46 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

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). 

Isn't Fenix will do its thing externally? If yes, then is the same as FSX/P3D

19 minutes 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. 

Well, the H135 has definitely overriden the MSFS flight model.  It would be weird if Microsoft/Asobo now shut that option down though.  A lot of H135 users would probably get pretty angry.

56 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

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. 

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. 

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 🤣

Another set of misinformation and assumptions.

Here are the comments of A2A business manager:

"Its more a game than a platform, 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"

"Sorry, please do not take my comments out of context. The question and conversation within this thread wasn't anything to do with upcoming A2A products for MSFS but rather solely regarding the P3D platform being worried about a consumer MSFS."

Yes, MSFS is indeed not suitable to be a commercial trainer right now. Not due to the reasons you think at all, though - it mainly comes down to certification requirements, including framerate requirements, lack of multiple monitor support and distortion correction. In other words, MSFS not having FAA certification unlike X-Plane and P3D has literally no meaning when it comes to the end user experience. And your home X-Plane setup is not FAA certified either due to similar reasons I have mentioned about MSFS.

When it comes to realism features like being able to have a custom flight dynamics engine, MSFS is no different than any other flight simulator. I know that you will not take my word for it, so look at PMDG DC-6, FlyInside Bell 47 which uses a fully custom flight model and other freeware helicopter add-ons out there. I am having a very hard time understanding how you made the "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" comment when PMDG DC-6 flies more accurately than its P3D counterpart and FlyInside Bell 47 is as accurate as it could be in any other simulator platform.

When it comes to RXP avionics, one of the main issues seems to be not being able to directly control the default autopilot system, which is not an indicative of not being able to have a custom autopilot implementation either, unlike what you think.

Also to answer your question, when A2A is released they will use their proprietary Accusim flight dynamics engine, like in any other simulator, so you don't need to worry.

When it comes to weather, did you know X-Plane does not allow proper weather control, just like MSFS? All Active Sky XP does is overriding METAR.rwx, as X-Plane's weather control is pretty much limited to that. It is really not so different than how REX Weather Force for MSFS injects weather right now. Due to similar limitations, Active Sky XP does not have a weather radar implementation either, unlike the one you can find in Active Sky P3D with includes predictive and reactive windshear as well.

Rest of your comment really comes down to "I agree, base X-Plane and P3D is as inaccurate as MSFS, but MSFS is just a scenery generator console game due to some limitations which home users have nothing to do with", which is very fun.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by BiologicalNanobot

I have a new thread about overriding the MSFS flight model: 

.Maybe we can get an answer from people that are more knowledgeable about the SDK in that thread.  Please participate in that thread if you like so we can discuss custom flight models.  Thanks!

Wow, a lot of people here and over on the A2A forums really misinterpreted what Lewis was saying and took it out of context as he said further down that thread. He was simply talking about the different markets that P3D and MSFS target and made no statements about whether A2A is working on MSFS products. All other indications from other A2A posts actually indicate that they are in fact planning to release MSFS products:

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72238

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72335

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72611

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

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 Microsobo is going around demanding that certain addon developers show proof of licencing from Garmin, but they seem to be totally fine with other developers making and selling Garmin GPS mods... I could understand them doing that if it was a question of selling the mod on the marketplace, but them going out of their way to shut down these projects...? I may be biased towards conspiracy theories, but if that doesn't sound like an attempt to hide how feature incomplete the in-game Garmin units are and how weak they are compared to, say, an RXP unit, then I don't know what does.

Which brings up an interesting question. Is Microsobo asking anyone else for licences? Do you think they asked modders for licences from Boeing? Airbus? Textron?

12 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

now the P3D/XPlane market has dried up

The X-Plane market has not dried up.  In actuality, I've seen a steady increase in sales over the past few months.  

But far be it from me to speculate as to why.

 

 

@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.

17 minutes ago, GoranM said:

The X-Plane market has not dried up.  In actuality, I've seen a steady increase in sales over the past few months.  

But far be it from me to speculate as to why.

Simply because people want options! I love flying X-Plane exclusives and would definitely not want X-Plane sales to dry up. Many of us here think the same way, I don't care what some gatekeepers think. It is very likely that many people who are new to flight simulation with MSFS also think same way, which explains the increase in sales for other simulators.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by BiologicalNanobot

16 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

Do you think they asked modders for licences from Boeing? Airbus? Textron?

The entire reason getting the FBW A320 onto the marketplace & in a state where the developers were comfortable officially recognizing was so slow is because they wanted to get Airbus's permission first. They really care about keeping good relationships with anyone they have a license with.

I think it's ridiculous that you'd even propose such a ridiculous theory about MS attempting to shut down realistic Garmin addons from coming to hide their own incompetency. For starters, they want to get realistic products into the sim as quickly as possible (take a look at the quick help they gave PMDG to get the DC-6 into the sim). Secondly, have you seen the Working Title G1000 NXi? It's incredible, and they're constantly improving it. Their G1000 NXi is going to replace the base G1000 in the sim as soon as it's out of beta. So the premise that they aren't capable of making their own high-quality Garmin devices within the sim is also ridiculous.

Have you ever watched the developer Q&As or read anything Jorg has said about the future of the sim? Or read any of @MattNischan's posts here? The amount of unwarranted criticism here is disappointing.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by FlyingInACessna

5 minutes ago, GoranM said:

The X-Plane market has not dried up.  In actuality, I've seen a steady increase in sales over the past few months.  

But far be it from me to speculate as to why.

 

 

For me, MSFS pulled me back into flight simulation, which got me trying x-plane 11 again, which got me looking for certain aircraft that simply don't exist for MSFS yet (or at least not to the level of realism I was looking for). I'm happy to run more than one sim depending on what I want to do. While I'm not willing to spend a bunch of money on scenery for X-plane when I can get much better looking scenery in MSFS, I'm happy to buy high quality X-plane aircraft for IFR flying, particularly if there's not an imminent port to MSFS.

22 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

So Microsobo is going around demanding that certain addon developers show proof of licencing from Garmin, but they seem to be totally fine with other developers making and selling Garmin GPS mods...

Might any problem with the vTDS mod be related to commercial use of the Garmin Trainer rather than with the mod itself.

And as a side note if there is proof that the TDS project had been killed (for whatever reason) someone needs to let the purchases know because I can't see any information about that on official website or forum.

16 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.

1 year is nothing in developing time.. unless you want a frankeinstain model of course, then it can be done a bit faster.. 

I would say, with the current MSFS SDK, a mid - high study level 787, with all the correct gauges being developed via WASM + HTML/JS, all the animations, the flight model, etc. would take around 3-4 years to be completed with 4 - 6 people working on it..

S.

12 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Might any problem with the vTDS mod be related to commercial use of the Garmin Trainer rather than with the mod itself.

Not only have RXP used the Garmin Trainer for decades with permission (Flight1 too), but why would Microsobo be policing the internet for mods they don't sale, that don't violate their licence agreement?

1 minute ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

but why would Microsobo be policing the internet for mods they don't sale, that don't violate their licence agreement?

You've been told this before, but I'll mention it again for all the other readers: this is only an issue if you want to sell in the Marketplace. Microsoft does not care at all what you sell or don't sell in your own or other marketplaces.

-Matt