5 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

Meanwhile, developers like Reality-XP are actively being blocked from delivering their products to FS2020.

In what way are they being actively blocked? Surely they have same options as everyone else to develop in the sim?

G

It's all about addons, not even really about the sim itself. People who disqualify MSFS as a scenery simulator I think tend to equate the abundance of available addons such as sophisticated airliners with the base sim itself. If one took away all the addons from P3D, it wouldn't be anywhere near the complexity many are looking for. Much of the criticism against MSFS, while certainly valid in many cases, can be applied to P3D as well. For example, the default P3D flight model isn't spectacular either and the default aircraft aren't any better and possibly worse than those in MSFS, so you would have to discredit P3D as a lesser simulator based on that too, but that's not really being done because the wealth of addons is what makes the difference and turns P3D into that 'proper' simulator. I'm sure that when more high quality airliners and GA aircraft are available for MSFS there won't be many left that call MSFS a scenery simulator, even if the base sim didn't change at all.

2 minutes ago, Gazzareth said:

In what way are they being actively blocked? Surely they have same options as everyone else to develop in the sim?

G

The current state of the SDK and the API do not permit study level addons from being delivered to FS2020. Reality-XP has done his best to get in touch with Asobo in order to not only pass on the requirements he has in order to port his addons to FS2020, but to also offer hid advice on various other topics. He also tried applying for the marketplace. All of his attempts to get in touch with Asobo have, as far as i'm aware, been met with silence, and all community posts asking why he's not being given a response have been similarly ignored. All this while there are addons on the official marketplace who have been widely described as "scams".

12 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

I can only speak about the GNS530 and the G1000 units, since those are the only ones i've used from the ones you mentioned. What i can say is that they are incredibly limited, and only resemble the actual units. There is a lot of missing functionality, especially in the G1000. Neither of them can show airways, for example, because the sim does not expose the navdata fully to them. Sure, some people might not care about that missing functionality, but it doesn't mean it can be ignored.

Meanwhile, developers like Reality-XP are actively being blocked from delivering their products to FS2020.

WT has plans to bring their custom flight plan manager to the G1000/3000 series which will bring a lot of the missing functionality to those units.  I can’t speak specifically to the airways piece but with direct access channels to Asobo devs I’m sure it’s nothing that can’t be overcome, especially since Asobo has committed to significantly improve the Garmins.

3 minutes ago, threegreen said:

It's all about addons, not even really about the sim itself. People who disqualify MSFS as a scenery simulator I think tend to equate the abundance of available addons such as sophisticated airliners with the base sim itself. If one took away all the addons from P3D, it wouldn't be anywhere near the complexity many are looking for.

Addon availability is not the problem. The problem is that FS2020 is nowhere near as open towards third party developers as P3D is. There are things that were common place in P3D but have no equivalent in FS2020, things that Asobo are actively discouraging.

5 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

WT has plans to bring their custom flight plan manager to the G1000/3000 series which will bring a lot of the missing functionality to those units.  I can’t speak specifically to the airways piece but with direct access channels to Asobo devs I’m sure it’s nothing that can’t be overcome, especially since Asobo has committed to significantly improve the Garmins.

That's because WorkingTitle have been given exclusive access to the sim core. No other developer has that.

Quote

especially since Asobo has committed to significantly improve the Garmins.

That's the problem. Asobo have decided that they will be the ones that will deliver the best possible Garmin unit available for the sim, and they're willing to use unfair advantages to make it happen. At the end of the day, that's fine, i suppose. It's their sim, they run it however they like. But they shouldn't pretend like they're oh so open to third party developers all the while limiting their capabilities so they can have an advantage.

Edited May 6, 20215 yr by Cristi_Neagu

3 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

That's because WorkingTitle have been given exclusive access to the sim core. No other developer has that.

I’m talking about what they were working on prior to their contract with Asobo/Microsoft.  And looking ahead to the future, having access to the core sim will enable features that will be default MSFS versus having to pay extra for it in the other sims.

7 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

I’m talking about what they were working on prior to their contract with Asobo/Microsoft.  And looking ahead to the future, having access to the core sim will enable features that will be default MSFS versus having to pay extra for it in the other sims.

What they were saying before is irrelevant, isn't it? Things have changed. As for their work being core FS2020 and available for free... Well, there's two options:

1. Have WorkingTitle work on the core simulation, making their work available inside the core simulator for free, while giving third party developers access to a limited toolset, or

2. Have WorkingTitle work on the core simulation, making their work available inside the core simulator for free, while allowing third party developers all the freedom you can in order for them to also make their addons available.

I have no yet heard an actual argument as to why option 1 is preferable. While it is pure speculation on my part at this point, i do not think it is possible for WorkingTitle to deliver a Garmin unit simulation comparable with Reality-XP units. If that is the case, they (Microsobo) are preventing the community from having the choice to spend money on a Reality-XP unit. And even if that isn't the case, they are making us all wait for it for several years, when we could have had it on day one.

Edited May 6, 20215 yr by Cristi_Neagu

1 hour ago, Gazzareth said:

Default ATC is useless, but have never been impressed with it in any Sim.

True, I use ProATC/X in P3Dv5.x due to this. But then, at least P3D gets it right in regard of which runway should be in use, at least most of the time. While in MSFS, it is most of the time plain wrong, in the exact opposite direction. 

Now of course you can argue that you do not have to use default ATC in MSFS, but it is somehow connected to quiet some stuff, no? Most obvious example is AI traffic, which then takes off and lands on the opposite runway. Now you can argue again that you do not have to use AI traffic, sure. And so on. 

This is (to me) the main issue with MSFS: it has a lot stuffed in, but also a lot of the basics are just done wrong or buggy. And those basics need to work, also for a lot of addons that depend upon them. Example: it will be nice when AIG comes with their full blown AI traffic to MSFS, but as long as the basics, the correct assignment of the runway by the sim itself, does not work, it will be a mess anyway, even with the nicest AI models, the best flightplans or fully live traffic. 

1 minute ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

I have no yet heard an actual argument as to why option 1 is preferable. While it is pure speculation on my part at this point, i do not think it is possible for WorkingTitle to deliver a Garmin unit simulation comparable with Reality-XP units. If that is the case, they (Microsobo) are preventing the community from having the choice to spend money on a Reality-XP unit.

I can think of no financial reason why Asobo would want to limit any third party developer. Anything they sell in the marketplace will generate additional income for them, and would also as you say give the consumer more choice.  So I think it comes down to sim stability and security, which I’m in no way qualified to speak on.  I don’t think there’s anything nefarious going on here.

25 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

The current state of the SDK and the API do not permit study level addons from being delivered to FS2020. Reality-XP has done his best to get in touch with Asobo in order to not only pass on the requirements he has in order to port his addons to FS2020, but to also offer hid advice on various other topics. He also tried applying for the marketplace. All of his attempts to get in touch with Asobo have, as far as i'm aware, been met with silence, and all community posts asking why he's not being given a response have been similarly ignored. All this while there are addons on the official marketplace who have been widely described as "scams".

PMDG released statement saying that the SDK isn't holding them back, and it's just a matter of getting up to speed with new development tools. What's your source for this info regarding the SDK?

4 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

I can think of no financial reason why Asobo would want to limit any third party developer. Anything they sell in the marketplace will generate additional income for them, and would also as you say give the consumer more choice.  So I think it comes down to sim stability and security, which I’m in no way qualified to speak on.  I don’t think there’s anything nefarious going on here.

True. Financial reasons would indeed explain it. As would policies imposed on them by Microsoft.

54 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

I’m confused by this statement.  There are now very functional Proline avionics (Working Title), FMCs (WT CJ4 and FBW A320), Garmin GNS units (PMS50 mod), and Garmin 1000/3000 units (again by WT).  None of these freeware developers seem particularly hampered by the SDK.

So the fact that some of those developers had to pretty much recode the default way the game does things from scratch to get those very functional products, rather than use the SDK and built in code, is evidence they were not hampered ?

That is a little like saying the fact I was forced to demolish most of my house and renovate and rebuild it to a fit state is evidence that the poor state of it when I purchased it did not hamper me in getting it liveable.

The fact that after a huge effort some (but not all) devs were able to eventually create functional products absolutely does NOT provide any evidence at all they were "not particularly hampered".

That is the sort of twisted backward logic that swamps the official forums and makes them near unreadable.  I sometimes wonder if everyone on the official forums is actually 14 years old.

 

 

6 minutes ago, AnkH said:

While in MSFS, it is most of the time plain wrong, in the exact opposite direction.

This is obviously a case of not yet turning on the logic to get it right.  It is surprising it hasn't been done yet, but once again it's a giant nothing burger to fix.  To me it just points to their current priorities timeline--IOW, they'll get there.  In the mean time I've been firing up ASN4 when 130nm out from destination airport to look at wind direction and choose an appropriate approach procedure accordingly.  Works pretty well most of the time and if not perfect it's a lot better than letting ATC tell me where to land 

9 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

PMDG released statement saying that the SDK isn't holding them back, and it's just a matter of getting up to speed with new development tools. What's your source for this info regarding the SDK?

If you want to start splitting hairs, that's not quite true. RSR said: "From the standpoint of development, we are not currently seeing any major limitations to prevent us from bringing our product catalog into MSFS." That doesn't mean that the SDK is not holding them back. It may be only my opinion, but i'm sure they are waiting on various features needed, especially since even Asobo have said that WASM still needs work. Just because the SDK may be currently holding them back it doesn't mean they're "not currently seeing any major limitations to prevent [them] from bringing [their] catalog into MFSF." It just means that if the SDK is holding them back, there is a fix being worked on, or Asobo have agreed to a solution.

As for my source, various developers have mentioned issues, including Lewis from A2A, IndiaFoxtrotEcho, as well as @RXP.

Edited May 6, 20215 yr by Cristi_Neagu