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

[RXP 2,338]

@Cristi_Neagu

It might sound surprising me saying this, but I see nothing wrong with Carenado aircraft and I enjoy them a lot, as much as I enjoy the more complex PMDG or MilViz aircraft to cite just a few. Before someone says I'm enjoying them all as long as they support RXP Garmins (which to be honest is not unpleasant either), I genuinely enjoy them for their differences because when I'm not test flying RXP gauges in dev, I'm also enjoying being a simmer myself, and depending on the day, the mood, the availability, I sometimes like just jumping in a convincing cockpit and flying a little less by the rules, while having the assurance the flight model and the overall gauges are still working close to reality. I would refrain from using this personal experience of how variety and choice of aircraft is good to my simmers needs, to justify how variety and choice of avionics is certainly as good for my fellow simmers for similar reasons, because we're all different, but I don't doubt for one minute it wouldn't be the case though.

However I wouldn't blame Asobo either, unless someone reminds me again I'm just assuming things, I don't believe they hold such design decisions entirely (well this is not what some of the developers told me anyhow). They are taking pride in what they do I'm sure, and looking at Sebastian's talks is definitely convincing me he is genuinely passionate as most of us are in this community. They have nothing to prove either in my opinion, we're not in a who's got the longest contest. And actually, if I'd tend to naively believe that if the real message is "this is a simulator for simmers", and Jorg is genuinely considering this is a platform, they should take pride 3rd parties are elevating their platform to higher and different levels. Anything else is just ego driven otherwise, and I can't resolve myself thinking they'd be driving their business by ego alone, in voluntarily making their best not working with some renown 3rd party vendors.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by RXP
grammar

[mrueedi 702]

4 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

However, I think as you said, they underestimated the shortcoming of Simconnect APIs.

Which shortcommings exactly? I used it and did not run into limitations...

 

4 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

I don't think they will ever let people do what you can in P3D or XP11 with third party injection.  It not in their plan.

With good reason. Handling complex software with third party injection is a nightmare. The number of possible configurations and potential error cases explodes. A large number of tricky edge cases reduce testing effectiveness. From my viewpoint (25 years software development experience) there is no reason, why well defined interfaces are not good enough...

[pmb 5,137]

2 hours 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 strongly disagree here, too. It's certainly a great time for a lot of addon developers. Considering myself, I have spent more money/month for MSFS than for any simulator before. This may not apply to all and I know it doesn't apply to you, but the exploding amount of addons offered for MSFS speaks for themselves. Even if you subtract a few slouches, there are so many beautiful airports, nice planes, missions, low-cost utilities like Bijan's seasons or the upcoming GTN 750, more than I can buy and have time to use. I am sure the peak in the plane department is yet to come, but it will come.

Where I agree to you, is that MSFS is better adapted for bare-bone usage than its forerunners indeed.

Kind regards, Michael

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

14 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

With good reason. Handling complex software with third party injection is a nightmare. The number of possible configurations and potential error cases explodes. A large number of tricky edge cases reduce testing effectiveness. From my viewpoint (25 years software development experience) there is no reason, why well defined interfaces are not good enough...

In a way, that's the entire point. I've seen developers mention external flight models, which they have to use because the default flight model is not accurate enough for their needs (or even fit for their needs, as is the case with IndiaFoxtrotEcho's helicopter). And in all of those instances they are most likely doing some sort of exploitation in order to bypass the internal model. Wouldn't it be so much better if Asobo were to simply allow you to use those well defined interfaces that you mentioned? Then those developers would simply use those instead.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

For me the #1 issue isn't weather, RNAV, or missing GPS features. The #1 issue is landing and ground physics, but I'm not a pilot so what do I know...
That said, if the landing does not feel right, then what difference does it make to how the GPS got me there or if I hand flew it, or if I dropped out of the sky due to over-icing effects.

#2 issue is unknown to me, meaning something is missing but I cannot quite put my finger on it (well replays maybe and landing analysis, yah addons, but it causes lag). #3 issue is RNAV and Autopilot issues, #4 is GPS enhancements (because 3PD already doing stuff). Weather is good enough for now, that is likely # 5 or lower for me.

That's how I see it.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[MDFlier 2,031]

Nevermind

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by MDFlier

[RXP 2,338]

27 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

There is the problem

There are only solutions 😉

Please note Microsoft reached out to us and we're not passing any requirement to port our add-ons. Instead, we were engaging with Microsoft to share our experience so that they get better insights about what it is we're doing and how we're doing it. The goal of course is contributing and helping them building a SDK tailored to actual real 3rd party needs among other things. If you find this a bold attitude, I wonder how you'd qualify the following:

Quote

As Asobo had zero experience with running the far more complex code in their simulator, it was rather easy to set up a system where Hans would show them what was needed and Asobo basically would try to get the code running.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/more-candid-insight-from-aerosofts-project-manager-on-msfs-the-crj-the-sdk-and-the-add-on-market/327843

 

PS: I forgot to add all suggestions I'm giving are helping not just RXP, but every 3rd party developers. 20 years experience is not insignificant in this industry either.

Edited May 7, 2021 by RXP

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

11 minutes ago, RXP said:

Please note Microsoft reached out to us

Have the communications been opened?

[RXP 2,338]

6 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Have the communications been opened

Back in December 2019 until a sudden unexplained stop in March 2020...

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

4 hours ago, RXP said:

Back in December 2019 until a sudden unexplained stop in March 2020...

OK, got it..

[Bigbluss 304]

8 hours ago, RXP said:

Back in December 2019 until a sudden unexplained stop in March 2020...

That's around the time the Working Title team came on board to handle avionics isn't it?

[SierraDelta 1,337]

49 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

That's around the time the Working Title team came on board to handle avionics isn't it?

No, that was earlier this year, Feb '21 ?

[pstrub 998]

59 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

That's around the time the Working Title team came on board to handle avionics isn't it?

That was about a year later, in Feb '21

[Bigbluss 304]

1 hour ago, pstrub said:

That was about a year later, in Feb '21

Ah yes - 2020. My mistake 

[AnkH 2,233]

This user over in the official forums sums up nicely why IFR is rubbish currently: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/live-weather-does-not-match/135263/1421?u=ankh828072

But of course, this is only my opinion...