James_Carr]

Francois

In part you are correct, my story of SDK's should be targeted at the likes of PMDG, and it has been, and is on a constant basis on nearly every hardware and cockpit buildin site going. Should it be aimed at Harware developers? Well in some senses yes, because the harware the devise again the way they build some of it requires it to have a specific driver for each application rather than a universal interface that can be tweaked to however you like, but the likes of Opencockpits, and some others have done just this already, There hardware can be made to function with whatever, and perform whatever you want it to do, My MCP if i wanted to could be made that when i press the vorloc button put the gear down or turned the taxi lights on if i so desired. So yes in some senses some of the harware manufactures need to change aslo, but the reason they maybe havent done this in some cases is again because the software people have written their software with limited support for all hardware so they are forced to simplify it so a single driver is the only answer.

But back to the SDK's and where FSLABS can fit into this while we wait for the likes of PMDG to get their act together. You at present develop drivers that make PMDG products work with certain hardware. Your market is limited to just these certain hardware, having to produce a individual driver for each bit, this hardware is not used by the masses because of its cost and limited availaibilty of drivers, hence why you actually have a market now. However it my believe that the only reason you have this ability is because of Lefteris actually having the inside knowledge and code of how the PMDG aircraft function, he knows the internal variables of the aircraft, and if necessary any FSPUIC offsets as used in some of the older products. So based on this it would be just as possible for FSLABS to build an SDK, publish offsets, or code an generic interface, that gave discreet protected access to offsets or the internal code, think of it like a mega driver really, in fact products like the FS2004 737 now old could really be given a new lease of life if the FSPUIC offsets were given access to by an interface similar to that of lekseecon. By writing and selling an SDK, FSLABS make money, and sell more copies of it that hoping to sell individual drivers, because i could use SIOC to run my harware with it, and knowing I can now buy as much hardware as i can afford or desire and that it will all work with not just PMDG but also LEVELD, FS, PM, and other software makes that purchase all the more viable, and would do to even more people hence you would sell even more SDKS than you do drivers.

Put simply even with your present product line up of drivers, I cannot at present build a FSX 747 cockpit from the hardware available. I can however build a complete LEVELD767, even making my own hardware if neccessary. I can build a complete PM sim with present hardware. Even though you mention supporting more CPFlight modules in the future these are for the FS2004 PMDG 737, and is that 10 drivers im going to have to buy? to get functionality with one old sim? and then what if I want to use this hardware with my PMDG 747 another 10 drivers to buy? However dedicated i might be to simming, it just doesnt make sense to go down that road with that hardware with that sim. When i've got harware and software that as a greater diverstity of uses and functionality, im not going to spend 1000's on a piece of harware that will work with one sim maybe if FSLABS eventually release a driver. Betamax didnt survive for this reason, and neither as HDDVD. YES PMDG should wake up and smell the coffee, but you have a chance to do what they havent done at the moment, improving the market now opening more opportunities for you, or even just make quick killing now before things change. In my mind you have someone in your team capable of releasing a SDK, selling it which will support a greater range of hardware, and forcing those harware manufactures that dont to actually make it so it does. an SDK from you would mean CPFLIGHT could release an interface that works with your SDK. rather than you a driver that works with their hardware. If M$ adopted the policy of single drivers, closed SDKS, we wouldnt be having this conversation at all as there would be no addon market for FS at all and in fact unlikely would we be on version 10 of FS.

I've just odered a ?180000 sim for work, to replace what we had, becasue what we had dosent support the harware we want to use, and isnt adaptable to use in other ways. a bit like the FS harware market is at the moment bacause of this situation with drivers and closed sims. I miss flying my 747, but at present the way im looking to do that again is PM, not PMDG, because I can buy hardware and use what i presently own, with both PM and levelD, and FSX aircraft using one interface, not 50 seperate drivers.

Best Regards

James

[James_Carr]

Bill

Sorry yes slipped my mind, was all this ranting to Fracois and Lefteris.

I'll do it later, for now must sleep, but in response to your question about throttle's I use the SAITEK throttel quad for the moment, I have two of them so gives me 6 levers, not my ideal desire, but gives me the functionality to adapt it to flying twin, 4jet or single prop with a quick change of the lever knobs, and using FSPUIC, with a/c specific settings switched on means whatever i boot the levers and switches operate how i want them to, i have some snap on decals for whatever im flying so I know what each button is set to do. But using it say on my 767, one lever controls the spoiler. one lever flaps, with each increment programmed, one for gear, 2 throttles and a reverse thrust.

the 12 main buttons, control taxilights, landing lights, beacon, strobe, fuel flow for each enginge, engine starters, apu control, soft autothrottle disengage, TOGA button, autobrakes.

My SAITEK yoke, did until recently change some of the EFIS options, but I now have the opencockpits EFIS, so just deciding what to reprogram these buttons to do now, but I can control TRIM, PTT, autopilot soft disengage, my trackir, all from it. also SAITEK rudders

I have the opencockpits MCP, 3 22inch monitors, a 19inch display, 3 computers networked, one used for addon software and controls the MCP/EFIS/radiostack/FMC all interfaced in SIOC and lekscon, FSINN, ACTIVESKY etc...

Now working on some home built interfaces for fuel display and overhead functions

[Bill]

James,

Thanks for the run down on the hardware. Can you share with us the software (and versions) you're running?

Cheers,

Bill

[flyingfanatic333]

Hi James,

How did you get a throttle mapped to the gear lever? I can't seem to get mine to work.

[James_Carr]

Chris

I use FSPUIC (registered version) to map the throttle module to the gear lever. Using FSPUIC you have the option to set ranges, I just have it set so that when the lever is near the bottom half it puts gear down, and near top half gear up. Mapped to FScontrol of Gear.

For BILL

I am running FSX With SP2 and accerlation installed.

LEVELD with SP2a

----Following Control My Opencockpits hardware

SIOC 3.5 (networked PC)

Leekscon latest version (on main pc)

Activesky X latest version (networked PC)

FSINN (networked PC)

----This controls my Yoke and throttle quadrant and Buttons, inc settings to control my TRACK IR

FSPUIC latest version for FSX

Its all running over networked PCS both which have Windows Vista 64bit installed on. FSX is installed on its own harddrive, and the one PC is dual boot, so the Vista it boots into is purely setup for FSX, with no other extra's installed or running for optimum performance. Main FSX PC is a Quadcore 9650 Extreme Overclocked to 4ghz with 4GB Ram running at 1066mhz. Two ATI 3870X2 crossfired, (About to be changed for the 4870x2 's)

It all runs fairly smooth(for fsx lol) with settings set fairly high for most of the settings

[Bill]

Thanks James. So no Project Magenta?

Cheers,

Bill

[lst141]

James;

Don't waste your time, pmdg will never release a sdk nor will they turn public their vars and offseets, it's a uselless waste of time...

I too bought mcp from opencockpits and currently it's sitting dead because I cant put it to service with pmdg 737 reasonnely well because of some obscure business policies.

Infortunatly there are to much hardware versions of addons and there is to many ways of riging hardware to have in a reasonable time a driver for all the gear needed for a home pit even if fslabs were to put all it's energy in it. Our only hope is that some software house like levelD will release in a near future a 737 addon.

The irony of all, is that for me to be able to make a home pit is that in the end I will spend 5 times more in soft than I did with pmdg... but one thing is for sure, the next time before buying a addon from pmdg, i'll will give a very hard thought before doing so, that's what they gained being so sure of thenselves.

The guys from opencockpits deserve all our admiration for the work their doing even beeing a business like pmdg, so if they can go ahead so others should be able to...

I saw that they are complaining about losing some audience, well, what would they expect? Everybody that wants to rig together some switches and leds, know that it's useless to want to use pmdg addons.

By the way, why don?t flightsimlabs do the first step and contact the hardware community and not the other way?

Best regards

[Francois]

By the way, why don?t flightsimlabs do the first step and contact the hardware community and not the other way?

Best regards

Pardon ??

[lst141]

Fran?ois;

What I mean is if fslabs is a business, the others (hardware makers) are also , so has businessmen put your act together and get things working so that we the end users can fully enjoy the products that we payed for.

As I said before, there is too much variety of hardware for fslabs to make a driver for each piece of hardware released or every way to rig a homecockpitso how can you satisfy everybody in the lifespan of a product?.

As fslabs made a survey to see whose selling more hardware gear?

[Francois]

Yes, I see what yo mean.

But although many of us small companies actually ARE cooperating and trying to help each other, there are now so many different suppliers that jumped on the bandwagon, that it is impossible to 'unite' them all.

Ideally a hardware manufacturer would make sure right from the start of releasing a product that it would work with the main stream sims and aircraft. Either by themselves or by outsourcing the programming to us.

In reality this is not happening, and in all honesty, I do not see it happening in the near future either. There are too many companies around who think that THEIRS is the only and/or best solution and are not prepared to add extra work (cost), or they simply don't have the resources.

So FSLabs IS reaching out to hardware suppliers and we are working together with quite a few of them, but ONLY where it makes business sense for us! We would like to satisfy everybody, but lets be realistic. This is a niche market within a niche market !!

Last but not least, we are of course not responsible for what others do with THEIR products and THEIR customers and we can only try to satisfy OURS. We ARE doing our best, but that's all we can do for now.

Kind regards,

Fran?ois

[lst141]

Fran?ois;

" there are now so many different suppliers that jumped on the bandwagon, that it is impossible to 'unite' them all. "

Can't agree with that, if pmdg in the past had release a sdk (before fslabs existence) , that would have been the glue of unification!

"Ideally a hardware manufacturer would make sure right from the start of releasing a product that it would work with the main stream sims and aircraft. Either by themselves or by outsourcing the programming to us. "

well all hard addons work normally work fine with main stream aircraft, except pmdg's, because of proprietary coding

We could go on and on, but as I see, all these problens could be turned around if you released a sdk. Why not release a sdk, let the hard developpers make their drivers and you collect a fee from we the end users... wouldn't it be possible to implement a something like peter dowson's fsuipc? only by being a registred user one could have it unlocked and have full access

un it.

Best regards

JMN

[Francois]

You seem to be confusing matters..... WE are NOT PMDG. You are preaching to the wrong choir. If you'd put all this on the PMDG forum (at Avsim?) then I'd agree with ya ;-)

[James_Carr]

Nobody is saying you are PMDG(although you are made up of a ex lead devloper for them)

However your products at present are all supporting PMDG products, you are developing at with time and cost, individual drivers, that are purchased by the hardcore, due to costs, and incompatibility with other hardware, so your sales are limited. When it comes to purchasing Hardware people are put off not by just initial cost of Harware but also knowing that they will then need to turn to likes of yourselves to purchase, 1, 2 3....drivers costing in the end nearly as much as some of the hardware, just to use it with one a/c, then repeat all over again to use with second PMDG a/c. Hence less harware sales resulting in less driver sales by yourselves.

The argument has been put to PMDG over and over again,(recent forum post about engravity driver as lead to over 1000 views) to either develop a SDK, or release the Offsets. Bearing in mind that some of these requests are not for just the queen but also the very old now FS9 737 which they are replacing (with rumours of hardware support) PMDG sit still by their strange idea that someone going to run off with their software and so need to protect this.

I think the reason people are turning to you, is because you have tried to bridge the PMDG hardware gap with support from your drivers, you have a team member who knows PMDG products inside out(probably uses his own hardware with them as he knows the offsets!) What they are saying, is instead of spending endless hours developing driver after driver why not put that time into writing your own SDK/FSPIUC type application or whatever that you can then sell. By doing this, not only would you sell probably more units than all your single drivers put together probably do, but those harware manufactures already out there, could easily tweak their own software to interface with your SDK, opening up the market for people to choose which hardware they wish to go with. I own the opencockpits hardware, I can use it with leveld SDK, if there was a PMDG SDK then i could use it with that, but equally I could buy the CPFLIGHT, or engravity etc and know again it will function with whatever software I like.

So your time/cost is put into one product that outsells all your individual drivers, because hardware sales would increase also. The success it could have could lead to other a/c developers turning to you to develop SDKs for their products also so they too can get a bite of the ever increasing Hardware market.

Quite simply at present, it isnt the money thats my issue when purchasing Hardware, if i had a million to spend, its fruitless because I cant build what I want to work with PMDG. Opencockpits hardware/software method to me makes the perfect sense in the way to tackle the problem, it allows the user to configure using various methods the hardware to interface however they choose with the software, either to an sdk, keymapping, direct to fspuic, so you can buy as much module hardware, create your own swithches etc as money will afford, all it needs is the likes of either PMDG or as this post inffers yourselves to provide the information, to interface to it. The individual driver way is limiting and outdated in my view and is purely restricting the advancement of this hobby. My MCP is for a 737(like cpflight etc) but unlike your driver I can easliy make it function however to addpat to the type of aircraft I am using, giving it more value, rather than purchase a 747 . 767 airbus etc MCP and then a driver for each.

Yes PMDG are the major problem here...but why dont you show them how to do it dont spend time on drivers do and SDK instead...CPFLIGHT/ENGRAVITY can all adjust their products easily to interface to this, then they along with opencockpits will be compeating on Price and quality, which for the end user will mean high quality hardware(something which you strive to support) and good value for money...and FSLABS will be somewhat richer.

Regards

James

[Sylle]

Guys,

I'd like to chime in :-)

As I'm not running my own business I'm not sure my opinion has some real value but I do agree with James here...

Like some other guys did in the past, I started a topic a few weeks ago in the general section of this forum requesting support for a specific piece of hardware.

I can understand that FSlabs as a company first wants to reassure themselves that there will be enough future customers before starting develoment of a new driver as the work has to pay off.

Unfortunately, it seems quite hard to reach the required number of interested people (cockpit builders being a niche market in the already niche market of hardcore aircraft addons).

As a consequence it is probably unlikely to see drivers being released for a wide variety of hardware therefore limiting both the possibilities of the cockpit builders and sales opportunities for FSlabs.

Cockpit builders will always want to interface their hardware with hardcore aircraft addons like PMDG birds simulating a lot of the aircraft systems.

So... you need BOTH the hardware AND good software to build a nice cockpit.

You start to find a lot of hardware providers but there are still only a handfull of companies producing high-fidelity aircraft simulations (and most of them are not being really 'cockpit-builder friendly')

James offers a great solution IMO: PMDG refuses to release an SDK for their birds for years now and FSlabs has someone onboard their team with the required knowledge to make such an SDK for the PMDG birds and sell it afterwards.

It wouldn't matter to you if this SDK is used by customers with Fly Engravity, CPflight, Opencockpits, Flightdecktechnology, Simkits, Command Fliteware, Lausitz Aviation, CSI Cockpitsimulations, Dakenskys, Goflight or VRinsight hardware a your SDK would allow compatibility with ALL this hardware!!

I also believe you wouldn't have to worry as much about return on investment as every single PMDG customer building a cockpit would need the FSlabs SDK to interface the hardware of his choice with the PMDG software.

I really think it's something you should consider...

Best regards,

Sylvain

[lst141]

Fran?ois;

quote -[You seem to be confusing matters..... WE are NOT PMDG]

Well we all know that, but, correct me if i'm wrong - Lefteris didn't run away from PMDG with the vars and offsets in is pocket did he ?, so Fslabs is not PMDG, but as a in very close relationship... so close that it can use pmdg knowledge base to develop drivers for third party hardware developpers.

I'm sad that the best 737 addon is a dead end for the cockpit builders and must go elsewere to put together a home cockpit. Irony is that in the end, it will cost me many times more than pmdg 737 and it's $50 "? la carte "drivers, and all this "energy" is passing just under PMDG and FSLABS arms reach to some one else. Sincerely i think that the two companies are looking the other way to many users that purchased reasonable priced hardware that would be willing to put some more money just to get 737 addon fully "cockpitable" running.

Regards

JMN

[flyingfanatic333]

I know people who use the PMDG 737 with hardware. However, it involves hacking the coding or using Project Magenta, which is very expensive.

[Bill]

Folks,

Thanks for your input on this topic - happy to see I'm not the only one struggling! Let me try to put another angle on this to fire you up some more! (if you feel like adding your own experiences here go ahead, it will make you feel better).

Bottom line, what I'm looking for is a realistic 737 simulator that will run on FSX in Windows XP or Vista, has network capabilities so you can pull up primary flight displays on another computer, that will interface to an MCP that doesn't freeze up when you turn the heading knob too quickly and has a working interface to an EFIS and a CDU...

In my dreams I was hoping that the rig would consist of (and apologies for mentioning other vendors here):

- FeeelThere/Wilco PIC 737

- GoFlight MCP and EFIS

- An Engravity CDU

- Ellie Avionics

My experience and why I ended up here....

- The PIC works very well - it has one or 2 quirks but quite manageable

- GoFlight MCP works with PIC out of the box. Just don't turn those knobs too fast or you'll lose the connectivity with the sim. Installed latest firmware and driver from GoFlight - still have the problem. Realism factor? About 20%, Irritation factor? 90%...

- GoFlight's EFIS didn't work out of the box! With their recent driver you can now assign keys to it, problem is there's nothing to map it to in PIC. Chance of Wilco updating their software? 5%. Solution? Will map mouse click macros to it from FSUIPC - a pain because the EFIS window will need to be in the same place every time for this to work

- Engravity's CDU doesn't interface to PIC (sob!) so I still don't have one

- At this point I'm thinking "Bill, you're flying the wrong add on". SO I went over to PMDG. They don't currently have a 737 for FSX (but hey, it's "coming soon"...) so I went for the 747 instead. Except they don't have an interface to my MCP or EFIS...enter Lefteris and co.

- The interface from Flightsimlabs works great! So now I have a working EFIS and an MCP

- CDU? Well I could now get the Engravity kit but there's only one problem, I kind of miss flying my 737 and the PMDG add on is just, well, not as good as I had hoped for. So ideally I'd prefer to stick with a 737. Cool - Engravtity's web page says their CDU is compatible with "PMDG series of 737 aircraft (FSX)". Odd, I thought that was still "coming soon"?

- So back to FeelThere/Wilco PIC. A ray of sunshine though, I can get primary flight displays from Ellie Avionics for my old PC without having to spring for expensive interface software. And it works! (kind of - as long as you don't mind updating 2 flight plans - one on your primary PC and another on your box driving the secondary display...)

So to my favorite saying right now "this is a time vampire". I spend more time and energy trying to get all the gear to work than actually flying - is this what being a cockpit builder is all about? Ugh!

Ok, I feel better - thank you all for listening. I'm going to lie down now....

Happy simming,

Bill

[James_Carr]

Bill

Sorry to hear your plight and difficulties, but again this is the whole issue of where the Flightsim Hobby seems to have stumbled. The A/C makers, are basically crippling the advancement of the hobby. And with the lack now of any future version of the sim coming out soon if ever. Its really not the time for this to be the case.

Your post decribes quite typically the issues, you have a selection of hardware to choose from, and although prices have come down its still not cheap, so by that fact alone it limits those that will get into it, now those fortunate enough to buy it are still then put off, as when they look at what they can use it with they find they can use it with one a/c and the second item they thought to buy isnt compatible with that a/c or need another driver or some other work around to get it to work. I know I go on about it, but its where the opencockpits products are the way to go, and its where the A/c makers, companies like FSLABS should be angling there development to support. And not just for opencockpits, but by making the software behave like level D does, then any of the manufactures could make hardware that simply will work with all a/c, that will allow the user to buy plug and play modules, or create more advanced cockpits by making their own switches buttons, panels etcs. Not having to rely on endless drivers, that actually only support one a/c or one piece of hardware, that as soon as another one comes out, they find it doesnt support.

We are at a stage now where it be like buying a cd player, that only plays CD's made by sony, and if phillips makes a CD you have to buy a different CD player to play it...Betamax VHS bring back memories?

If everyone followed the level D, opencockpits way, they we would have cheaper hardware, more of it, more people buying it, more people expanding their hobby in FS, more people likely to get into FS. FSX hasnt been the best move forward for FS, FS9 is no longer available to buy as such or supported by MS. FSX is full of bugs, which obvioulsy wont be fixed, still needs a decent system to run it. There a definite slow down on the release of addon a/c for FSX compared to that of FS9 due to the bugs and issues with it. Then to top it off the likes of PMDG restrict the advancement and to an extent the continued interest in FSimming by this rather totally backward policy on not producing an SDK, Not releasing support for the offsets (they wont even release them for their ancient 737 which is being replaced) and we then have limited hardware options bacause have to rely on FSLABS releasing a driver for one piece of hardware for one a/c.

You can get a MCP from open cockpits for 330 euros, that technically needs no driver, can be configured to operate with any aircraft, even though it a 737, will work with stock FSX aircraft, a cdu for around 300 euros that again do the same, an efis for 150 euros, and everyone can plug in and work instantly with level D. then i can load default 737 and use it with that, can set it up even as autopilot to control default a/c and even to extent using one of its various methods provided some semi control of PMDG aircraft. FSLABs why release endless drivers, that sell less, when you could release one product...an SDK or equivalent, that would sell in masses. Harmonise all the harware makers to make their harware one specific way, so more would come into the market lower the prices hence sell more of your SDK and hey rich FSLABS.

With FS dead in MS terms...something needs to be done to keep the FS scene alive...

Regards your Goflight MCP, send it back, the forums are full of the issues with it, go get yourself an opencockpits one.

[lst141]

Hi,

Yes infortunatly PM is just too expensive, I asked a quotation and got the incredible answer of 1200 ?!. It's just to expensive and I have dificulty to justify myself of such spending.

There are other solutions flightdecksoftware and simavionics, but they also don't sell at a reasonable affordable price. I'm currently starting to testing both before deciding which to go. It will take time because I can?t afford to chose the wrong one or it will cost in the end, the same as PMagenta

As for the hacking the code, well it's the ultimate solution and for sure the least expensive... what a waste of energy... Why don't they sell a SDK. Sincerely I would be willing to buy the thing. I sincerely regret the day I got my 737 overhead, I should have payed more attention to Niko Kaan advises on the levelD 767, but back then, I didn't like and still don't like the 767.

Maybe with the announced end of FS, they will be compelled to do something.

Regards

Jean Naudin

[lst141]

Hi all

I'm looking for a list of all used pmdg 737 vars and offsets that are FS standard and that are not proprietary. Does anybody have seen in the web such document ?.

I want to begin connecting my overhead switches and annunciators to opencockpits hardware for the first trials.

JMN