A2A & QualityWings, where are you guys?

[Tuskin38 6,449]

3 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

an entertainment console video game at its core

No it's not.  It was built and developed on PC and then ported to X-Box, not the other way around.

If you turn off all the assistance options, you'll find it pretty hard to fly it with a controller easily.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Tuskin38

[Beerz 133]

11 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

@EvidencePlz since you always want failures simulations, the first failures simulations are already available in FBW as if of today: https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/pull/5359

Therefore I don't see SDK an issue since that was possible.

do people actually fly with failures "on"  i would panic😆  i think with msfs i will stop buying $200 payware and just fly from A to B in a normal Non/Light Study plane with help from Asobo AI Pilots or the Aircraft Autopilot👍 i have enough failures in my life 😂 don't need them in my sim.

[RXP 2,336]

14 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

No it's not.  It was built and developed on PC and then ported to X-Box, not the other way around.

 

I believe it is not true: it was built on PC because you can't build on console (obviously).

It was not ported to anything because this is not what Microsoft development tools and marketing is pushing on the dev community either. They are instead pushing the concept of code-once, deploy-many, which means you only code your game with a set of MSFT APIs, and because it would be developed using this defined set of MSFT APIs it would be running on both mediums (PC and Console). 

One released before the other is no indication of any intent, only of means. As for the intent, it is a different question.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by RXP

[RXP 2,336]

1 minute ago, Beerz said:

do people actually fly with failures "on"  i would panic😆

I believe I've read a lot of reports of SU5 CTD indeed... 

[abrams_tank 7,391]

5 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

Can I have my MSFS 2020 certified by FAA though? Definitely not.

I don't understand this logic though.  Maybe somebody else can explain?

P3D is based off of the FSX engine.  But the FSX flight model is just inferior to the MSFS flight model (assuming MSFS flight model is fully tweaked, which it is not for every plane, especially the default planes).  P3D is now FAA certified.  Why can't MSFS become FAA certified in the future?

I assume Microsoft/Aosobo don't have any plans of seeking FAA certification for MSFS at this present time because MSFS is constantly changing.  After a few years however, when things settle down and MSFS becomes more stable, I can't see why Microsoft/Asobo won't seek FAA certification for MSFS.

The fact that P3D can become FAA certifiable using an inferior flight model from FSX compared to MSFS (although LM has probably tweaked the FSX flight model since receiving the FSX code), tells me that if Microsoft/Asobo made the necessary changes to MSFS, there should be no reason why MSFS can't become FAA certifiable in the future.

Am I missing something? If so, somebody can explain to me why MSFS can't be FAA certifiable in the future, given that if you build on top of the FSX flight model (ie. P3D) can get you an FAA certifiable simulator.

Edited August 13, 2021 by abrams_tank

[EvidencePlz 276]

51 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Am I missing something? If so, somebody can explain to me why MSFS can't be FAA certifiable in the future

Nobody (including me) ever said MSFS 2020 can't/won't be able to be certified by FAA, CAA etc in future. Matter of fact, just few weeks ago iirc, Jorg Nuemann during an interview with Twinfinite said he's observing and pondering whether he should take MSFS 2020 to a professional, training level, or just leave it at 'entertainment', or both, and that his main concern is the resource that's needed to provide support to the professional customers if and when MSFS 2020 is offered to them in future. It's not impossible at all and according to Novawing24 who worked/works for Lockheed, there's nothing stopping MS from developing and adding the necessary elements to MSFS 2020 that aviation authorities require and then offering a FAA/CAA/EASA-certifiable version to those who want/need it.

51 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

P3D can become FAA certifiable using an inferior flight model

FAA certification for an AATD requires, among many other things, a FM that should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. Please google AC 61-136B for the pdf, scroll down to B.3.5 (the Flight Dynamics Requirements section) and keep reading from B.3.5.1 to B.3.5.5. It doesn't matter if it's XP or P3D. What matters is whether the FM of aircraft you've developed yourself or purchased ready-made from your AATD manufacturer meets the requirements as described in B.3.5. Look at the list of aircraft Elite is offering with their Eco-Flyer S311 E1000 glass cockpit AATD. None of the aircraft listed there is available in a default installation of P3D v5. If you are buying this AATD, you must tell Elite which of these eight aircraft you want (or if you want all of them). As long as these requirements are met, and the aircraft you've chosen with your AATD are coded in such a way that they meet these requirements, it doesn't matter if someone decided to wake up one day and call P3D base flight model inferior or superior.

Going back to the topic, can MSFS 2020 in its ecosystem have such an addon or default aircraft (developed by either Asobo or A2A or whoever) in future that meets FAA's requirements when it comes to the FM? Technically yes. Will Jorg dedicate resources into doing such a thing? That remains to be seen, and it's entirely up to him and not us to decide. The OP asks in his title: "A2A, where are you guys?". If a genuinely A2A-level GA prop aircraft with all its Accusim glory were available for MSFS right now, the OP probably wouldn't be asking this question. Will A2A aircraft happen for MSFS in future? May be yes, may be nope. I'll believe it when I see it, and until then, I am not putting any more bets on MSFS 2020. That's my own personal decision and opinion based on some of the stuff I've seen for a whole year.

Edited August 13, 2021 by EvidencePlz

[mrueedi 702]

3 hours ago, RXP said:

They are instead pushing the concept of code-once, deploy-many, which means you only code your game with a set of MSFT APIs, and because it would be developed using this defined set of MSFT APIs it would be running on both mediums (PC and Console). 

Even if true (and it is not true, because 100% identical code is not possible, I can count many features only needed on one of the platforms), PC and console (MSFS) are much more similar and easier to cover with a largely common code base than PC and phone (XP). If you think, it is probematic for MSFS to cover PC and console, how can you not see the issues in XPlane covering a phone and PC? I have programmed apps for Phone, XBox and PC, I can tell you, the tricky thing to incorporate is phone, not XBox.

[RXP 2,336]

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

If you think, it is probematic for MSFS to cover PC and console, how can you not see..

I'm sorry to say, but if reading my post leads you to believing I'm questioning whether it is problematic or not, I've failed to articulate myself and I'm sorry, because this is not, but really not, what I've written, and I'm not even questioning anything.

Edited August 13, 2021 by RXP

[RXP 2,336]

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

Even if true (and it is not true, because

I'd suggest you first watch all the sessions from the latest GameStack event, like I did:
https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/games/events/game-stack-live/

Then please read all the documents you'll find here:
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers

This is some material which will help understanding what I meant. 

PS: Sure you are right, there are certainly platform specific code of course because these are not the same hardware platform anyhow. However if your rebuttal is only because I said code once only (meaning 100% same code), having 1% code difference doesn't make my assertion false in any way, unless you're playing with words of course in which case you'd be right, I lied to everyone, it is not a single same code base for both (a few percent difference apart).

[abrams_tank 7,391]

2 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

Nobody (including me) ever said MSFS 2020 can't/won't be able to be certified by FAA, CAA etc in future. Matter of fact, just few weeks ago iirc, Jorg Nuemann during an interview with Twinfinite said he's observing and pondering whether he should take MSFS 2020 to a professional, training level, or just leave it at 'entertainment', or both, and that his main concern is the resource that's needed to provide support to the professional customers if and when MSFS 2020 is offered to them in future. It's not impossible at all and according to Novawing24 who worked/works for Lockheed, there's nothing stopping MS from developing and adding the necessary elements to MSFS 2020 that aviation authorities require and then offering a FAA/CAA/EASA-certifiable version to those who want/need it.

FAA certification for an AATD requires, among many other things, a FM that should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. Please google AC 61-136B for the pdf, scroll down to B.3.5 (the Flight Dynamics Requirements section) and keep reading from B.3.5.1 to B.3.5.5. It doesn't matter if it's XP or P3D. What matters is whether the FM of aircraft you've developed yourself or purchased ready-made from your AATD manufacturer meets the requirements as described in B.3.5. Look at the list of aircraft Elite is offering with their Eco-Flyer S311 E1000 glass cockpit AATD. None of the aircraft listed there is available in a default installation of P3D v5. If you are buying this AATD, you must tell Elite which of these eight aircraft you want (or if you want all of them). As long as these requirements are met, and the aircraft you've chosen with your AATD are coded in such a way that they meet these requirements, it doesn't matter if someone decided to wake up one day and call P3D base flight model inferior or superior.

Going back to the topic, can MSFS 2020 in its ecosystem have such an addon or default aircraft (developed by either Asobo or A2A or whoever) in future that meets FAA's requirements when it comes to the FM? Technically yes. Will Jorg dedicate resources into doing such a thing? That remains to be seen, and it's entirely up to him and not us to decide. 

Ok, that's good to know.  I think some people in this thread have mentioned that PMDG is also using a custom flight model for the DC-6.  If this is true that 3rd party developers can use a custom flight model and conform to the SDK (like how PMDG did for their DC-6), and Microsoft/Asobo decide to get MSFS certified by the FAA, I don't see any major roadblocks that would stop MSFS from becoming FAA certified.

For now, Microsoft/Asobo is preoccupied with so many things in MSFS, that FAA certification is probably not on the list of priorities.  Of course, Microsoft/Asobo want to get to a point where the sim is more stable. My guess in the future is (maybe several years out, maybe more), when MSFS is much more stable and isn't changing much, Microsoft will push to get MSFS FAA certified, if Microsoft believes they can get more $$$ out of it.  It's about $$$ at the end of the day, so why not tap into more $$$ if they can do it.

[ADamiani 470]

7 hours ago, futurebreadmachine said:

Honestly, some of these comments makes me concerned about the mental health of people. Like actually worried abit. Especially these days with corona floating around and people that are stuck alone in lockdowns. Stay safe guys and do what gives you energy and less of things that drains you of your energy, like really. Drop the crusade and focus on the stuff that makes you feel good.

Try as I might, I don't remember asking for existential advice in this forum.

Regarding the pandemic, I'd rather ask my doctor than here. No offence meant of course.

Playing with MSFS, seeing beautiful places around the world, is something that makes you feel good.

Having the same flightsim that worked pretty well less than a month ago crash on you six times in a row for no apparent reason is not something that makes you feel good.

Repeating the above day after day with a few exceptions here and there (yesterday it worked!!!! Yay!!!) is not something that makes you feel good.

So there is no crusade. And no need for existential advice.

Except, of course, if someone finds a way to restore the graphics we had with SU4 in a stable product (quite stable as far as I am concerned).

This last part may have something to do with the fact that this is a flight simulation forum. Probably the appropriate place to debate a flightsimulation product.

A.

[futurebreadmachine 39]

9 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

Try as I might, I don't remember asking for existential advice in this forum.

Regarding the pandemic, I'd rather ask my doctor than here. No offence meant of course.

Playing with MSFS, seeing beautiful places around the world, is something that makes you feel good.

Having the same flightsim that worked pretty well less than a month ago crash on you six times in a row for no apparent reason is not something that makes you feel good.

Repeating the above day after day with a few exceptions here and there (yesterday it worked!!!! Yay!!!) is not something that makes you feel good.

So there is no crusade. And no need for existential advice.

Except, of course, if someone finds a way to restore the graphics we had with SU4 in a stable product (quite stable as far as I am concerned).

This last part may have something to do with the fact that this is a flight simulation forum. Probably the appropriate place to debate a flightsimulation product.

A.

Yeah, no, not gonna get dragged into this, hehe! Have a nice day and I hope your simming adventures gets better! 🙂

[Moria15 950]

6 hours ago, RXP said:

I believe it is not true: it was built on PC because you can't build on console (obviously).

It was not ported to anything because this is not what Microsoft development tools and marketing is pushing on the dev community either. They are instead pushing the concept of code-once, deploy-many, which means you only code your game with a set of MSFT APIs, and because it would be developed using this defined set of MSFT APIs it would be running on both mediums (PC and Console). 

One released before the other is no indication of any intent, only of means. As for the intent, it is a different question.

 

 

Fully agree..  for those with ANY experience of actual game development, it is likely that you have used either Unity or Unreal Engine..  these seem to be the two most popular engines for home/small/medium studio development.

The code is one set of code..  the Game engine can then compile that code into any suitable format using API's built into the engine.. In the case of Unity..  I couold compile the same code (and have done) onto PC, Apple, Tablet, IPad, Phone (Android and Apple), PS4 and XBOX.   My base development code is absolutely identicle.

Now.. I may decide that certain features etc might be better in certain formats, and I can specifically write compile conditions into my code  such as If XBOX compile then do...  statements,  but my codebase is still completely the same.

There are a lot of people here that are using percieved issues to make very bold statements which are completely incorrect and using them to try and fulfill an agenda,  not sure why, but it does get annoying sometimes and often leads to an ignore 🙂

Graham

 

[ADamiani 470]

6 hours ago, bcuomo said:

EvidencePlz, please explain how a flight model is tailored for an Xbox controller.  I'll bet you can't.  I use MSFS with a yoke, rudder pedals and throttle quadrant and it works just fine.  Explain to me how that is possible if what you say is true.  Your statement lacks any credibility without the "evidence.". And if MSFS is first and foremost an Xbox game as you say, why did the PC version come out almost a year earlier?  Your tone is indeed condescending and this argument has been rehashed many times and is getting very old.  

The published flightmodel (that in the MSFS sdk) is not based on anything but maths. Nothing revolutionary or exotic, textbook stuff, but it looks correct. There are approximations and assumptions here and there, but I think you have to compromise somewhere if you want to remain open to many different airplanes. If you have just one airplane to model, you can pinpoint some known behaviors and model them in detail with higher order terms to represent complex interactions.

I remember seeing an explanation of how the aerodynamics of the transition from landing gear retracted to landing gear fully extended was modeled in a level D simulator of a 747. Very complex, very interesting. We do not have it, and it would not be reasonable to ask for it.

This is not possible with a general model, at least not with the same precision. I see in MSFS they are solving the differential equations and create solution tables in order to avoid recomputing the numerical solutions at each step. I think they make use of some clever interpolation algos for intermediate values. All this introduces approximations, but that's more or less unavoidable for the same reasons stated above.

I myself was wondering where the tight integration with the controller comes into play. I ask out of scientific curiosity, this being my field, and not to start a flame: I am notoriously not an acritical fan of MSFS.

Thank you

A.

[ADamiani 470]

9 minutes ago, Moria15 said:

Fully agree..  for those with ANY experience of actual game development, it is likely that you have used either Unity or Unreal Engine..  these seem to be the two most popular engines for home/small/medium studio development.

The code is one set of code..  the Game engine can then compile that code into any suitable format using API's built into the engine.. In the case of Unity..  I couold compile the same code (and have done) onto PC, Apple, Tablet, IPad, Phone (Android and Apple), PS4 and XBOX.   My base development code is absolutely identicle.

Now.. I may decide that certain features etc might be better in certain formats, and I can specifically write compile conditions into my code  such as If XBOX compile then do...  statements,  but my codebase is still completely the same.

There are a lot of people here that are using percieved issues to make very bold statements which are completely incorrect and using them to try and fulfill an agenda,  not sure why, but it does get annoying sometimes and often leads to an ignore 🙂

Graham

 

Absolutely right! I hope they will make use of compiler directives to allow PC users to take advantage of their hardware.

A.