57 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

In the P3D forum this post would be (rightly) deleted in minutes. Let's see how long it takes here...

I note GC that your are now the fourth to give a repeat to this silly post. The guy went straight to the ignore bin when I read him but thanks to you all I have had to see it five times.

Instead of calling for the guy with the big scissors with the now habitual routine of lamenting P3D/MSF double standard which honestly becomes stale, why don’y you just ignore him ?

This kind of guys craves that, cheap polemic.

 

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

1 minute ago, Dominique_K said:

I note GC that your are now the fourth to give a repeat to this silly post. The guy went straight to the ignore bin when I read him but thanks to you all I have had to see it five times.

Instead of calling for the guy with the big scissors with the now habitual routine of lamenting P3D/MSF double standard which honestly becomes stale, why don’y you just ignore him ?

 

Because this forum needs a moderator that is focused on MSFS and not P3D. I would vote for you by the way, as, if I am not mistaken, you have reached the seniority level required by the "Board of Directors". 😃

7 hours ago, captain420 said:

Have any of you heard any news from these 2 developers regarding MSFS development? I miss their 172's and 182's and the QW787. It's been a year that MSFS has been out and no word yet.

Possibly this answer from Lewis A2A in their forum can give a hint about the future. Looks pretty dark with A2A in MSFS. https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72806

25 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Because this forum needs a moderator that is focused on MSFS and not P3D. I would vote for you by the way, as, if I am not mistaken, you have reached the seniority level required by the "Board of Directors". 😃

🤣

40 minutes ago, Seat* said:

Possibly this answer from Lewis A2A in their forum can give a hint about the future. Looks pretty dark with A2A in MSFS. https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72806

When he writes 'you cant have custom programming very limited SDK etc that's ok for consumer products but MSFS as it stands is just wholly unsuited to a sim platform used for training and simulation work', what it actually sounds more like, is 'we can't do it, because it's not how it was done for FSX and we'd have to learn how to do it for a different sim', which is definitely not the same thing as 'it's not possible to do it'.

For years, loads of developers said the same thing when talking about making an A320 for FSX 'ooh, you can't do that, the sim won't support it, it's too complex an aeroplane', and then Flight Sim Labs went and did it and demonstrated that it wasn't a case of 'you can't do it', it was a case of 'you have to raise your game and make an effort', which we should note, is about to be demonstrated by Fenix, that is about to get a simulated A320 based on the ProSim A320 into MSFS.

So I'm afraid that Lewis from A2A is talking through his jacksie where this is concerned, and that's disappointing to see coming from an A2A member of staff, because although they might not exactly knock stuff out at breakneck speed, they do nevertheless usually show a pretty 'can do' attitude to things.

You can do anything if you try hard enough.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Chock

43 minutes ago, Seat* said:

Possibly this answer from Lewis A2A in their forum can give a hint about the future. Looks pretty dark with A2A in MSFS. https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72806

"Its more a game than a platform" <-- I am not sure but is this guy serious?

59 minutes ago, Chock said:

When he writes 'you cant have custom programming very limited SDK etc that's ok for consumer products but MSFS as it stands is just wholly unsuited to a sim platform used for training and simulation work', what it actually sounds more like, is 'we can't do it, because it's not how it was done for FSX and we'd have to learn how to do it for a different sim', which is definitely not the same thing as 'it's not possible to do it'.

For years, loads of developers said the same thing when talking about making an A320 for FSX 'ooh, you can't do that, the sim won't support it, it's too complex an aeroplane', and then Flight Sim Labs went and did it and demonstrated that it wasn't a case of 'you can't do it', it was a case of 'you have to raise your game and make an effort', which we should note, is about to be demonstrated by Fenix, which about to get a simulated A320 based on the ProSim A320 into MSFS. So I'm afraid that Lewis from A2A is talking through his jacksie where this is concerned, and that's disappointing to see coming from an A2A member of staff, because although they might not exactly knock stuff out at breakneck speed, they do nevertheless usually show a pretty 'can do' attitude to things.

You can do anything if you try hard enough.

With P3D add-on sales tanking and P3D fast becoming obsolete for 3rd party developers targeting the home consumer market, either A2A switches to purely commercial customers (do they have military customers too?), or A2A focuses on X-Plane development.

And I think you're right about Fenix.  If Fenix delivers with the A320 and it really is that high fidelity, then almost anything can be done with the MSFS SDK.  It doesn't make any sense that something as complex as the Fenix A320 can be done, but less complex GA planes that A2A usually make can't be done.

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

do they have military customers too?

Yup, they sure do. Pretty sure they made some combat aeroplane sim for the USAF if I recall correctly. In fairness to A2A, they may be concerned with the sim's ability to do all the subtle stuff which their GA aeroplanes do that separate them from the chaff, such as the fact that if you get to certain RPMs and prop settings in their Comanche for example, the panel vibrates when it hits that sound frequency like it does in the real thing, but then again, they managed to make AccuFeel for FSX and P3D (amazing add-on) which effectively replicates that kind of thing for pretty much any aeroplane.

I still maintain that A2A is the best developer ever to have looked at the ESP platform, but now is the time for them to prove that with MSFS too instead of simply saying 'it's too hard to do', when we pretty much know that isn't the case as evidenced by PMDG and Fenix etc. I get it, there are new skills and practices developers have to learn, such as the way sound packs are created for example, and that means what a developer was comfortable with for years with ESP is no longer the case, but if anyone has proved that the impossible, or merely the difficult, can be done time and time again with innovative products, it would be A2A with things like 3D Lights, Accufeel, Accusim, Captain of the Ship etc. There is a reason why their reputation is pretty much peerless.

1 hour ago, omarsmak30 said:

"Its more a game than a platform" <-- I am not sure but is this guy serious?

If any MSFS is lacking seriously when it comes to game elements. 3rd Party software like Onair and Neofly do somewhat help in this regard, but we are still missing really good missions and scenarios. So this guy really has no idea what game really means. And those game elements also have nothing to do whether MSFS is good as a sim or not. 

A good sim can also have good elements of a game. Why would it not be simulating real life if there would be rescue missions, air races, flight shows or stuff like extinguishing wildfires? All that stuff that people do in real life as well...

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

3rd party developers want $$$.  They need to put food on the table and pay their bills and rent, just like the rest of us.  There is no $$$ in for P3D now for the home consumer market.  P3D is quickly becoming obsolete for 3rd party devs for the consumer home market.  As for X-Plane, 3rd party devs can make $$$ for the time being, but who knows for how long.

Good thing you're not a 3rd party dev though.  You would go bankrupt with your type of thinking.  

Honestly, I wouldn't like to be an aircraft developer at this time. As it stands, MSFS has enough potential to kill the other platforms, but it needs stability. You cannot invest a lot of money into a moving target, knowing that in the time it takes to develop your product, the platform may change substantially four or five times under your eyes and vaporize your investment.

The guys at MS obviously know this, let's hope the so called "hardcore simmer" market is of interest for them as announced. What we have seen with SU5 goes in a different direction, but now they have a great chance to put things back on track.

A. 

11 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

Honestly, I wouldn't like to be an aircraft developer at this time. As it stands, MSFS has enough potential to kill the other platforms, but it needs stability. You cannot invest a lot of money into a moving target, knowing that in the time it takes to develop your product, the platform may change substantially four or five times under your eyes and vaporize your investment.

The guys at MS obviously know this, let's hope the so called "hardcore simmer" market is of interest for them as announced. What we have seen with SU5 goes in a different direction, but now they have a great chance to put things back on track.

A. 

From what I understand, even for P3D and X-Plane, when they have patches and updates, things break for 3rd party devs too.  I believe Milviz was commenting here in the AVSIM forums about stuff breaking for their products from the last P3D update.  The difference is, MSFS has the updates more frequently (P3D had very few updates over the last year compared to MSFS).

I think over the first 2 years of MSFS, it will be changing a lot.  This is partly because Asobo is still changing the SDK.  However, I think after the first 2 years, the updates will start to become more stable, the SDK will become more solidified, and less things will break.  I also think after a few years, we will get less updates.  If there were around 200 employees at Asobo working on MSFS for the release last year and for this X-Box release, I don't think Microsoft is going to keep that many people working on MSFS several years down the road.  The revenue that Microsoft gets from MSFS will drop as time passes.  So I think the 6 updates we get per year now will dwindle to maybe 2 updates per year, after maybe year 4 or 5 of MSFS, with less people working on MSFS (and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft starts planning for MSFS 2, around 2025 or so, for release in 2030 or so).

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

Get the feeling from rate of A2A releases for ESP that a significant proportion of their resources may have been redirected to developing for their military customer work.  If that is true (speculation) then may be less resources available to learn how to make the MSFS platform sing.  

I'd imagine they wouldn't risk rushing out something sub-par so until the Comanche is done properly looks like no top of the line GA presence in MSFS.  Unless someone challenges the A2A mantle ala-Fenix.......

1 hour ago, omarsmak30 said:

"Its more a game than a platform" <-- I am not sure but is this guy serious?

The guy is quite knowledgeable, and in his answer I find something I don't like about the impossibility to write custom programs in a modular way. If this is true, I was wrong because the potential of this platform is not that high.

Let's hope Lewis is really joking and possibly even hiding some ongoing development on their part: I really miss their aircraft.

A.

2 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

"Its more a game than a platform" <-- I am not sure but is this guy serious?

Well, it's that old chestnut of game vs sim, which as we know is really more about what the user uses something for than the content itself; what someone calls it is largely a matter of pride from people sitting in their basement with their super-authentic Boeing 737 cockpit, who obviously use it to simulate stuff. But it's right there on the cover of the FSX box that it's a 'Game for Windows', and back on the very day that FSX came out, I bought it from a computer store in the UK, the name of which is actually 'Game' so it's never really bothered me too much, not least because such opinions lend little credence to the matter given that P3D is based on the very same ESP engine which FSX uses.

True, P3D has run with the ESP engine and added a lot of stuff, but it is still essentially the same engine it is using as FSX, and A2A have never had a problem with making stuff for FSX or P3D. The difference is really the marketing because let's be honest, most of the differences between FSX and P3D have been visual ones, not really more super-realism in terms of what it can actually simulate with regard to flight. So anyone who seriously thinks everyone who has bought P3D is using it for 'training' needs to step away from the crack pipe. Call these things a game if you like, or call them a sim if you like, because to be honest, it's both of those things and all points in-between, as evidenced by the number of people who fly for real who'll tell you that Flight Simulator was what bit them with the flying bug as well as the people who fly their 747 inverted under bridges.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Chock

43 minutes ago, Chock said:

 Pretty sure they made some combat aeroplane sim for the USAF if I recall correctly.

In fairness to A2A, they may be concerned with the sim's ability to do all the subtle stuff .... the fact that if you get to certain RPMs and prop settings in their Comanche for example, the panel vibrates when it hits that sound frequency like it does in the real thing,  

 

They worked on a simuation of the Beech Texan 2 (turboprop) I believe, not sure for the entire simulation though

Dangerous vibrations at some RMP : the DC-6 has them 

30 minutes ago, kakihara123 said:

 So this guy really has no idea what game really means. And those game elements also have nothing to do whether MSFS is good as a sim or not. 

 

If this guy is Lewis (the A2A PR guy), he is an old simmer in spite of his young age and has been in the hobby for years and I believe he knows more about it than you 😋 ! 

Besides, if A2A has a deserved reputation for top-tier simulation but has never shied away from the gaming dimension fo flight simuation (re for instance their propliners)

10 minutes ago, RobF2 said:

Get the feeling from rate of A2A releases for ESP that a significant proportion of their resources may have been redirected to developing for their military customer work.  If that is true (speculation) then may be less resources available to learn how to make the MSFS platform sing.  

I'd imagine they wouldn't risk rushing out something sub-par so until the Comanche is done properly looks like no top of the line GA presence in MSFS.  Unless someone challenges the A2A mantle ala-Fenix.......

 Yes, I think that they have profitable contracts with the armed forces which eat up some of their human resources  and are stickler for quality.

8 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

The guy is quite knowledgeable, and in his answer I find something I don't like about the impossibility to write custom programs in a modular way. If this is true, I was wrong because the potential of this platform is not that high.

Let's hope Lewis is really joking and possibly even hiding some ongoing development on their part: I really miss their aircraft.

A.

Absolutely and I believe he is not joking. They have build up their company on some proprietary know-hows and tools related to the ESP. Not easy to change everything.  That reflects badly neither on A2A nor on MFS.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Dominique_K