https://twinfinite.net/2021/02/microsoft-flight-simulator-interview/

Kind regards, Michael

Thanks, it was an interesting read.

I liked the part regarding parked aircrafts in the airports, it gives some more insight into how painful it gets to ask airliners to represent them in game.

This part: 

Quote

Instead of us sort of doing what we can, at some point, I think empowering the Working Title people is the right thing. It’s the right thing for the community. If we can get their work somehow into the base sim, I think that’s best for everybody. They did every page, and that’s what I’m trying to do.

So he really wants to get WT awesome work into the base, that is an extremely good news! No wonder why they want along with FBW to change to MIT license. One thing I don't understand, if MSFS team wants to have these mods in the base sim, why some third party add-ones (Milviz for example), are resisting on integrating the WT mods into their planes and work with them in open source base to contribute back? I think some need 101 of open source and its benefit in the enterprise.

Good read. 

Very good read!

Quote

Giuseppe: Speaking of the Airport Gateway, how will it work and when can we expect it?

Jorg Neumann: We have ideas to take this further in the future. At some point, I’d like people to make their own bridges and things that aren’t covered by the procedural buildings but are very visible.Yet, for airports, there is an existing pipeline that people have established to work on another flight simulator, let’s put it that way. Those people contacted us after a livestream and gave us a lot of feedback about exactly what they needed, how the workflow goes, and all these things.

interesting bit, I only know about the X-Plane gateway system, are there more?

39 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

So he really wants to get WT awesome work into the base

So why not also long-proven developers such as RXP and HiFi and REX?

Jorg Neumann: Here’s a general observation and maybe a general thing that was well-intended and I may just have gotten it wrong.

From the get-go we talked to third-parties. Their career and livelihood depend on the things they do, and we wanted to be respectful of that.

We thought that if we overshoot too far, we are actually damaging those people’s businesses. We clearly don’t want that.

That’s why we decided not to take our airliners to study-level. Could we have done it? Sure. It would have taken longer, but it was possible, but then at some point, there is no more third-party ecosystem. We were trying to find the right balance.

This explains everything..

I also like what the interviewer Giuseppe had to say about Jorg

Quote

By now I think I have a pretty good idea of when I talk with someone who really cares about what he does (been doing this for a long time), and I’m very positive Jorg is part of that category, and a prime example

Future is bright.

Personally, I like that Neumann once more (I think he also was about it in the recent Q&A) feels there is an urgent need to speed up negotiations to get rid of the ugly default AI liveries. 

Kind regards, Michael

33 minutes ago, WestAir said:

 

 

Very hard to believe that Microsoft would care about people developing any add-ons.

Microsoft in the past hasn't shown this type of attitude. Actually I would have suspected for them to kill of anything 3rd party they can. Big tech has a take no prisoners attitude.

Sounds like a lame excuse for not making there own aircraft operate much better than they currently do!

The future is very bright if it is counted in years not months.

 

Edited February 3, 20215 yr by tpete61

40 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

Microsoft in the past hasn't shown this type of attitude. Actually I would have suspected for them to kill of anything 3rd party they can. Big tech has a take no prisoners attitude

Really? This is one of the reasons they don't release and push every piece of software they have developed over the last three decades, instead, allowing third parties to write software for their OS. 

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

Jorg Neumann: Here’s a general observation and maybe a general thing that was well-intended and I may just have gotten it wrong.

From the get-go we talked to third-parties. Their career and livelihood depend on the things they do, and we wanted to be respectful of that.

We thought that if we overshoot too far, we are actually damaging those people’s businesses. We clearly don’t want that.

That’s why we decided not to take our airliners to study-level. Could we have done it? Sure. It would have taken longer, but it was possible, but then at some point, there is no more third-party ecosystem. We were trying to find the right balance.

 

Again entertaining reads finest grade.

Could they built a working Airbus cockpit?

Working controllers that don`t crash the game?

Working Autopilot systems? 

LOD issues?

 

"Of course "we can", but we don`t want to overshoot. "Yes the same they did with above points.

What is it called if you manage to correct your mistakes? Learning. Yes, I can also build study level airliner, but it takes some time and much effort plus extensive knowledge of maths and physics for doing it, but I don`t shout it out n advance. That thing made my day. What about learning first, work afterwards and release the work at last? Not the other way around. They release, work on their errors, and learn by correcting them. So funny. 

Edited February 3, 20215 yr by BigDee

41 minutes ago, OneOfMany said:

Really? This is one of the reasons they don't release and push every piece of software they have developed over the last three decades, instead, allowing third parties to write software for their OS. 

You never followed one of the anti-trust issues they had then. Particularly with Internet Explorer.

 

Quote

Giuseppe: Speaking of the Airport Gateway, how will it work and when can we expect it?

Jorg Neumann: We have ideas to take this further in the future. At some point, I’d like people to make their own bridges and things that aren’t covered by the procedural buildings but are very visible.Yet, for airports, there is an existing pipeline that people have established to work on another flight simulator, let’s put it that way. Those people contacted us after a livestream and gave us a lot of feedback about exactly what they needed, how the workflow goes, and all these things.

2 hours ago, peroni said:

interesting bit, I only know about the X-Plane gateway system, are there more?

 

Cannot resist, what about implementing a third party software tool that has been specifically created for a flight simulator, let`s call it Ortho4XP for a flight simulator that we call X-Plane, so fans can build a tool that grabs Google Earth data and implements it to Flight Simulator, because Bing Data is anayway useless?

Man this is killing me, hopefully we will see more interviews in the future.

7 minutes ago, BigDee said:

What about learning first, work afterwards and release the work at last? Not the other way around. They release, work on their errors, and learn by correcting them. So funny. 

Presumably you would have preferred them to release in several years time instead? Maybe never given all this additional learning time needs to be paid for and without sales the budget might have been too large. Talk about cutting your own throat!.