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

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

7 minutes ago, AnkH said:

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...

To be fair, most of his complaints are aimed at the Aerosoft CRJ. The other major issue seems to be the ATC. Sure, it will make you take off and land with adverse wind, but you should always expect ATC to change things about your plan, including departure runway and SID.

[MattNischan 3,778]

Hi all,

This thread has gone on for a very long time and has a great deal of extremely curious theorycrafting in it which seems to presuppose our own development experience and put words in our mouth, which is a shame, in my opinion.

We did not, at all, work around the SDK. In fact, we did quite the opposite. We wholly embraced the new JS/HTML SDK and worked within that framework to get the CJ4 to where it is today. Given enough time, there is nothing at all that isn't available in the SDK right now to prevent the CJ4 from being a 99% exact recreation. I'm talking circuit breaker level, split instruments, AHRS aligning, all the reversionary modes, fly every leg type 99%. There are a couple minor things like radar tilt and the exact blockyness of the terrain display that would not be quite there yet with the sim capabilities, but we're talking a very short list. The same is absolutely true of the Garmin units.

The conspiracy theory that the market for these items is being purposefully cornered is unfounded. I come from an open-source background, and as such, my goal is always making things work and making developers productive. As Jorg has mentioned he has come to realize, and I strongly agree with, having an excellent set of default instruments that aircraft designers can feel free to just use and do all the things everyone wants is absolutely in the sim community's best interest. And if other third parties come up with stuff that blasts our stuff out of the water, that's actually awesome, I don't mind that at all, that means we're doing a great job keeping the SDK moving forward! But my goal is to have a good set of these things that everyone can use. Our goal was the same when we were just a bunch of software devs working in our spare time, and it's the same now: great systems and instruments for all.

We will be doing this using the exact same SDK that everyone else can use, no hidden insiders-only tricks, within the same exact sandboxing limitations that third parties are subjected to. So, for those of you who feel the SDK is not capable of such a thing, I encourage you to keep your eyes peeled. We'll soon enough have some very interesting things to show you.

-Matt

[blueshark747 1,843]

On 5/6/2021 at 2:06 PM, 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.

This doesn’t even make any sense and is completely false...😒

[canuk22 29]

It's a vfr sim.  It's also a very nice cloud sim.  

[canuk22 29]

1 hour ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

To be fair, most of his complaints are aimed at the Aerosoft CRJ. The other major issue seems to be the ATC. Sure, it will make you take off and land with adversec wind, but you should always expect ATC to change things about your plan, including departure runway and SID.

Nope, the FBW constantly CTD.

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

41 minutes ago, canuk22 said:

Nope, the FBW constantly CTD.

And... that is related to what we were talking about... how, exactly?

[Kilo60 660]

Nope, it’s a bing display sim!

[Cpt_Piett 4,541]

4 hours ago, MattNischan said:

We'll soon enough have some very interesting things to show you.

Can't wait for that! 😁

Have to add that I think much of the criticism of the IFR capabilities of MSFS is largely unfounded. My opinion. 

[Gazzareth 808]

4 hours ago, MattNischan said:

We'll soon enough have some very interesting things to show you.

-Matt

Have to take issue with this, do you think what you've already done is uninteresting?

WT CJ4 is fantastic and between yourselves and Darkfly the Longitude is actually worth flying.

Refreshing to read your comments on what is possible within the sim and looking forward to what's coming tbh...

G

[fs4fun 366]

I've had some really nice IFR flights in MSFS lately, thanks in in no small part to the WT mods. The Bonanza with WT G1000 is good fun, and the WT CJ4 is incredible.

[ryanbatc 12,814]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Can't wait for that! 😁

Have to add that I think much of the criticism of the IFR capabilities of MSFS is largely unfounded. My opinion. 

IFR is fine....except for RNAV(GPS).  You can fly airways, VORs, NDB's etc just fine.  That's basic IFR.  But for the guys who are used to flying the airliners in XP11 and P3D, the "IFR" procedures are lacking in MSFS.... and for the RNAV(GPS) portion that us GA flyers are used to - same problem.

There is of course the CJ4 which does most of what hard core users would want... the FBW Airbus seems it will be there too pretty soon.

Edited May 8, 2021 by ryanbatcund

[mikegrr 108]

 I don't understand this talk about money..no developer is getting rich developing for MFS.

[Cpt_Piett 4,541]

43 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

IFR is fine....except for RNAV(GPS)

Agreed. I find that I choose other approaches, which in many ways are more challenging than RNAV. NDB, VOR, DME arc. The NDB rwy 14 approach to LYTV Tivat in the FBW A320 is a good example. Great fun!

Edited May 8, 2021 by Cpt_Piett
Typo

[Noel 4,487]

3 hours ago, Gazzareth said:

WT CJ4 is fantastic

Are all the tools they use (SDK, etc) available to all developers?  I still haven't taken the plunge w/ mods for fear of screwing something up but this sound pretty compelling, and seems a harbinger of good things to come from other plane devs, if WT is able to do something that is described as fantastic in MSFS.  All I hear about is how restricted the SDK is....

Edited May 8, 2021 by Noel

[Gazzareth 808]

1 minute ago, Noel said:

Are all the tools they use (SDK, Simconnect, etc) all available to all developers?  I still haven't taken the plunge w/ mods for fear of screwing something up but this sound pretty compelling, and seems a harbinger of good things to come from other plane devs.

Direct from WT/Mat above ::::

Quote

We did not, at all, work around the SDK. In fact, we did quite the opposite. We wholly embraced the new JS/HTML SDK and worked within that framework to get the CJ4 to where it is today. Given enough time, there is nothing at all that isn't available in the SDK right now to prevent the CJ4 from being a 99% exact recreation. I'm talking circuit breaker level, split instruments, AHRS aligning, all the reversionary modes, fly every leg type 99%. There are a couple minor things like radar tilt and the exact blockyness of the terrain display that would not be quite there yet with the sim capabilities, but we're talking a very short list. The same is absolutely true of the Garmin units.

I was the same about mods, but glad I decided to try them. Much easier to add/remove than P3D !!

 

G