Have you been following the XXXXXX mod discussions. It seems they have the GTN750...sort of working and still in the "lets us all get it working" stage. They have a free base version and an upmarket version that will attract an annual fee when it is up and running.

 

Edited April 25, 20215 yr by RXP

For the time being, I'm updating you all with the latest news:

1) I've posted feedback in the SDK Q&A topic:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/3?u=cptlucky8

 NB: the official transcript and the live Q&A video are pretty much similar, except for this specific question: "Can we talk about DLL?"* (1)

Quote

live Q&A video:

- DLLs can carry unsafe code and they can’t have unsafe code in add-ons in the Market Place. Sandboxing is good for having safe add-ons in the Microsoft store.
- Sandboxing is also a good way to port legacy addons in C++

Quote

official transcript:

Eric – When you ship a DLL, you never know what it is going to do! It has access to personal informal information and result in having security issues. Using WASM, we are sure that 3rd party content only accesses designated files!

Let's be clear about this: I understand the reasons behind WASM and this is a good technology for what it is good at.

However in my opinion, this official statement is just spreading fear in the community in saying 3rd party vendors are thieves and are stealing their customers personal information. I can't see how this official statement is doing any good for the simmers and I find it rather fallacious toward the entire 3rd party developers. I'm genuinely astonished about this.

 

2) I'm revealing some of our secret recipes in order to explain what makes gauges more complex than what they might think:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/8?u=cptlucky8

NB: In this post I'm presenting a very easy solution to make things much easier for 3rd party developers. This solution enables binding both the WASM Sandbox world and the C++ open world in a safe and very efficient way (i.e. IPC via shared memory + sockets).

 

3) Some users are raising the following questions:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/12?u=cptlucky8

Quote

I can only hope that Asobo sits down and listens to developers like PMDG, A2A, Reality-XP, etc, and gives them the tools they need to bring the realism FS2020 is striving for.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/13?u=cptlucky8

Quote

So much knowledge, so much experience, just being IGNORED by Asobo.

If ASOBO can interface 1-0n-1 with Aerosoft, why can’t they do the same with @CptLucky8 , who seems willing to share all his knowledge & experiences with MS & ASOBO , for FREE, and for the benefit of EVERYONE.

In an ideal world, @CptLucky8 would have regular Zoom meetings with the SDK team, and the devs at Asobo, and maybe even make those Zoom session into VOD, so other developers and players, can learn & see what is going ob, and where things are heading.

One things is a Given: MSFS 2020 with input form @CptLucky8 will be a far better product than without that input, and the sooner the better, before too much gets cast in stone, and thereafter, difficult to change.

It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.” Steve Jobs

 

4) Again, thanks @Cristi_Neagu for your support:
Reality-XP - Third Party Addon Discussion / Tools & Utilities - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

 

5) Microsoft/Asobo have just approved a new third party vendor to soon sell their GPS products on the Market Place.

It has been nearly 9 months I've submitted Reality XP application and I'm still waiting for any approval.

 

---

*(1) With Eric's comment "they", I believe he was referring to MSFT here.

*(2) JustFlight and A2A are also raising some concerns about some of the SDK problems:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/23?u=cptlucky8
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/24?u=cptlucky8

 

Edited May 18, 20215 yr by RXP

7 hours ago, RXP said:

*(2) JustFlight and A2A are also raising some concerns about some of the SDK problems:

Just to add that, somehow, A2A are confident that they will deliver the Comanche for FS2020: https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72335&start=45#p551356

By the sounds of this post they are in the tweaking phase and it looks like they have a working model, about 99% of the way there. So I am very curious to see how they managed to go around the limitations posted by Lewis in the link posted above. I don't think they gave up on Accu-Sim, but i do wonder what Accu-Sim even is in the FS2020 era.

JustFlight, on the other hand, are building the Arrow (and the Turbo Arrow too, I imagine) completely inside the sim flight model. I imagine they're feeling a bit grateful that Asobo are making such slow progress on the flight model, otherwise they'd have to retune everything every single month. I wonder if issues with the model is why the Turbo Arrow isn't out yet.

To me it seems pretty obvious that allowing developers as much freedom as possible can only be beneficial for everyone, Asobo included. But it looks like the servers have a very vocal group of people who are determined to get the best of everything for free. So much so that if they can't get it for free, they'd rather destroy it. Every time i tried to mention the fact that Asobo can simply continue doing exactly what it's doing, developing the default flight model and improving WASM support, as well as working on default aircraft and systems, while also allowing developers to plug in their dlls or their flight models, etc, a group of users always tries to argue that blocking any external tool that is not built inside the tiny sandbox drawn out by Asobo is the best thing possible for the community. That third party developers should share their knowledge with Asobo in order to improve the default sim. No mention on how these charitable third party developers are supposed to make a living, or what those developers ignored by Asobo are supposed to do.

Time will tell how well this is going to work for Asobo. But i feel like a lot of active users are losing patience with the broken weather system, the broken controls, broken flight model, broken icing model, broken performance, etc. As i said it before: it may be that Asobo will be able to fix all of these things rather than outsource them to other developers, but I wonder if FS2020 can stay alive for that long.

Or, who knows, maybe FS2020 will die, Asobo will give up on it and open it up to developers, and we'll have another zombie-like bit of abandonware like FSX being kept alive by third party content, but with better graphics. I for one hope Asobo see some sense and open it up well before that happens.

2 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

To me it seems pretty obvious that allowing developers as much freedom as possible can only be beneficial for everyone, Asobo included.

So we collectively are building a choir to sing that song, loudly.  Please join the choir and join in the singing.  And seemingly deaf ears require more volume!  Raise your voice!

MFS team is more disappointing than their product (and it was a challenge !)

After announcement, they said it will be a product for simmers. They don't do anything for that.
It tend to be a xbox game for gamers.

Edited May 2, 20215 yr by nirgal76

On 4/25/2021 at 9:52 PM, fppilot said:

So we collectively are building a choir to sing that song, loudly.  Please join the choir and join in the singing.  And seemingly deaf ears require more volume!  Raise your voice!

There is now a place to sing along, and I thank everyone supporting this motion.
Your support is incredible and with only a few more votes it will enter the list of 48!

Open up communications with Reality-XP - Self-Service / Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

 

In the meantime, I'm looking forward to discussing with Matt anytime soon.

Edited May 8, 20215 yr by RXP

Perhaps Jorg will have some words about that on next Q&A 😉

Hi,

We're a month later and you might want to get the latest news:

Quote

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/open-up-communications-with-reality-xp/392140/68

[…] Firstly, the trainer license is extremely explicit about disallowing merging the program with any other program. […]  and unless you have a license from Garmin to distribute (which I don’t believe anyone does, not can I imagine Garmin allowing it) you can’t even put the trainer in your package. This solution can’t ever be on the marketplace simply for legal reasons. […]

Quote

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/open-up-communications-with-reality-xp/392140/82

It’s not really an accusation, just that the trainer EULA expressly prohibits reverse engineering and/or merging the product with any other product […]

Quote

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/would-directx12-open-up-possibilities-for-a-true-binary-api-for-scenery-and-cockpit/409772/39

The decision not to accept trainer based apps due to EULA violations and licensing issues was made well before we arrived,

Quote

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/86

Speaking as someone who is presently working on producing “study level” Garmin instruments […] If folks want to make really awesome GPS units without compromises, I would definitely recommend avoiding the external trainer approach. […]

Quote

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/would-directx12-open-up-possibilities-for-a-true-binary-api-for-scenery-and-cockpit/409772/36

[…] My opinion is relevant insofar as I’m part of the team making these decisions. […]

Quote

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/would-directx12-open-up-possibilities-for-a-true-binary-api-for-scenery-and-cockpit/409772/39?u=cptlucky8

[…] Pimarc’s work, for example, is exceptional, and I would love to see him profit from our current API and flight planning stuff we’re developing on the NXi […] hopefully we and other avionics designers will have the opportunity to prove out the possibilities to you. […]

Matt,

You’re publicly questioning the legal nature of RXP business, the legitimacy of our products and you are allegedly saying Microsoft is refusing our Market Place application because we’re in breach of a 3rd party software EULA. I find this outrageous, disrespectful and utterly unprofessional and this begs again the question who benefits the most from you lecturing me…

Let me set the record straight for the community:

I didn’t know Microsoft cared about RXP’s agreement with Garmin. I would assume they would have asked if this was the case, rather than completely cut me off with no word. If that is the reason of their silence, I would have expected them to ask about this issue, or at the very least tell me the reason for their cut off. This doesn’t show good faith otherwise.

Since Microsoft never asked RXP about any such licensing or EULA questions, I invite you therefore to prove to the community your claims and tell everyone why are you so certain that RXP is in breach of any Garmin agreement. Making such accusations without proof is a very serious thing I do not consider any lightly.

Notwithstanding you aren’t questioning any legal obligations of any other vendor portraying any other Aircraft or Avionics IP, whether they are approved or not on the market place, your repeated derogatory comments solely focusing on RXP and the fact you’re also divulging elements of our private correspondence to the public is questioning your integrity to me.

Until then, considering that you don’t know what my relation with Garmin is, I’m asking you to stop spreading any further libellous and slanderous comments otherwise you can expect a more formal letter from me in the coming days.

I have been trying to reach out for 18 months, not just for offering to our customers their favourite RXP products on their favourite simulator, but also for sharing with Microsoft and Asobo our unique expertise in this industry. Regardless of this misunderstanding which I’m sure we’ll solve promptly, I’m still more than willing to contribute and assist to the best of my ability to the success of the franchise. I’m open to discussing this, and more, with Microsoft and Asobo.

---
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/open-up-communications-with-reality-xp/392140/94

Edited June 18, 20214 yr by RXP

Why is this topic not appearing in the Avsim front page Recent Topics feed?

4 hours ago, fppilot said:

Why is this topic not appearing in the Avsim front page Recent Topics feed?

The actual discussion is happening here:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/open-up-communications-with-reality-xp/392140/94

 

Edited June 18, 20214 yr by Bert Pieke

I've voted on Asobo's MSFS 2020 forum for RXP support on Christi's thread, and said my piece.

@RXP, I hope you get some traction. I fully support your software and am continuously hopping on these threads to look for updates. I'm shocked that Asobo hasn't thrown more support behind making the development support easier for RXP.

Keep fighting the good fight, I look forward to the day when this is all behind us.

I Have been owning this add-on for the past year or so and I never NEVER regretted spending my cash on it. Microsoft, BIG mistake that ur making, this add-on is not primitive or backward, this is the real deal. I am proud to raise my voice on this . BTW, U guys should consider a G1000 or G1000 Xi for FSX/p3d or Xp11.

Cheers! and I can count on you

Edited August 14, 20214 yr by omsriguru

I'm posting this because I believe there is so much fake news and misinformation deliberately spread or not, that a point was needed.

I've just posted the following in the hope this makes it clearer:

============================================================================================================

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/open-up-communications-with-reality-xp/392140/201?u=cptlucky8

 

This is a voting topic so that people can express their agreement to the OP idea to “Open up communications with Reality-XP”, which when reading the topic is more about “opening up collaboration between Microsoft, Asobo and Reality XP”.

This idea is based on the pretense that Reality XP is a renown vendor with a proven track record of 20 years of innovation and award winning products, specializing in avionics simulation, offering a range of products on 3 major simulators and 14 different versions, and pushing the limits of these simulators beyond what most vendors are offering in terms of gauges and systems.

Reality XP is also a partner with a number of Professional Simulator vendors and System Integrators, which are using their Garmin simulation solutions both as COTS for X-Plane and Prepar3D, and embedded as a OEM component for simulator manufacturers I won’t name here for now.

It seems evident to the topic author such expertise in the field must be of a certain value for a simulator vendor like Microsoft, and opening a form of collaboration beyond the products themselves and leveraging the Reality XP savoir-faire and knowledge for FS2020 shall be no less than good.

Hope this makes things clearer to everyone that this topic is not about Garmin products, it is not about loading DLLs, it is not even about any licensing question. It is only about:

- Whether the expertise of a renown awarded vendor specializing in the field of avionics simulation and pushing the SDK beyond its limits with creative thinking and 20 years of innovation is of any value for a simulator vendor who claims: “We got to get this right with you guys first, and by you guys I mean the people that really have been propping up this thing for the past 35 years”

- And therefore and related, why Microsoft is still not approving Reality-XP’s market place application while at the same time they are issuing refunds for products they know are defective but they are still selling yet. and they promote twice in a row aircraft products which are not even flying.

All the rest like discussing Garmin products of other simulators, technology choices for the SDK, how bad it is to load DLL or what not about security, or other libelous and slandering comments , are bringing nothing constructive to answering the questions this topic is posing. And rest assured I wouldn’t expect any less from MSFT than being concerned about licensing questions! We do too… and our Professional customers and partners as well…

Now since this is a voting topic, I believe posting in this topic can only be along 2 lines:

- Either you agree with the above, you vote, and you explain why you do think the OP’s idea is a good one and how according to you, you also believe Reality XP could be an asset in one way or another to both Microsoft and Asobo.

- Or you disagree with the above, you don’t vote, and you explain why you do think Microsoft and Asobo shouldn’t collaborate with Reality XP at all.

 

Hi I use the realsimgear gns 530 and was wondering if you are looking to make your product available for flight simulator 2020

@N4364T

Hi,

Suffice to say to add insult to the injury, or the reverse depending, my account has been forbidden to post new content in their forums for a few days...

Nevertheless I believe you'll find a lot more information in the posts above about this question. 🙄

Edited October 16, 20214 yr by RXP