37 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Did you see X-Plane in the topic tite or content ? It is about QualityWings and A2A, none of both having ever worked for X-plane. 

 

This is incorrect.

PROJECTS | Airtech Simulation

https://www.thresholdx.net/news/a2axpl

Airtech Simulation - Home | Facebook

FlightSim.Com - Airtech Simulation/A2A Spitfire For X-Plane

A2A Simulations & Airtech Announce Spitfire for X-Plane 11 – FSElite

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by EvidencePlz

A2A put a toe in the pool to check the water but gave up quite fast and never released a product for XP. Anyway my point was that stuffing, yet again, XP considerations on the thread was not exactly on topic.   

Products | A2A Simulations

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

8 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

A2A put a toe in the pool to check the water but gave up quite fast and never released a product for XP

Again incorrect. A2A developers flew to the UK to build a Spitfire simulator using their Accusim engine, X-plane and ORBX's True Earth scenery for X-plane..

Boultbee Flight Academy - Spitfire MK9 Simulator (spitfires.com)

PROJECTS | Airtech Simulation

Airtech Simulation - PBR Spitfire | Facebook

Just now, EvidencePlz said:

Again incorrect. A2A developers flew to the UK to build a Spitfire simulator using their Accusim engine, X-plane and ORBX's True Earth scenery for X-plane..

Boultbee Flight Academy - Spitfire MK9 Simulator (spitfires.com)

PROJECTS | Airtech Simulation

Airtech Simulation - PBR Spitfire | Facebook

I will you at that. Enjoy your non-existent A2A SPitfire in X-Plane 😋 !  And please do not hesitate to use the X-Plane forum.

3 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

MSFS has always been and is a game as of today, like A2A's business manager said yesterday, due to lack of custom programming features, the neglected SDK and a comedy, gamey, arcade, twitchy and entertainment flight model that is hyper-optimized to be operated with Xbox video game controllers first and foremost. The primary focus of MSFS producer Mr Jorg Nuemann has always been video-gaming and not 'flight'-simulating.

For example, this guy has allegedly been able to take off and land safely in a twin-engine plane in MSFS 2020 by using nothing but “careful manipulation of the throttles”: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/real-world-pilots-please-state-your-feedback-about-the-flight-model/150771/14

Another video example of MSFS' comedy flight model, in the custom, FBW A320. Specially hilarious is the landing: Microsoft Flight Simulator - "Realism" - YouTube

Another example: the approach flyback bug was reported on 20th august, 2020. Several hundreds of bug reports , articles and “phd thesis” have been written about it since then. It's almost a year now and Jorg has done absolutely nothing about it: Approach flyback bug - Not fixed as stated in SU5 - Bugs & Issues / ATC & NAVAIDs - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

For aircraft software developed by hardcore, top-end, high-fidelity developers like A2A, PMDG, FSLabs, Torquesim, Hotstart etc to perform as accurately as they do in MSFS, the base platform needs to be a simulation platform, not a video-gamey platform. Both PMDG and Fenix could release their 737 and Prosim A320 (respectively) tomorrow, but they will always be affected negatively not only by the unfinished, buggy and comedy flight model but also other elements such as the "unlive" weather, which Jorg won't allow to be overridden by something infinitely better, such as Active Sky. 

Unfortunately, despite repeated claims made by the producer guy Jorg that MSFS will first and foremost be a sim for simmers, it is still a console-based entertainment video game a year after release.

Oh boy, this post has so many wrong information that I simply don't know where to start from. For the record, I code for X-Plane, P3D and MSFS, so I am reasonably familiar with all 3 platforms.

Here are the facts:

MSFS has custom programming features. All of them. Currently only major limitations of MSFS are the inability to develop a collimated HUD, as view and projection matrices are not exposed, and the inability to develop a weather radar, as the weather data is not exposed. I don't think you really understand what you mean with "simulation platform" and "video-gamey platform", as from a developer's perspective there is no difference between the two. And as a matter of fact, in terms of procedural and aerodynamics realism, MSFS out of the box is not too behind than other platforms like X-Plane and P3D, if at all. Though it is not too ahead of them either.

MSFS flight dynamics engine is more accurate than FSX/P3D dynamics engine. You are using default aircraft of MSFS to assess the realism of flight dynamics engine, which is quite unfair, given that rest of your comparison involves third party add-ons. The high-fidelity developers you were mentioning like A2A, PMDG, FSLabs, Majestic etc. are either using completely custom flight dynamics engines or partially overriding the default flight dynamics engine. FSX/P3D flight dynamics engine is so limiting that even yaw-induced roll effects cannot be properly modelled. If we are going by the accuracy of the default flight dynamics engine to determine how "gamey" a platform is, FSX and P3D are probably the most "gamey", period.

I recommend you to read https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Additional_Information%2FFlight_Model_Physics.htm which explains the ideology behind MSFS flight model quite well, so that one might realize it is anything but "a comedy, gamey, arcade, twitchy and entertainment flight model that is hyper-optimized to be operated with Xbox video game controllers first and foremost". If anything, FSX/P3D flight dynamics engine is holding MSFS flight dynamics engine back, due to Microsoft's obsession with backwards compatibility.

X-Plane's weather system is so awfully inaccurace that I would simply say it is non-existent. So if we are going by accuracy of the default platform, X-Plane is also as "gamey" as it gets?

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by BiologicalNanobot

2 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane X-Plane 

Did you see X-Plane in the topic tite or content ? It is about QualityWings and A2A, none of both having ever worked for X-plane. 

You X-planers are leeches, everything thing is good to suck a good thread in the MFS forum 🤣.

This is why I am feeling bad for X-Plane community. These kind of people do not represent X-Plane community at all, but sadly they are the loudest and most unpleasant, so many people associate them with X-Plane community. It is upsetting that some bad apples are ruining how people perceives X-Plane community altogether. So please don't act like all "X-Planers" are the same.

I am an X-Plane fan, or X-Planer as you call it. I really wish simulator wars came to an end and people realized platforms we use really does not matter in the end, as it is the add-ons we use is what gives the ultimate realism - visually, procedurally and aerodynamically. All major simulator platforms (MSFS, X-Plane and P3D) have the equal capability to be realistic, both procedurally and aerodynamically, thanks to add-on aircraft. And to be honest, all major simulator platforms are quite lacking without those add-on aircraft.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by BiologicalNanobot

I'm not too sure about a lot of developers, but historically A2A spends very little time "hyping" an upcoming product. They tend to wait until 3-5 weeks before delivery. The rest of the time they can be very clever about "deferring" any questions that come up. Until A2A actually makes the statement that they will not develop for MFSF, all guesses about their intent is for naught.

22 minutes ago, jimcarrel said:

I'm not too sure about a lot of developers, but historically A2A spends very little time "hyping" an upcoming product. They tend to wait until 3-5 weeks before delivery. The rest of the time they can be very clever about "deferring" any questions that come up. Until A2A actually makes the statement that they will not develop for MFSF, all guesses about their intent is for naught.

Fact is, love it or hate it, MSFS so far is presenting a moving target for developers.  The demand so far to pour redevelopment hours into already released products is very likely not sending positive signals to new development, or better said to new releases.  I fully imagine there are a number of mostly developed desirable products floating around in a holding pattern until this all stabilizes much more than it has until now.

And so we collectively wait for clearance to land....

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by fppilot

44 minutes ago, jimcarrel said:

I'm not too sure about a lot of developers, but historically A2A spends very little time "hyping" an upcoming product. They tend to wait until 3-5 weeks before delivery. The rest of the time they can be very clever about "deferring" any questions that come up. Until A2A actually makes the statement that they will not develop for MFSF, all guesses about their intent is for naught.

I may be missing something but don't we already have an explicit statement that A2A are developing for MSFS, first the Aerostar 600 then when that real-world plane was written-off the Comanche 250 ?

Or has that now changed ?

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Matchstick

10 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

The high-fidelity developers you were mentioning like A2A, PMDG, FSLabs, Majestic etc. are either using completely custom flight dynamics engines or partially overriding the default flight dynamics engine.

This is true, but I'm wondering if you read what A2A business manager said yesterday, that the SDK and ability to do custom-programming in MSFS is very limited if not impossible, which is why, as of today, MSFS is a "more a game than a platform", "wholly unsuited to a sim platform used for training and simulation work", whereas we have FAA-approved flight simulators powered by P3D and XP 10/11. A2A, PMDG, FSLabs, Majestic aircraft use 100 percent external flight model or partially overridden flight model, use DLLs and what-not but that's also because developers and owners of base 'flight' simulators like Prepar3d and XP11 allow third-party developers that freedom, which, as of today, Mr Jorg Nuemann is refusing to grant because it's either his way or highway. This is also why we don't have a Reality XP Garmin avionic suit yet, and while TDS Sim made one (the GTN 750), it was forcibly shut down by Microsoft (I can show evidence of this). 

So if A2A releases a plane for MSFS tomorrow, which flight model are they gonna use? The default, twitchy one that has no adverse yaw (and that's just one of the numerous flaws)? or their own, proprietary and external Accusim engine? Asking because the MSFS default FM will never be like Accusim FM, and the freedom and capability to port Accusim into MSFS 2020 that P3D aircraft devs have been enjoying all these years simply don't exist at the moment, due to no fault of A2A. 

 

33 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

If we are going by the accuracy of the default flight dynamics engine to determine how "gamey" a platform is, FSX and P3D are probably the most "gamey", period.

True, but I never said FSX/P3D's default flight model was good. In fact I agree that the base MSFS FM is better, although it needs more work. P3D/FSX shines only after adding the A2A/PMDG etc aircraft to the base simulator, as they completely or sometimes partially override the base FM. Not disagreeing with this. 

 

37 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

X-Plane's weather system is so awfully inaccurace that I would simply say it is non-existent. So if we are going by accuracy of the default platform, X-Plane is also as "gamey" as it gets?

Again, true, but that weakness is mitigated by Active Sky XP, which, even with some of its teething issues, is hugely better and accurate than anything I've ever experienced in MSFS 2020. Furthermore, AS devs were given permission and help to step in and attempt to offer a better weather suit. What did Jorg say when the flight sim community asked him to "open up the weather to 3rd parties"? "Not planned", he said, and now you are stuck with this scenery generator console game with unusable and incorrect weather and not a single 3rd party aircraft that can generate a flight model (external or partial) as accurate, robust, fluid and convincing as the ones found in DCS, XP and P3D. No wonder why P3D and XP 'flight' simulators are FAA, CAA and EASA approved, and DCS World is being used by the US Airforce for pilot training, while some MSFS customers are telling me they are now selling their rudder pedals because it's not needed in this game after take-off 🤣

10 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

So if A2A releases a plane for MSFS tomorrow, which flight model are they gonna use?

Considering even free mod devs are using their own flight models seems overwhelmingly likely that A2A would use their own presumably as part of the new v4.0 of Accusim they are creating ?

 

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Matchstick

12 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

So if A2A releases a plane for MSFS tomorrow, which flight model are they gonna use?

So, for someone that has looked at the SDK in depth, can't 3rd party planes use their own flight model in MSFS?   What about the freeware H135 in MSFS: https://www.flightsim.to/file/8970/airbus-h135-helicopter-project

The H135 obviously uses its own flight model.  MSFS doesn't even officially support helicopters yet.  So how is it that people claim 3rd party devs can't make their own flight model in MSFS, but the freeware H135 is showing exactly a custom flight model.

I don't think EvidencePlz is very knowledgeable enough about the MSFS SDK but if there is someone that is knowledgeable about the MSFS SDK, it would be appreciated if you can explain to us how much of a custom flight model MSFS supports, and why if MSFS doesn't allow custom flight models, what the H135 flight model is then.  Thanks.

7 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Considering even free mod devs are using their own flight models seems overwhelmingly likely that A2A would use their own presumably as part of the new v4.0 of Accusim they are creating/

 

Yes, I would think the freeware H135 is using a custom flight model. I am scratching my head at people who say MSFS doesn't support a custom flight model.  But the H135 is obviously a custom flight model.  Maybe someone with very in depth knowledge of the SDK can explain this to us.

Just now, abrams_tank said:

I am scratching my head at people who say MSFS doesn't support a custom flight model

Just to be clear, I never claimed custom, external flight models can't be done in MSFS 2020. Flyinside already did that with their Bell heli.

5 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

it would be appreciated if you can explain to us how much of a custom flight model MSFS supports

This is something only MS, Jorg and these top-end high-fidelity devs can tell, and sometimes they can't do even that due to some sort of NDA. 

However, during one SDK Q and A session on Twitch, Asobo dev and SDK Producer Alyzée Arfel and the Lead SDK developer Eric Pellissier clearly said in plain English that third parties won't be allowed to override the MSFS flight model. You could draw your own conclusion if you want. 

1 minute ago, EvidencePlz said:

However, during one SDK Q and A session on Twitch, Asobo dev and SDK Producer Alyzée Arfel and the Lead SDK developer Eric Pellissier clearly said in plain English that third parties won't be allowed to override the MSFS flight model. You could draw your own conclusion if you want. 

The only conclusion I can draw is that if they **actually** meant that (and I've seem other claims that they either didn't say that or that the answer was more nuanced) then they are utterly failing in enforcing it on anyone.

For goodness sake there's a high fidelity Bell 47 in a sim that doesn't have an official helicopter flight mode,