This is an open letter to all add-on aircraft developers that I think belongs in this forum instead of hardware because it's point has to do with FS9 functionality. But here's my suggestion.It is well known that there are compatibilty issues between GoFlight hardware and add-on aircraft that has to do with the various ways GoFlight and a large number of developers approach things.That said, if the developers produce a great add-on that they do no make GoFlight compatible then:They will sell airplanes to x% of FS users and somewhat LESS than that % to GoFlight users who don't like mouse clicking and will avoid the add-on.To the contrary, if the add-on IS made GoFlight compatible then:The developer will sell to the exact same percentage of the general FS market but will sell to nearly 100% of the GoFlight users who are starved for fully compatible add-ons.Just my opinion but I would bet that the time/cost involved with achieving GoFlight compatibility would be recovered many times over by marketing to the GoFlight community.Regards,Jim

Hello,I am a GOFLIGHT system user (not a developer). What I believe is the problem is the amount of complex programming in the panels of these high-end addons. I don't think it is the developers desire to built-in problems for the GOFLIGHT users - just that they are trying to achieve results within the boundries of the FS9 environment. I am no expert here but I believe that I read somewhere that if the developer supplies key mapping data that the GOFLIGHT can be "mapped" to do the functions that are necessary. I love my GOFLIGHT setup - especially when it is used with addons that are compatable - like the Flight One A36. It is my experience that the MCP is the main problem with most of the high-end stuff (like the LDS 767) - the buttons and switches of my GOFLIGHT work fine - the radio tuning almost always works fine but the MCP is usually the problem. The bugs on the displays move OK but the MCP logic does not respond.Anyway - I agree that there would be a real benefit to us if the compatability could be programmed in!!!Happy flying,Ron Sagel

Is Goflight supposed to work with FS or FS with Goflight? Surely it's for the aftermarket developer - Goflight in this case - to derive functionality for the users of its products? I suppose it's down to who is the `dog` and who is the `tail`?As the number of Goflight users represents only a tiny proportion of dedicated simmers, in themselves only a microscosmic part of the FS market, I think you're on a hiding to nothing. Better to ask Goflight to improve the `transparency` of their interface, better to suit the needs of potential and existing purchasers. Surely by now they would have realised that functionality outside of the basic FS parameters is a prerequisite of advanced addons? Allcott

This is simple market economics - people who buy complex addons are a small subset of MSFS users, people who buy GoFlight hardware are an even smaller subset of that set. If it were the developer's responsibility to ensure their products work with every piece of addon hardware under the sun, then we'd never see anything released. GoFlight uses the default panel functions for their switches, knobs etc - these are not good enough for most complex addons and they must be custom programmed. If they used defaults, the addon would be nowhere close to realistic. It is GoFlight's responsibility to give their users a way to remap the hardware to whatever custom functions the user wants to use - I know in the case of the PMDG 737 and LDS 767 there are SDKs that allow programmable hardware to access the custom panel functions, and many others have done it using FSUIPC's functions in conjuction with something like an EPIC card for home cockpits. A lot of addons include custom keystroke mapping for the panel - if GoFlight allowed mapping of keyboard functions to the hardware, that alone would probably go a long way toward making their stuff more compatible.

In my opinion developers only need to ensure that their software works in MSFS, not with additional hardware such as Goflight.I don't think its fair to expect developers to spend extra time programming software on a $30/40 addon to work with $100's of harware.

I agree, it should be the hardware developers who make it compatible - you pay enough money for it!.

One does not have to program for Go Flight hardware.they just have to provide for key stroke mapping for thee commands. is all.

Jim:I am sure that this will come as a sobering shock to you but the GoFlight community is absolutely miniscule compared to the general users of any given 3rd party add-on. I would go so far as to say that the loss of a few GoFlight users would amount to nothing more than an accounting 'rounding error' when compared to the total revenue received from any particular add-on. At the end of the day, the time/cost involved catering to the GoFlight community would not be "recovered many times over", as you say, which is why compatibility for those products has largely been an afterthought if any at all. Most developers do it as a courtesy rather than a necessity.If GoFlight wants compatibility, it is up to THEM to release an API to developers to resolve the current issues. Developers are not releasing products with any particular hardware avionic system, yoke or joystick in mind therefore it is up to GoFlight to make themselves compatible.Think about it: if you buy a cool new phone and come to find out that it doesn't work on your telephone system, you would not call the phone company and ask them to make themselves compatible with your phone. You would call the company that made your cool new phone and tell them they need to make a phone that is compatible with the phone company...what's the sense in having a cool new phone if you can't make any phonecalls!?!?!?!?Regards,Mike T.

IMHO, regardless of who needs to do what, we're seeing a trend of PC compatible devices made to work with MSFS from several companies all making really neat stuff.I would personally like to see this trend continue, especially since this trend is making it more and more affordable to the casual user to have an almost complete cockpit with all the swithes, panels, etc.Just a few years ago myself and Jason were visiting Ray S. (some of you know him). His 777 set up was awesome and we could really see this type of thing taking off. Having said that we knew that people like Pete C were developing more 'ready to go' systems for anyone to plug and play. Currently I see from Pete's site and some of the others that THIS TIME IS NEARLY HERE. :-)Now, I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg, but I think that if there is anyway we as add on developers can help in this area (barring it doesn't take an extra year for devlopment), then maybe it's worth a look. We have Pete D with his FSUIPC that may provide the bridge to make this happen more economically.Just my 2C but I think we're getting ready to have to cross this bridge in order to advance the hobby. It seems to me that we're going to have a lot more choices out there in addition to the current Project Magenta software depending on the users need to take his project as far as he/she wants to from the technical aspect of things. We can use our models/FDE's, whatever to incorporate them into someones 'real' cockpit/sim.It's something to really think about before we just rush into a fight over who's responsible and so on. It will also depend on the willingness of the 3rd party developer amongst other things like their abilities and skill levels and time constraints. you get the picture.Thanks.

We know of no developer who builds for 3rd party hardware like Go Flight. From our own view it would seem to be in Go Flight's best interest to be "proactive" and supply addon developers whatever is needed so that they may plan for Go Flight functionality at the beginning of a given project. A simple NDA and whatever paper work Go Flight might require should take care of any threat to their work.We would not refuse such input from Go Flight but could not promise that every project would include Go Flight functionality.Each project must stand on it's own merits:-)

GoFlight modules will work as long as you use only the default MSFS functionality and commands for everything.That means NO custom autopilot for example. A custom autopilot is almost required though if you want to mimmick realistic climb and descent profiles...Providing a means to use key mappings is an excellent alternative and is being done more and more often. This allows people to program their GF modules to map to keyboard commands which the aircraft will understand to mean something.

<>Well, I am sure this will come as a sobering shock to you but your remark does not come as a sobering shock to me and I don't know what might have led you to conclude that it would.In addition, I suspect that your information is incorrect. What is your information with respect to A) the size of the GoFlight community and :( any particular add-on? You must have such data in order to have reached your conclusion.In fact, there was a recent thread here regarding Lou Betti's level of income from his add-on market activities that suggested that few, if any, in that market are "making a killing"...although in Mr. Betti's case and that of Dreamfleet, their products are so good that I, for one, hope the ARE making a ton of money.But just simple math leads to a conclusion opposite to yours. I suspect that if GoFlight didn't have a user base VASTLY greater than, say, 2000 then they would have gone out of business long ago. Next, at $25.00 for a typcial add-on, then an incremental $50,000.00 of gross revenue and nearly that amount of profit would be available to the add-on developer by capturing the GoFlight community. I doubt that there is a single add-on developer that would state that they could care less about $50,000.00 of additional revenue. If there is one, let one of their representatives chime in here with that view.But again, what IS the installed base of GoFlight products in your view? And what is that of Dreamfleet, or Flight 1 or Aeroworx or any of the other top quality add-on vendors? I have little fear of contradiction when I suggest that $50,000.00 in added sales would be A LOT more than a "rounding error" in their worlds.<>No it's not. As has been pointed out in this thread, developers use various and often proprietary ways to achieve functionality outside of the FS code structure so it is neither "up to" the developers nor GoFlight to conform their software to each other. It would require a collaborative effort between the hardware and software communities and I think that history teaches that cross-platform compatibility is fundamentally a good thing and not a bad thing.Your telephone analogy, in fact, proves my point, not yours. It is precicely because the telephone industry--which is a vast conglomeration of hardware and software providers--adopted compatibility standards many, many decades ago (which continue to evolve as we speak) that there is no such thing as a "cool new phone" that isn't compatible with my system (land line phones at least) because ALL phones sold (in the U.S.) are compatible with all phone system providers.Incompatibility still exists in the cell phone space but with "triple band" phones, that problem is going away too.In that market, it is not "up to" Sprint to conform itself to, say, the GSM standard or the providers of GSM to conform themselves to Sprint...or Nokia, Motorola etc. to conform themselves to Cingular or GSM. It is up to thosee respective entities to come to understand...as all entities eventually do...that common standards (like IEEE, for example)are not only the best way to go but are inevitable! Remember the Sony Beta Max?? And remember that Apple, were it not for IPOD would still be struggling for an identity outside such specialized markets as music and the graphics space...(Dell alone outsells them by well over 10-1 in the pc market) and for profitibility.This thread has produced some interesting points of view. Thanks for yours and the others.Regards,Jim

<< GoFlight modules will work as long as you use only the default MSFS functionality and commands for everything.That means NO custom autopilot for example.>>That's correct but as you pointed out, GF and others, have released mapping software and the registered version of FSUIPC allows for that sort of thing.But more than one of my add-on aircraft work with my GF rig without any mapping and in most other cases, most of the GF-MCP (autopilot) functions work with only a few features that require mouse clicking.I don't fly much big iron though, which is where I suspect most of the incompatibility exists.For all readers, please know that I am a huge fan of the add-on developers and my point is this. I know (because it is my business to know) that lower prices lead to exponential increases in sales and profits (go check the financial histories of, say Dell and Wal-Mart for examples) and that compatibility is the key.If GREAT add-ons could be sold for, say $5.00, then there would be virtually NO usage of default aircraft and the sales/profits of the add-on industry would skyrocket!Regards,Jim

>>In addition, I suspect that your information is incorrect.>What is your information with respect to A) the size of the>GoFlight community and :( any particular add-on? You must have>such data in order to have reached your conclusion.>Just go to some popular addon forum and try count CH Products and GoFlight users. Number will small compared to total people number.

You elluded to there being significant financial reward and a significant percentage of new users if there were GoFlight compatibility. This leads me to believe that you think that the userbase is large, which it is not.If that is the case, and by simply supporting GoFlight developers would gain $50,000, would you not think that they would have done it already??? Why do you think this is not the developers #1 priority then?<...there is no such thing as a "cool new phone" that isn't compatible with my system (land line phones at least) because ALL phones sold (in the U.S.) are compatible with all phone system providers.>Actually, no. H.320 ISDN phones, H.323 IP / video phones and SIP IP Phones are NOT compatible with 2 pair POTS service since the latter use RJ-45 vs RJ-11 jacks and a host of other differences (packet switching vs. circuit switching). None the less they offer far more features than POTS service which when plugged into a POTS connection would not work. The point still remains, if you buy one of the cool new phones they will not work with POTS service from the ILEC carriers and the ILECs are going nowhere anytime soon.I am in agreement with you that there should be standards, but who is to say what that standard should be. GoFlight users would like there to be a standard so that your money is not wasted on hardware that is not supported on many add-ons. Add-on developers require more development time to integrate GoFlight compatability thus a longer development cycle and subsequent higher cost to bring the product to market. And then what about the other hardware add-ons, should they not be supported too? I don't think that your utopian movement towards standards has reached fruition yet.None-the-less I totally respect your point of view and hope to see that movement towards standards of which you speak.Regards,Mike T.