I've not much invested into MSFS except 4 small ORBX airports but nothing from Aerosoft. But I would invest in P3D 5.x airports (or updates) from them.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by Nemo

4 hours ago, Mace said:

If I ran a company like Aerosoft that made and sold products for several different simulators, I would love ALL sims, at least publicly.  He /used/ to say that exact phrase, too.

Now, he's gone away from that.  Why alienate any fraction of potential sales?  I'd want every sale and every bit of goodwill I could get.   I wouldn't care what their software was.  That would be the smart play, and he could have his European distributor thing with MSFS as well!   Seems all loss and no gain to alienate anyone.

They gain from trying to convince people that P3D has no future. They’re commercial partners of Asobo and MSFS box publishers. The only way to buy MSFS on physical media in Europe is to give your money to Aerosoft. 

Let’s not fool ourselves here. Aerosoft has a commercial interest in telling people MSFS is the only sim with a viable future because then they don’t have to split their development efforts over multiple sims and on top of that they make money from MSFS box sales. 

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by flycln

12 minutes ago, Mace said:

See how long it lasts on Aerosoft's forum.  They consider their forum an arm of their marketing department, so any negative "press" there has a tendency to vanish.

Well, clowns like the user "Abriael" responding over there sure sounds like he/she either work for Asobo or Aerosoft. That topic will go south soonish...

Honestly it is very simple. I would like to summarize in 2 short views.

View one: Aerosoft as a supplier

Sales count. P3D addons did count into this, till MSFS came. MSFS has more users = Aerosoft has more revenue. 

End of Story: Sell MSFS addon products. Much higher numbers=more revenue. Why not?

View two: We customers at P3D

Features we need count. P3D and P3D addons do still count into this. Also after MSFS came. We took time to find that out. We are back because MSFS does not fit into "simulating flights with complex aircrafts" and MSFS does not support my home build setup 

End of Story: Stay with P3D and its addons for this purposes. Much higher fitting rates=more joy. Why not?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very simple and the answer why, at this moment, "Aerosoft" and "We" are going different ways.

This may change, as soon as MSFS delivers what we like to use and see.

When? Very open at the moment. That is what the customers decides and how MSFS/Asobo is reacting on this.

IF MSFS consider "simulating complex aircraft" as a niche, then it will never ever happen in MSFS. To expensive, to less revenue. This probably lead to the already split market due the lack of complex airliner(s).

MSFS and aftermarket attract VFR flyers in much higher sales numbers compared to those who like complex simulated aircraft. Logically....because the did not have one nor support one.

Why I think that? Evidence is already there. Scenery sells. SDK scenery parts got more updates compared to SDK complex aircraft. Less to no attention on that part!

Reaction addon devs:

Complex aircrafts: PMDG, FSlabs, QW are announcing that P3D dev will continue now. without excluding MSFS because it could maybe be supported in future. 

Scenery devs: Are focusing on MSFS.

And Aerosoft his CRJ?   It is NOT complex. At least not as complex as we like to have it and as long it has the depth of systems all their other aircraft have. 

Marcus

 

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by mpo910

1 hour ago, flycln said:

They gain from trying to convince people that P3D has no future. They’re commercial partners of Asobo and MSFS box publishers. The only way to buy MSFS on physical media in Europe is to give your money to Aerosoft. 

Let’s not fool ourselves here. Aerosoft has a commercial interest in telling people MSFS is the only sim with a viable future because then they don’t have to split their development efforts over multiple sims and on top of that they make money from MSFS box sales. 

To be fair I'm feeling the same - I understand third party developers and the fact that they need to have sales, but the way they phrase their frustration is sometimes misleading.

Aerosoft is now "disliking" P3D because they are not selling well and calling P3D a "moving target", while it's the same for MSFS, given that MSFS SDK is still a WIP in many aspects.

Similarly, PMDG and FSLabs are phrasing their development updates in a way that it sounds like MSFS does not support "complex" aircraft, even though many MSFS developers including FlyByWire and Working Title have mentioned multiple times that it's not the case. I'm an X-Plane developer myself and I can pretty much confirm their observations - MSFS SDK supports all sorts of complex aircraft, if you code them from scratch by conforming to the new SDK. Obviously coding such complex airliners from scratch would take years of development, which is why PMDG and FSLabs are waiting for Asobo to finish the promised "compatibility layer".

It's really sad and a huge mess, all developers are defending their platform while trying to put other platforms down. Why is this hate many people have towards "other" platforms?

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by BiologicalNanobot

5 hours ago, Bryn said:

I saw this on the MSFS Developer update, which seemed like a bit of a jab at PMDG and FSL on that...

November 25th, 2020 Development Update - Microsoft Flight Simulator

• Just to mention it, we are super excited to see what Aerosoft, Hans, Stefan and the rest of the team are doing with the CRJ. It’s so rewarding to see a team embrace the SDK and create a complex aircraft with it. It’s just great quality and we are so excited to see this come together!

Come on, I think everyone here knows, that the Aerosoft CRJ will be nowhere near FSL or PMDG. To be honest I would be very surprised if it is a lot better than the Default planes we have now. The CRJ for P3D was pretty much wasted money for me and I don't really think, more system depth will be the goal this time. The goal is to be the first with a proper add-on airliner.

32 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

To be fair I'm feeling the same - I understand third party developers and the fact that they need to have sales, but the way they phrase their frustration is sometimes misleading.

Aerosoft is now "disliking" P3D because they are not selling well.

Similarly, PMDG and FSLabs are phrasing their development updates in a way that it sounds like MSFS does not support "complex" aircraft, even though many MSFS developers including FlyByWire and Working Title have mentioned multiple times that it's not the case. I'm an X-Plane developer myself and I can pretty much confirm their observations - MSFS SDK supports all sorts of complex aircraft, if you code them from scratch by conforming to the new SDK. Obviously coding such complex airliners from scratch would take years of development, which is why PMDG and FSLabs are waiting for Asobo to finish the promised "compatibility layer".

It's really sad and a huge mess, all developers are defending their platform while trying to put other platforms down. Why is this hate many people have towards "other" platforms?

Your commentaar on the SDK is not correct. If you dl the SDK and take a look into the SDK you will fine that most features are still planned but not implemented.

If you are a developer you must know that :

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/157318-a-glass-of-wine-and-mildly-vindictive-ponderings/&do=findComment&comment=1003605

 

 

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by GSalden

 

9 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

FlyByWire and Working Title have mentioned multiple times that it's not the case

The type of advance simulation implemented by PMDG and FSLABS cannot be accomplish inside MSFS with the current SDK. WASM is single threaded, it has limited functionality (libraries to extract / interact with simulation variables), we cannot create custom DLL's either, there is not access to DirectX functions so anyone that had implemented gauges or controls using DirectX is stuck. These are the challenges ahead.. surely they can find ways around.. but the public SDK we have access to remains very limited, with lots of missing documentation and plenty of things till saying "to do".

With all respect to FlyByware, they work on freeware bases so they don't mind an open platform were everything is based on text (Html, XML, etc.) which is how most default airplanes gauges, controls and configurations are done. Serious companies as PMDG / FSLABS will not create and publish any product that anyone can just copy, paste, edit and miss use their intellectual property. Which is exactly what will happens with a serious airliner built using just .XML, HMTL, etc. Many successful aircraft developers also like to influence the flight model in order to produce accurate results, the current flight model for MSFS seems broken.. I know ASOBO is trying to fix it.. we can hope for it to get better over time or allow 3rd party devs to implement theirs? 

In any case, the big issue here is that ASOBO is willing to work closely with Aerosoft to help build an SDK (so Aerosoft claims), but how can possible Aerosoft / Mathis know my company needs for such SDK? or the rest of developers?

What we need is ASOBO / MS working with ALL DEVELOPERS and not just a few small privilege group. It is utterly nonsense.. I am wondering if Aerosoft has an special SDK that nobody else has, in which case, why? and how this helps our customers, other developers and this community? how that helps PMDG, FSLABS, Leonardo MadDog, QualityWings, Majestic, etc.? hmm

In passing ASOBO announced recently they will implement an airport gateway, this means users can edit MSFS airports and submit them to ASOBO for filtering, if they like the improvements they will include the changes for FREE with the next MSFS update. This move is very good for the customer base as they will start receiving more and more updated content for all default airports, the freeware community under MSFS is very big and very good, therefore I can see clearly a big amount of improvements to default airports under this scheme.

It makes you wonder how this will affect sales for scenery developers.. either sales will go stall or they will need to sell very cheap.. time will tell how this will affect 3rd party scenery developers..

I will continue to wait for a finished SDK.. my hope was 2021.. such hopes are vanishing.. towards 2022.. Each ASOBO release is focused on scenery or addressing issues, it seems they are performing "re-active" code and not following an overall plan.. and if the SDK was the top priority, they would have finished by now..

S.

4 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Your commentaar on the SDK is not correct. If you dl the SDK and take a look into the SDK you will fine that most features are still planned but not implemented.

If you are a developer you must know that :

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/157318-a-glass-of-wine-and-mildly-vindictive-ponderings/&do=findComment&comment=1003605

 

 

I am aware of the SDK limitations, but none of these are actually preventing a complex airliner, most of them are in fact completely irrelevant. The only major SDK limitation is WASM modules being single-threaded, the weird integration with navigation data, weather and terrain radar, and overall debugging being a pain. But none of these are "show stoppers", and can be mitigated using other ways, so indeed complex aircraft can be developed within MSFS. It's obviously not the wisest thing to do for companies like PMDG and FSLabs, given that these issues are promised to be "fixed" in future anyway. However, it is technically possible to make all sorts of complex aircraft in MSFS.

5 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

However, it is technically possible to make all sorts of complex aircraft in MSFS.

Possible vs practical are quite different things, for a freeware I would do it with the current SDK. But for payware, forget it.. the amount of trouble to get things done and the amount of stuff that can go wrong increases the developing costs / and support handling to a level that would overcome any profits.

If it was really that practical.. There would be one already..

S.

21 minutes ago, simbol said:

 

The type of advance simulation implemented by PMDG and FSLABS cannot be accomplish inside MSFS with the current SDK. WASM is single threaded, it has limited functionality (libraries to extract / interact with simulation variables), we cannot create custom DLL's either, there is not access to DirectX functions so anyone that had implemented gauges or controls using DirectX is stuck. These are the challenges ahead.. surely they can find ways around.. but the public SDK we have access to remains very limited, with lots of missing documentation and plenty of things till saying "to do".

With all respect to FlyByware, they work on freeware bases so they don't mind an open platform were everything is based on text (Html, XML, etc.) which is how most default airplanes gauges, controls and configurations are done. Serious companies as PMDG / FSLABS will not create and publish any product that anyone can just copy, paste, edit and miss use their intellectual property. Which is exactly what will happens with a serious airliner built using just .XML, HMTL, etc. Many successful aircraft developers also like to influence the flight model in order to produce accurate results, the current flight model for MSFS seems broken.. I know ASOBO is trying to fix it.. we can hope for it to get better over time or allow 3rd party devs to implement theirs? 

In any case, the big issue here is that ASOBO is willing to work closely with Aerosoft to help build an SDK (so Aerosoft claims), but how can possible Aerosoft / Mathis know my company needs for such SDK? or the rest of developers?

What we need is ASOBO / MS working with ALL DEVELOPERS and not just a few small privilege group. It is utterly nonsense.. I am wondering if Aerosoft has an special SDK that nobody else has, in which case, why? and how this helps our customers, other developers and this community? how that helps PMDG, FSLABS, Leonardo MadDog, QualityWings, Majestic, etc.? hmm

In passing ASOBO announced recently they will implement an airport gateway, this means users can edit MSFS airports and submit them to ASOBO for filtering, if they like the improvements they will include the changes for FREE with the next MSFS update. This move is very good for the customer base as they will start receiving more and more updated content for all default airports, the freeware community under MSFS is very big and very good, therefore I can see clearly a big amount of improvements to default airports under this scheme.

It makes you wonder how this will affect sales for scenery developers.. either sales will go stall or they will need to sell very cheap.. time will tell how this will affect 3rd party scenery developers..

I will continue to wait for a finished SDK.. my hope was 2021.. such hopes are vanishing.. towards 2022.. Each ASOBO release is focused on scenery or addressing issues, it seems they are performing "re-active" code and not following an overall plan.. and if the SDK was the top priority, they would have finished by now..

S.

Even though I agree with most of your observations, I'm still not convinced any of these are "show stopper" issues. Indeed, WASM modules being single-threaded is the main issue (at this point I really don't even care about the maximum of 4 GB addressable space, which can be enough for a single gauge) that can actually block the development for people who don't want to use HTML gauges. About the lack of DirectX functions to be used in gauges, this is not a "show stopper" either. It just means that add-ons which use these functions have to be rewritten from scratch to use NanoVG or MSFS' simple drawing API, it doesn't mean MSFS can't support these gauges. I am aware that no developer would want to rewrite their huge codebases from scratch or use various work-arounds when Asobo have already promised a fix, but this doesn't mean it's impossible either.

About the rest, I completely agree. Asobo directly works only with some large developers and we are pretty much left out, which is sad. Meanwhile Laminar Research has a Slack group which is open to all developers, and I bet Lockheed Martin have similar things.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by BiologicalNanobot

9 minutes ago, simbol said:

Possible vs practical are quite different things, for a freeware I would do it with the current SDK. But for payware, forget it.. the amount of trouble to get things done and the amount of stuff that can go wrong increases the developing costs / and support handling to a level that would overcome any profits.

If it was really that practical.. There would be one already..

S.

Exactly, and this is what I meant - for some reason PMDG is phrasing it in a way that it's technically impossible meanwhile it's just not practical.

In short, I really wish PMDG and FSLabs had told that with the current state of the SDK it's not possible to port over their aircraft, instead of saying MSFS doesn't support complex aircraft, which is not necessarily the case.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by BiologicalNanobot

Just now, BiologicalNanobot said:

Exactly, and this is what I meant - for some reason PMDG is phrasing it in a way that it's technically impossible meanwhile it's just not practical.

I know they implement certain things on their products that currently we cannot do with the MSFS.. same thing with FSLABS. It is related to interaction with the internal simulation.. 

So, he is not far from the truth..

S. 

2 minutes ago, simbol said:

I know they implement certain things on their products that currently we cannot do with the MSFS.. same thing with FSLABS. It is related to interaction with the internal simulation.. 

So, he is not far from the truth..

S. 

That sounds interesting, are you allowed to disclose a little bit more?

1 minute ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

That sounds interesting, are you allowed to disclose a little bit more?

You know the answer..

S.