https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/19/google_flight_simulator_replacement/ 

Where I live, Apple Maps actually wins the day for best aerial photography and photogrammetry. I remember when Apple Maps was the underdog that nobody took seriously, now it's pretty amazing (at least in my neck of the woods).

Now we have a new Sim that is far beyond everything we have seen before and it is still not good enough....

21 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Now we have a new Sim that is far beyond everything we have seen before and it is still not good enough....

Modding the game is a pastime that has been going one since MS released the Aircraft and Scenery Development software for MSFS4. The fact this surprises anyone is more of a surprise. 

3 minutes ago, KenG said:

Modding the game is a pastime that has been going one since MS released the Aircraft and Scenery Development software for MSFS4. The fact this surprises anyone is more of a surprise. 

I am not surprised...i am modding myself.

Google Maps is great for small areas and touch ups.  But in large areas (especially urban ones) it is a frame rate killer.

That being said, the Monument Valley add on in flightsim.to is a marvel, and as others have been mentioning, modding has been part of the DNA of this product since ASD was developed back in FS4 days.

 

Not surprised!  Some of the Bing areas are terrible!!!

3 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

modding has been part of the DNA of this product since ASD was developed back in FS4 days.

Which somehow begs the question why did they so much wanted closing doors and sandboxing the SDK.

I can't answer this but this is a vague rhetoric question which could lead to speculations, such as:

• Because Asobo is new to the genre and they didn't know what simmers are really expecting from a simulator?
• Because they think the needs of the majority of the 3rd party developers are solely and fully represented by a select few aircraft vendors?
• Because the product is first and foremost a Market Place, and the simulator is built around it only to justify its existence in the first place?
• Because of anything else and I'm just kidding myself? (most likely)

In any case what is certain is that there is much to do and not enough man power to accomplish it in a short time.

Edited October 20, 20205 yr by RXP

I don't see any reason to believe Bing data will not get better over time as well, to keep up with Apple & others.  This seems like one of the underlying beauties of this cloud-based architecture because as imagery improves so can it w/o a complete re-write.  It's our job to enthusiastically support MSFS and continue to help morph it into a mega success--it has a great start going for it already.

16 minutes ago, RXP said:

Which somehow begs the question why did they so much wanted to close door and sandbox the SDK.

I can't answer this but this is a vague rhetoric question which could lead to speculations,

I don't see how you can even say that with a straight face. 

The product not only ships with development console able to be enabled from the main UI, but the SDK is easily downloaded by the general public via the development console.

And Less than 3 months in we have some amazing scenery and livery creations coming out of the freeware community.

The SDK does lack quite a bit of documentation, and developers are having issues with the new plane models as a result, but that's hardly what I would call closing the door and sandboxing the SDK.

They could have just as easily kept the SDK out of the hands of customers and only supplied it to "certified" (i.e. paying) partners.  They didn't.  They could have easily prevented any add-on's via a "community" folder.   They didn't.

I'm sorry, but your speculations seem based on a false premise.  That premise being shattered by the fact that everyone, including those "renting" the software via game pass has access to the developer console and the SDK, and has had this access from day one.

 

Some of these ports look terrible though....they need to color correct this stuff yuck!

I would also recommend NOT using the airports imported with that tool....they look great far away but up close look horrendous

3 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

I am not surprised...i am modding myself.

How... how do you mod yourself? Or do we not want to know?

 

5 minutes ago, Stoopy said:

How... how do you mod yourself? Or do we not want to know?

 

Sports, Meditation, Tattoos...all mods. I get better every day.

Edited October 20, 20205 yr by ThomseN_inc

1 hour ago, wthomas33065 said:

I don't see how you can even say that with a straight face. 

I won't say I can because I'm a human being capable of speech and I would sound differently with a non straight face, rather, I'll say I might just have chosen the wrong words in my English dictionary, or, you might have just misinterpreted them.

First I'd like to clarify some of the points which I said could lead some speculating on my statement:

1) Other simulators which we're enjoying modding are distributed in a way which can be modded (from the operating system standpoint)

FS2020 on the other hand is 'protected' behind the WindowsApp folder and its executable is somewhat 'encoded' internally preventing much of what you could do in injecting foreign coded (I'm trying to keep it simple and not too technical for now).

2) Other simulators offering a SDK are also allowing mods to run within the simulator.

FS2020 on the other hand is sandboxing 3rd party code and is limiting what can run and what cannot. It is preventing 3rd party developers to call any system API for example and it is restricting the way 3rd party can render/draw within the simulator. These are just a couple examples but there are more limitations.

3) Other simulator vendors supporting the 3rd party community are not communicating with just 2 aircraft vendors when they are looking for advises in order to decide what should and shouldn't be in the SDK.

having said this and back to your comments, I believe we're not interpreting the meaning of modding the same way and this could explain the misunderstanding.

Per my understanding, what you're writing leads me to think you're considering modding the capability to use the tools included in the SDK to make new things in the simulator, which is what the tools are offered for in the first place. It is like building a new brick house in Minecraft using the bricks which are already there. This is building per my definition of the word, not modding.

Modding on the other hand, as far as I understand it, is making the simulator do things it is not capable doing natively or which were thought no possible doing, like when Reality XP has been releasing the first really convincing Weather Radar in FS9 and FSX back in the days, or when releasing the only gauges capable of 32 bits graphics within the constraints of the FS Panel SDK (something the SDK is not supposedly capable of) with our latest GNS 530/430 V2 and GTN 750/650.

Having said this and back to the what was said in the other post: "modding has been part of the DNA of this product since ASD was developed back in FS4 days", I'm failing to see how the current state of the FS2020 SDK is any indication modding is part of its DNA. Rather, I can see selling market place products is in its DNA and these products can go only as far as the sandbox is allowing, within the closed doors of the simulator itself.

PS: I'm not saying it is good or bad either, just saying it is limited compared to other simulators and therefore I find there is an opposition for now between "modding has been part of this product since..." and "modding is in the FS2020 DNA".

 

 

Edited October 20, 20205 yr by RXP
grammar

2 hours ago, RXP said:

I can't answer this but this is a vague rhetoric question which could lead to speculations, such as:

• Because Asobo is new to the genre and they didn't know what simmers are really expecting from a simulator?
• Because they think the needs of the majority of the 3rd party developers are solely and fully represented by a select few aircraft vendors?

Yes, and Yes, I believe, based on the Developer Q&As that I have seen.

Asobo seemed genuinely surprised that the Garmin issues made it to the top of the user list..

Also, they indicated that their aircraft development partner was not stepping up to the plate of enhancing the avionics capabilities of their payware offerings as they had expected, but instead preferring to fall back to the Asobo provided gauges.

I would hope that they would be open to a dialogue with other 3rd parties about how to fill this requirement.

Is it possible that the Garmin company has not been consulted, or that they have indicated that they would prefer not to see Trainer based products appear in MSFS?

Edit: Just to clarify in case Asobo is reading this...  I very much hope that Asobo is in active discussions with Garmin about how to best showcase their products in MSFS and that Garmin is supportive of this effort!

And... that a reason that many of us actually use Carenado products for "serious" IFR flight training, is

1. that Carenado supported 3rd party GPS replacements, and

2. the FSX/P3D Community figured out how to further refine these avionics by  user provided mods 🙂

Edited October 20, 20205 yr by Bert Pieke