I can agree with that. Only thing i'd say is this:

10 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

p.s. on a side note, as for things like ActiveSky, I'm not really a fan of weather mods that require "smoothing" and "blending" of transitions (needed to hide the cheat of setting global weather to the nearest Metar).  I'm much happier with a world model that has actual weather fronts, and clouds lining up at the base of a mountain ridge .. no artificial transitions required.

Funnily enough, FS2020 is in need of some transition smoothing. See this thread: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/pressure-smoothing/341853

And i do agree that i'd much rather have everything built in, rather than as a separate mod, but in certain cases (like with airplane addons, for example) that's downright impossible. But what i would say about the weather is that conceptually the weather system in FS2020 is better than ActiveSky, since it is capable of producing a more faithful recreation of reality, at a higher resolution (weather resolution, not graphical resolution), with a faster refresh rate. Sure, the implementation is not there yet, but if they fix the sync issues it should be pretty good.

Weather was working fine for me today in Colorado, matched almost exactly to everywhere I went (rain in Pueblo, snow in Denver), usually it's if you fly multiple flights it gets messed up, but only happens to some people. I don't see having perfectly synch'd weather as a big advantage, it's just another thing people are finding to complain about IMO. Sure, it'd be a convenience I guess, but that's all it is, there are so many other critical issues that need addressed before the weather synch issue.

Per the earlier discussion about changing the Flight Model, what they meant was they aren't going to allow 3PD to change the global flight model inputs and outputs and settings, they were not talking about implementing custom physics or even an external model outside the SIM. They are talking about not wanting to give access to the base model's structure to be overridden. We're already drowning in MOD CTD's as it is, we don't need a whole bunch more problems. I think you are just interpreting everything in the darkest light possible.

Edited May 11, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

33 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I don't see having perfectly synch'd weather as a big advantage

This isn't about perfectly synced weather. This is about weather being sometimes days out of sync. I'm not sure what you like to do in FS2020 (and whatever that is, that's fine, you can enjoy it however you like), but some of us would like to be able to use weather forecasts to plan our flight, so we need the weather to at least resemble real life.

34 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Per the earlier discussion about changing the Flight Model, what they meant was they aren't going to allow 3PD to change the global flight model inputs and outputs and settings, they were not talking about implementing custom physics or even an external model outside the SIM.

Nope. They were quite clear. They do not want developers to override the default flight model with an external flight model. Not the flight model inputs. Not the outputs. Not the settings. The flight model. They were quite clear about that. They specifically referred to an external flight model. Go back a minute or so from the timecode i shared.

36 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

We're already drowning in MOD CTD's as it is, we don't need a whole bunch more problems.

The only mod i'm aware of that caused CTDs was the GTN750 from PMS50 when paired with the JustFlight Arrow, and that was for some people, occasionally. I hardly think we're drowning in CTDs. Furthermore, I have never EVER had a CTD problem with A2A, or PMDG, or any other developer using external flight models in P3D, so i hardly see a reason why their standards would suddenly drop to 0. This CTD excuse, as well as the "security" excuse, are nonsense, in my opinion.

38 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I think you are just interpreting everything in the darkest light possible.

How else are you going to interpret:

Quote

So on specific topics regarding improvements, not exactly, but we've we've heard a lot about the people questioning the flight model, wanting to replace it too. So at this stage um what we'd like to do is uh really take your feedback and improve the flight model as it is to make it as good as possible so that everyone is happy with it. So right now the SDK is not planning to let you override the flight model. And really the idea is to to improve it so that it reaches the status that we are all looking for.

Or:

Quote

We will try to to give you more documentation about how to to really adapt the flight model, instead of, like you said, allowing you to to override. That's not where we we want to go for now.

It is pretty clear to anyone that they do not want third party developer replacing the default flight model with an external one.

4 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

Well, I'll happily say that when I eat crow, I'm not afraid to floss my teeth with the feathers.  I did watch this video and this obviously didnt register with me at the time. I dare say, though that with the release and popularity of the latest helicopter addons that ARE using their own flight models, the cat is proverbially out of the bag.  If it is fully their intent to prevent this, the more time that passes with examples like these gaining fans and traction, the stronger the pushback from the community will be when and if they do crack down.  Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

I think that answer is being somewhat removed from context.   Yes, the statement given in the Q&A was that they don't plan to support override of the stock flight model.   However, it's important to note that that was bracketed with "we want to make it work for you" and "we need feedback on what's not working for you so we an improve it".    With that context it's not so much the "How DARE you override our flight model?!  It's our way or the highway!" that it's being (IMO) cynically portrayed as, and more of a "We'd like to let folks do everything they need to do using standardized interactions;  let us know what's not working for you and we can work on it".   There's a big difference there.

I think you'll find that there is a very consistent philosophy in how the sim's been structured to support development:  it's being done with the intent of funneling everything through standardized interfaces and protocols rather than continuing to foster the wild west of every developer sideloading their own fully simulated systems in DLLs and using the sim as little more than a bootstrap and scenery generator.   There are a number of reasons for this, both practical and philosophical.   I think the biggest one, and the one that third party developers should care a lot about, is that those "clever" hacky interactions that have been the basis of much FSX development for years are likely not going to fly in the XBox ecosystem.   There is a huge potential market there for developers who play within bounds that simply will not be accessible to people who decide to color outside the lines.

I think that developers who buy into that philosophy will be a lot happier -- and more successful -- in the long run if they play along.

 ...

On another note, I'd suggest that anyone who says that "not a thing" has improved from release is not participating in the conversation with good faith.  There have been steps forward, and steps back, but someone unwilling to acknowledge that anything has improved is either being deliberately obtuse for some reason or has been paying insufficient attention to the progress we've had to present a truly thoughtful opinion on the matter.  And that's all I feel the need to say about that.

 

 

1 hour ago, kaosfere said:

Yes, the statement given in the Q&A was that they don't plan to support override of the stock flight model.   However, it's important to note that that was bracketed with "we want to make it work for you" and "we need feedback on what's not working for you so we an improve it".    With that context it's not so much the "How DARE you override our flight model?!  It's our way or the highway!" that it's being (IMO) cynically portrayed as, and more of a "We'd like to let folks do everything they need to do using standardized interactions;  let us know what's not working for you and we can work on it".   There's a big difference there.

I think you're artificially creating that difference. No one said Asobo or Microsoft will be seeking legal action if you override the default flight model. No matter how you might try to paint my (and others') conclusion on that statement, and no matter how much you try to sugar coat their plan for the default flight model, the point still stands: They do not want third party developers to override the default flight model. No one other than you attributed any sort of feelings or subtext to that.

1 hour ago, kaosfere said:

I think you'll find that there is a very consistent philosophy in how the sim's been structured to support development:  it's being done with the intent of funneling everything through standardized interfaces and protocols rather than continuing to foster the wild west of every developer sideloading their own fully simulated systems in DLLs and using the sim as little more than a bootstrap and scenery generator.

How about this phrasing: "There is a very consistent philosophy in how the sim's been structured to support development: it's being done with the intent of exposing proprietary code and controlling the execution environment of mods rather than allowing developers to maintain their intellectual property and to express their creativity and knowledge freely towards the betterment of the community". I can spin a sentence too.

If the problem here is standardization, why not offer standardized interfaces for compiled modules? I am not entirely clear on the exact mechanism so maybe someone with more experience can help me out here, but as far as i understand WASM allows developers to write extensions in C++ which are then compiled into a DLL in the background. Why not allow developers to compile that DLL themselves? Or offer sockets and shared memory, etc in order to standardize interprocess communications. Historically there has never been any sort of issue with these developer practices. I understand why standardization is desired, and i agree with it, but the problem is that it sounds needlessly restrictive. A lot of features that developers used to use have been removed and no replacement is planned or sought. And there doesn't seem to be any apparent reason why replacements are sought, since there are alternatives that would meet all goals of standardization and security. It's almost as though standardization wasn't the goal. Almost like the goal was control over the environment.

And lastly, what's so wrong with using the sim as an environment generator? This has baffled me ever since i heard it mentioned. It's not like people are only paying for half the sim, so there's a loss of profit. It's not like absolutely every developer will do this, or that every developer will have to do this. There is a lot of value in continuing to improve all the default systems of the sim. But there is also a lot of value in allowing freedom for some developers who need it. Wouldn't it be a better idea that instead of forcing developers to use the default systems, to convince them to use them by their own volition because the default systems are so good that external replacements aren't worth spending the time to develop?

1 hour ago, kaosfere said:

I think the biggest one, and the one that third party developers should care a lot about, is that those "clever" hacky interactions that have been the basis of much FSX development for years are likely not going to fly in the XBox ecosystem. There is a huge potential market there for developers who play within bounds that simply will not be accessible to people who decide to color outside the lines.

Which brings us back to: Why then not offer standardized alternatives for those "clever hacky interactions"? But we've already discussed that, so moving on. Just because developers might care about Xbox sales doesn't mean you should block them from producing addons that can never work on the Xbox. Isn't that their choice and their consequences to bear? What's more, some developers might not even have an interest in the marketplace at all. And because there are no community addons on Xbox, they don't have an interest in Xbox either. Developers like MilViz, for example, whose war birds are not allowed on there. So while this is a good standalone reason why developers might want to consider using the toolbox offered by Asobo, however limited, it is not a good reason at all for blocking developer access to certain key features.

1 hour ago, kaosfere said:

I think that developers who buy into that philosophy will be a lot happier -- and more successful -- in the long run if they play along.

Well... that sounds very ominous...

Edit: Also, what if what sets that developer apart, what makes their addons highly desired, is precisely what would be lost by playing along? Sounds to me like that would completely destroy them, rather than making them more successful. As nice as the JustFlight Arrow is (best plane available for FS2020, in my opinion), if A2A were to come out with those flight dynamics, their customers would be outraged. They have established a reputation build on accurate flight dynamics and engine modelling, and the current flight dynamics and engine modelling are nowhere near the required quality. I guess we'll have to see what A2A come up with when they decide to release the Comanche. But until then, i don't see how a developer like them would be a lot happier and more successful playing by the rules. Erasing a developer's individuality by completely removing all that makes them them is really not a good thing at all.

Here's my 2 cents (possibly over-valuated): The more freedom developers have, the larger the diversity of addons, the larger the choice for the community, the more people buy both into the sim itself, and into the marketplace, and into the mod ecosystem. Standardization and encapsulation are a good thing at the end of the day. So while i can definitely understand why the old methods are no longer acceptable, what i don't understand is why not allow for standardised alternatives? Why not provide developers with a toolbox that allows them to do exactly what they've been doing before, but through different, cleaner, standardised methods? Why instead deliberately limit their possibilities?

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by Cristi_Neagu

@kaosfere I believe it  is well understood the market place is so central and new to the franchise, it is not always clear whether this is just a game built around a market place. I wouldn't blame anyone capitalizing on the franchise name in doing so because this makes sense to me just from a product and marketing standpoint, and I could understand someone thinking there is no better than capitalizing on simmers which are the most likely early adopters contributing to make it a main stream product if they find it attractive enough to jump start the adoption.

Nevertheless, the Xbox ecosystem might be offering new potential, probably for many different types of add-ons, but it might also be less so for the simmers experienced with the add-ons market and the simulators. Also, the Xbox ecosystem is also imposing some restrictions which is expected. However, it seems to me for example SimConnect can connect to localhost in the PC version but it won't be possible with the Xbox version. In other words, there are already implementation details and SDK facilities only available on PC regardless of the greater scheme of uniformization with Xbox. So, if you can already build add-ons using locahost simconnect for example, playing within the bounds like you're saying, isn't the Xbox potential still out of reach and therefore non relevant?

The statement referred to in this topic is not entirely out of bounds either in my opinion. And since I'm fluent in French and I can also read through the English words they have used, what they really meant, I can assure you the "we want to make it work for you" and "we need feedback ... to improve it" doesn't rime with "we're neutral or encouraging 3rd parties to override the flight model". The stance seems very clear for this question: there is no desire to let 3rd party overriding the flight model, they rather want the community and 3rd party developers to contribute in making it better in the core sim only". I'm not saying it is bad, it is just different than "please help us make ours better, but we also hear there is a need for 3rd party override and we want to also support those who want to".

 

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by RXP

1 hour ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

I think you're artificially creating that difference. No one said Asobo or Microsoft will be seeking legal action if you override the default flight model. No matter how you might try to paint my (and others') conclusion on that statement

You're not exactly helping with unwarranted hyperboles like Asobo or Microsoft will be seeking legal action. Sure, nobody said anything like that. So why are you?

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by scotchegg

7 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

This isn't about perfectly synced weather. 

Nope. They were quite clear. They do not want developers to override the default flight model with an external flight model. 

The only mod i'm aware of that caused CTDs was the GTN750 from PMS50 when paired with the JustFlight Arrow, and that was for some people, occasionally. I hardly think we're drowning in CTDs. Furthermore, I have never EVER had a CTD problem with A2A, or PMDG, or any other developer using external flight models in P3D, so i hardly see a reason why their standards would suddenly drop to 0. This CTD excuse, as well as the "security" excuse, are nonsense, in my opinion.

Yes, override (note the term override). They are saying that to discourage amateur developers from trying to force changes in the innards causing stability issues and conflicts in the VFS or Simconnect with the lower-level systems. This causes serious problems because even though they aren't responsible for CTD from 3PD mods, in the end they know it will hurt the product and sales. You are not reading between the lines, as big companies speak in terms of effect rather than direct. This is not the same design as P3D, for one you can now use Javascript instead of C++, which encourages more amateurs to mess with stuff, and # 2 there are a thousand times more amateurs making addons now in MSFS, and #3) it's amp'd up even further considering the # of developers that exist now compared to 10-15 years ago. So yes, I do believe they are taking this "stance" to try to mitigate issues, whether or not they are correct on their stance is a separate point, but that is their stance. Sure, they'd like to maintain control if they can, but they also know behind the curtains they may have to expose more stuff than they'd like, but they are not going to word it like that for all the reasons stated above.

The only mod causing CTD is GTN750 --- (are you kidding me?)
There have been numerous amounts of CTD with mods, nearly every mod has had to be updated at some point due to CTD.

It's hard to have a rational discussion about this stuff, as I'm having trouble finding common ground in the points you are discussing.

 

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

7 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

This isn't about perfectly synced weather. This is about weather being sometimes days out of sync. I'm not sure what you like to do in FS2020 (and whatever that is, that's fine, you can enjoy it however you like), but some of us would like to be able to use weather forecasts to plan our flight, so we need the weather to at least resemble real life.

If it bothers you that much, use the overlays or in-game stuff to get the weather. I would like to see them improve the look of clouds close up a bit more before they get all worried about it being perfectly in-synch. There are nit-picky issues that exist that need to be fixed, but there are also more major issues that need addressed. I do think their prioritization of fixes isn't perfect to say the least, but that's another discussion. If you fly in real life and are 100% dependent on weather predictions, then I'd be scared to fly unless it's 0% chance of rain or cloud cover, even in real flying the weather forecasting can be very wrong, especially around mountains or the ocean.

IMO, no matter what they do, some people will not like it.

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

22 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

Too bad they're being prevented from doing so in a lot of core areas of the sim, like weather, flight model, traffic, aircraft systems, etc.

Thank goodness they are preventing 3rd parties from doing a lot to the core. They have contracts with most of these core items with companies already. They may change in the future one way or not. But they are the main developer of the sim, and they have made a choice to honor these contracts at this time. And they are the owner/developer of the sim. Well Microsoft is, as they own the property. And know one knows for sure about the actual sales numbers except them, and they just stated they were happy, I think?. If you applied as a developer through the proper channels and are not selected, cause you want to over ride core features and they don't want that for any reason. That is their choice as buying the sim is a consumers choice.

Some like it, and some will never buy it even if their beloved 3rd party developer gets approved. I would say the number of people that will buy this sim, don't care about certain items and more confusion  being added. Bottom line it's their choice, which they could change at any time. As well as the consumers.

Complain all you want. But in talking about changing certain items in the core. I don't think and hope they do not allow! There are sims that have that though that you can fly!

Also, anything could happen in the future. One way or the other. Especially if contracts expire and they choose to try something different, for good or bad!

6 hours ago, scotchegg said:

You're not exactly helping with unwarranted hyperboles like Asobo or Microsoft will be seeking legal action. Sure, nobody said anything like that. So why are you?

Did you even read the post i was  responding to? You know, the one that introduced unwarranted hyperbole first? The one to which i was responding with an example of said hyperbole which no one was talking about? Don't you think your outrage is better aimed at that post instead?

5 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

They are saying that to discourage amateur developers from trying to force changes in the innards causing stability issues and conflicts in the VFS or Simconnect with the lower-level systems.

Quote where they said anything about "amateur developers". Quote where they said anything about stability issues. Quote where they said anything about conflicts in VFS or Simconnect. You are literally inventing things they said. You even have a WT developer here telling you what this is about, and you're still twisting Asobo's words.

5 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

You are not reading between the lines, as big companies speak in terms of effect rather than direct.

Rather you are reading between lines that aren't there. I'd rather go by their actual words rather than invent things they never said.

5 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

This is not the same design as P3D, for one you can now use Javascript instead of C++, which encourages more amateurs to mess with stuff, and # 2 there are a thousand times more amateurs making addons now in MSFS, and #3) it's amp'd up even further considering the # of developers that exist now compared to 10-15 years ago.

And it's discouraging other developers who may not want to share their code publicly, for the same reason why Asobo do not open source their flight model. You're talking about this like it's a binary choice when in fact you can have both.

5 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

So yes, I do believe they are taking this "stance" to try to mitigate issues

You might want to read what the WT developer had to say about it...

5 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

It's hard to have a rational discussion about this stuff, as I'm having trouble finding common ground in the points you are discussing.

Indeed, it is hard having a rational discussion about this when instead of going by what Asobo and WT have actually said, you start inventing things.

3 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

If it bothers you that much, use the overlays or in-game stuff to get the weather.

The overlays are absolutely useless are telling me the conditions along my route, the weather at my destination, or the weather at departure. As many people have noted (and you would have noted too, if you'd care about the weather...) the weather overlay does not match the in sim weather.

3 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I would like to see them improve the look of clouds close up a bit more before they get all worried about it being perfectly in-synch.

See my previous post about people wanting vastly different things, and instead of fighting over who gets Asobo's attention, it would be better to have a third party solution.

3 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

If you fly in real life and are 100% dependent on weather predictions, then I'd be scared to fly unless it's 0% chance of rain or cloud cover, even in real flying the weather forecasting can be very wrong, especially around mountains or the ocean.

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Every single airline flight briefing includes a weather brief. No pilot with even a measure of responsibility goes anywhere without a weather brief. In flight school, when we would only do pattern work, we'd start the day with a weather brief. Everyone everywhere in aviation is constantly looking at the weather cause that's the thing we're all flying through 100% of the time.

3 minutes ago, in2tech said:

But in talking about changing certain items in the core. I don't think and hope they do not allow! There are sims that have that though that you can fly!

I feel like i should probably point out that FS9, FSX, P3D, X-Plane all allow you to inject weather and a custom flight model, and the only thing FS2020 does better than them currently is looking good. So contrary to what (i think)  you're saying, overriding core sim components and injecting data is the standard.

Fact, you can build your own flight model and people have done it, and most things are more exposed than people realize.

Are there things missing, yes... Is there room for improvement, yes.

The people leading the project obviously by human nature want to retain some control and might think this way at times, but in the end it IS fairly open.

I believe in IS, not what MAY come or what they say they want to do. You are the one producing conjecture from the situation, whereas I am looking at the current state of what exists and how it works. If they want to close it off, it would be very difficult to do at this time, because the way it is already exposed. It therefore certainly makes sense to take a bit of a hardline stance and not document certain things they feel might cause issues, since they know they can disseminate this information as they see fit.

I have seen stories like this play out a thousand times in the corporate world, putting too much weight on what someone said or what someone thinks does not indicate any absolutism in the end product. 

I can understand them wanting to protect some areas for technical reasons and others. They need to make money, in the end if it is not profitable long-term, then it becomes to the doom of all of us. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, it's hard to say, but opening something up too much also has disadvantages.

For instance, there are way too many freaking versions of Linux, and there are problems with Blender that should have been fixed 5 years ago that are just now starting to get fixed. I love open source too, but it has its limitations as well, just like everything else. If I'm a new Linux user and trying to find out how to manage my drives, then I have to go through 50 different commands in 10+ different versions.

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

25 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

 Everyone everywhere in aviation is constantly looking at the weather cause that's the thing we're all flying through 100% of the time.

Yes, but the reason for that is because the level of strictness or protocol that a flight will have to be cancelled is at a totally different level than in a simulation. Not everything in real life can equate to a SIM as 1:1 when you take the life/death factor away.

So now you are trying to argue it is as important in a SIM to have the weather perfectly match the forecast as it is in a real life flight. 

Of course in real life it is VERY important to have a backup plan if the weather changes on you, and to know what you are flying into. In a sim, there are no consequences and although it might be slightly better to predict the weather perfectly, it certainly cannot be compared to a real flight where the result may be a life-ending crash ,compared to the sim where you can manually compensate and adjust the weather yourself if you really feel the need.

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

1 minute ago, Alpine Scenery said:

So now you are trying to argue it is as important in a SIM to have the weather perfectly match the forecast as it is in a real life flight.

No. I am arguing that the point of a simulator is to simulate real life as closely as possible. A lot of people use simulators for training purposes, and part of that training also includes flight planning, and flight planning includes weather planning. Currently, that is not possible inside FS2020. Furthermore, what's the point of partnering with Meteoblue if you're going to feed quasi-random weather in the sim?

3 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Your argument style is very much BECAUSE X-Y, then Z. You are making broad connections and blanket interpretations of things without context.

Your argument style is very much "despite what you or anyone said, here is my interpretation coming from reading between the lines". You have spent three posts making broad connections and blanket interpretations about what Asobo developers have said. I hardly see any point continuing this argument with you since you seem to put more weight on your interpretation rather than on what was said. No reasonable argument can be had under such conditions.