Not sure why people say that this is just a VFR sim

[RXP 2,336]

59 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

I don't know why but my gut feelings is that, they will at some point of time, just give up on the sandbox and let PC based third party developers to access DLLs as long they are not targeting Xbox platform. Let's see 

But they don't even have to! This is not what 3rd parties are asking them to do either (at least those who are voicing it that I know of).

I've already documented this is not what we need nor want really (although it would be easier I agree) in the following discussion, where 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):

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/8?u=cptlucky8

 

Let's be clear about this: I understand the reasons behind WASM and this is a good technology for what it is good at, and there are solutions they could implement which will not lower the convenience of sandboxing at all, and will preserve its security while raising 3rd party add-on development capabilities. However, this doesn't seem to be the main focus for now. Instead, I might read English wrongly sometimes, but this is unequivocal to me the official transcript is not only deforming Asobo's words, but it is also accusing 3rd party vendors of possibly stealing their customers personal information, and this is the sole reason they are using to justifying sandboxing. Here is: the official transcript and the live Q&A video are pretty much similar, except for this specific question: "Can we talk about DLL?"

Quote

Asobo developer live comment:

- 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!

And don't believe I'm the only one voicing such concerns, here are some 3rd party developers comments about this:

Quote

 I completely agree with you - it seems a lack of understanding of the problems of addon developers.

If we are talking about developing for Windows, and we care about the personal information of your users, we just keep in mind - any installation program is already an exe-file, which can essentially do a lot with user computer, that is, the user, having bought a certain addon, already initially trust this developer.

As far as I know, WASM in Windows is compiled into a DLL “on the go”, so why not give this opportunity to developers to do it themselves?

Quote

That’s a very lame excuse because, you know, that’s why you have the OS kernel sitting in-between. Technically, there’s no difference between pipe and network socket from a security perspective, perhaps pipe is slightly better because it’s guaranteed to be localhost-only so no outside meddling here.
Even better than that, if you’re running on the same host (which is required to connect to pipe-based SimConnect) there’s nothing stopping you from opening FS2020 process directly instead and writing garbage to its memory space, you don’t even need admin privilege for that.
For the other-way-around (WASM escaping the sandbox) it requires you to breach several layers to get to that pipe directly, and at that point, you’re out of the sandbox anyway.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by RXP

[RXP 2,336]

19 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

We are walking in circles here.  [...] Please do prove me wrong show me...

I'm afraid we'll keep circling with this question, and I'm not better either at this.

In my opinion certification or not, the topic question is "it is just a VFR sim". All comments are pretty much agreeing it is not just a VFR sim, but there is room for improvement as an IFR sim. I believe there is room, like in all other simulators, but the main difference which was brought up to the discussion is that the SDK might not be open enough to support 3rd parties delivering better IFR experience, and they are just ignoring RXP expertise in this field as well. This can only be contributing to raising some questions to the authenticity of their claims.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by RXP

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

well. let's see how Working Title improved the IFR instrument in the sim. hopefully they also contribute to improved the SDK with their knowledge.

[Ricardo41 5,935]

8 minutes ago, RXP said:

the main difference which was brought up to the discussion is that the SDK might not be open enough to support 3rd parties delivering better IFR experience, and they are just ignoring RXP expertise in this field as well. 

Why do we necessarily need 3PDs to deliver better IFR experiences.?This is the old way of doing this. Bringing the WT guys on board seems to suggest that Microsoft/Asobo are more interested in gradually improving the core sim rather than relying on 3PDs to do it for them.

A lot of developers seem to be soundly asleep at the wheel, hoping that the - choo choo - money train that was FS9/FSX/P3D is gonna start moving again. Not gonna happen any time soon, IMHO.

[Gilandred 690]

17 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why do we necessarily need 3PDs to deliver better IFR experiences.?This is the old way of doing this. Bringing the WT guys on board seems to suggest that Microsoft/Asobo are more interested in gradually improving the core sim rather than relying on 3PDs to do it for them.

There is still a lot of runway between improvement and perfection (ie. real world accuracy).  Asobo has already stated they won’t be making “study level” airliners, although I suspect they will try to get close with the Garmins which in turn will help 3PD aircraft developers.

It’s quite possible that whatever they end up with will be feature rich enough for most users, thereby putting some 3PDs at risk.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Gilandred

[sd_flyer 6,023]

17 minutes ago, RXP said:

I'm afraid we'll keep circling with this question, and I'm not better either at this.

In my opinion certification or not, the topic question is "it is just a VFR sim". All comments are pretty much agreeing it is not just a VFR sim, but there is room for improvement as an IFR sim. I believe there is room, like in all other simulators, but the main difference which was brought up to the discussion is that the SDK might not be open enough to support 3rd parties delivering better IFR experience, and they are just ignoring RXP expertise in this field as well. This can only be contributing to raising some questions to the authenticity of their claims.

 

Many years ago when I was taking my instrument checkride my airplane was equipped with dual VORs. At the time  many people considered it as a luxury because legally we could fly instruments only with one CDI! Certainly dialing cross radial with dual VOR was way easier than with one! So I was happy!

If I take those standard of my instrument flying to MSFS out of the box is IFR sim. I can still enjoy dual VOR  shoot  approaches and perform DME arcs! But I understand world doesn't stay in place and technology is moving forward! GPS is no longer luxury but rather necessity! So lack of sophisticated GPS modeling put MSFS is category of not IFR sim for some. Agreed! But let say you guys able to bring GTN750 in MSFS and Asobo miracusly  complete G1000! I see for many MSFS  will instantly become IFR sim ? But not for me ! LOL Why? Well, I fly with Dynon HDX1100 and Avidyne IDF440! Existence of GTN750 and G1000 won't make much difference in my world! This is not IFR equipment I fly with !

Do you see how it is easy to manipulate IFR sim vs VFR sim?  

[RXP 2,336]

51 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why do we necessarily need 3PDs to deliver better IFR experiences.?This is the old way of doing this. Bringing the WT guys on board seems to suggest that Microsoft/Asobo are more interested in gradually improving the core sim rather than relying on 3PDs to do it for them.

It seems to suggest they are doing just what you're questioning: 3rd parties are necessary to deliver a better IFR experience. Except they made a 3rd party a 1st party only contractually.

Let me say this loud and clear: there is nothing in the last 20 years experience I have in this industry leading me to think for one minute, PMDG, A2A, MilViz, Majestic Software, F1, and so many others, are less trustworthy than a group of individuals which were not producing anything for the hobby just 9 months ago. I'm not trying to show any disrespect to WT individuals in saying this at all either. Regardless of their past achievements, you can't forgo all of a sudden how these experienced and established companies and individuals have been contributing to the franchise for the better over many decades, and not just in the form of selling products for money, but also in sharing among their peers and the simulator developers (P3D and X-Plane) their knowledge and recipes.

In any case, this is not a Manichean question: if XP11 is proving something well, you can build very sophisticated GPS as a stock device in the simulator, while encouraging and supporting 3rd parties building alternatives (better or worse).

 

34 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Well, I fly with Dynon HDX1100 and Avidyne IDF440! Existence of GTN750 and G1000 won't make much difference in my world! This is not IFR equipment I fly with !

Do you see how it is easy to manipulate IFR sim vs VFR sim?  

Sure I agree. In the meantime, Microsoft is still not accepting RXP's market place application after so many months, and these devices were high in our list... You can still voice your concerns here in the meantime: Open up communications with Reality-XP - Self-Service / Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by RXP

[sd_flyer 6,023]

On 5/6/2021 at 7:47 PM, RXP said:

Sure I agree. In the meantime, Microsoft is still not accepting RXP's market place application after so many months, and these devices were high in our list... You can still voice your concerns here in the meantime: Open up communications with Reality-XP - Self-Service / Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

 

I can't comment on Asobo/MS communication issue and policies, but I'm personally all for RXP in MSFS market. 

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

Well...the community managed to escalate AIG request to have a conversation with Asobo. So I guess there is always that avenue if you gathered enough pull.

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

 We are walking in circles here.  Anything that is  not certified can teach you bad practices; therefore, anything is defined "aid" or use on your own risk.

PMDG officially is not certified for any real world training! So it falls in the same category as any other "aid" . Please do prove me wrong show me under which category PMDG FAA certified for training  

Interesting how you picked the one that i never said was certified... Look, it's quite simple. I told you what study level means. There are real world pilots and CFIs that have attested to the realism of certain addons. Some addons, like the Reality-XP GPS units are used in certified simulators. If you want to go on pretending like "study level" doesn't mean anything despite the obvious reality of the situation, walking in circles is all you'll always end up doing.

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why do we necessarily need 3PDs to deliver better IFR experiences.?

Because Asobo have had 4 years to work on this, and this is the IFR experience they delivered. If we wait for Asobo to fix everything, we will be waiting for a long time. I think it's absurd to propose that Asobo alone can recreate the diverse environment surrounding P3D, an environment that has been in the making for at least twice as long as Asobo plan to keep FS2020 alive. There is a lot of knowledge, talent, and willingness in the community. Ignoring it in favour of relying on a small group of developers that have so far proven themselves to have more good will then expertise is silly.

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

Bringing the WT guys on board seems to suggest that Microsoft/Asobo are more interested in gradually improving the core sim rather than relying on 3PDs to do it for them.

Taken in isolation, that might be true. But considering their history of ignoring willing help points to a different conclusion. And even if we're to be charitable and assume best intentions, taking WT on board doesn't mean you can't let other developers try their best. To me, this looks like an interest in monopolizing a corner of the market.

 

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

A lot of developers seem to be soundly asleep at the wheel, hoping that the - choo choo - money train that was FS9/FSX/P3D is gonna start moving again. Not gonna happen any time soon, IMHO.

I disagree. Carenado are doing very well, doing the same thing that they have always done: churning out generic feeling but great looking aircraft. And that's great. I may not like their products and have always been disappointed after every single purchase, but i would really hate to see them gone. The reason why they are successful means that they satisfy a serious need inside the community, and that ultimately benefits everyone. ORBX seem to be doing quite well too. Everyone is doing well as long as they're playing to Asobo's rule: simple addons anyone can goof around in that look good in the market place.

But maybe that's the point... they don't want anyone releasing a realistic addon, because when that happens the community will see just how poor the default airplanes are, or just how poor the weather is by default, or just how poor the default avionics are, and people will realise that there is so, so, so much more to this hobby than what Asobo can provide.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Cristi_Neagu

[RandallR 444]

Though there is a lot of modern functionality missing right now in portions of FS2020's systems, I'm estimating that about 5% of my sim time is VFR and 95% IFR.

There isn't a type of approach that I haven't been able to fly.  I've done everything from an old NDB to a modern GPS.  Though I never got to fly a dual VOR approach in the RW in a glass cockpit, I must say that the glass cockpit simulations in the sim handled them surprisingly well.  The most frustrating thing I've run into has been changing an RNAV approach due to changing conditions or having to go to an alternate, then not being able to always load an appropriate waypoint for that procedure.  Some aircraft and systems work better for this than others.  If the IF happens to be an actual navaid, then there is no issue at all.

Other than that, I haven't needed any help following SIDs, STARS, IAPS, etc.  I may not always be able to do a coupled approach or have the procedure automatically loaded, but that isn't really necessary (nice to have and hopefully available in the future).

[Gazzareth 808]

5 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

I disagree. Carenado are doing very well, doing the same thing that they have always done: churning out generic feeling but great looking aircraft. And that's great. I may not like their products and have always been disappointed after every single purchase, but i would really hate to see them gone. The reason why they are successful means that they satisfy a serious need inside the community, and that ultimately benefits everyone. ORBX seem to be doing quite well too. Everyone is doing well as long as they're playing to Asobo's rule: simple addons anyone can goof around in that look good in the market place. 

 

Funnily enough I think Carenado are one of the companies most likely to benefit from what is currently happening with WT working on default avionics within the sim, if they are smart they would be able to use that to minimise one of their major shortcomings.

 

G

[sd_flyer 6,023]

14 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

Interesting how you picked the one that i never said was certified... Look, it's quite simple. I told you what study level means. There are real world pilots and CFIs that have attested to the realism of certain addons. Some addons, like the Reality-XP GPS units are used in certified simulators. If you want to go on pretending like "study level" doesn't mean anything despite the obvious reality of the situation, walking in circles is all you'll always end up doing.

Well being real world pilot, CFI and airplane owner I tried to explain that "study level" is relative term and often means different thing to different people. Also "Study level"  marketing expression to phesize level of development.

I love A2A  and look forward for their Comanche in MSFS especially because I flown it IRL. But look, even "study level" 172 from A2A can't model all bells and whistles of real 172. So what is "study level" for example for you not quite "study level" for me ! 

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

57 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

Well...the community managed to escalate AIG request to have a conversation with Asobo. So I guess there is always that avenue if you gathered enough pull.

Agreed:

Go Vote:

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