3 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

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?

I've always presumed RXP and Flight 1 had permission but maybe TDS neglected that step ?

But as you say why would MS be involved, unless Garmin asked/required them to step in to protect any licensing deal they had ?

At this point it's all speculation without evidence to look at.

Edited August 12, 20214 yr by Matchstick

I'm very glad that knowledgeable people are posting in this thread to debunk the usual tinfoil hat conspiracies. It's a refreshing change from the usual silliness. Thanks very much, folks, it helps keep this place an interesting and useful source of information.

1 hour ago, lambourne said:

I'm very glad that knowledgeable people are posting in this thread to debunk the usual tinfoil hat conspiracies. It's a refreshing change from the usual silliness. Thanks very much, folks, it helps keep this place an interesting and useful source of information.

For some reason your message was truncated, so only your opinions on "people", "conspiracies", and "the usual silliness" appear, while your contribution on the topic was lost.

My contribution on the topic is that if the first "high tier" commercial project on MSFS works really well, and consequently makes a lot of money, all developers will be onboard and we will have a lot of fun. That's why we must hope that all conditions for an immediate success are met. If, on the other hand, the first developers should encounter major problems and create so-so models that do not sell well, then the wait will be much longer. That's why we should all hope for the stability of the platform and flexibility in development options.

A.

1 hour ago, ADamiani said:

For some reason your message was truncated, so only your opinions on "people", "conspiracies", and "the usual silliness" appear, while your contribution on the topic was lost.

My contribution on the topic is that if the first "high tier" commercial project on MSFS works really well, and consequently makes a lot of money, all developers will be onboard and we will have a lot of fun. That's why we must hope that all conditions for an immediate success are met. If, on the other hand, the first developers should encounter major problems and create so-so models that do not sell well, then the wait will be much longer. That's why we should all hope for the stability of the platform and flexibility in development options.

A.

Could we count they excellent PMDG DC-6 as "the first "high tier" commercial project on MSFS" ?

If so the (very) anecdotal evidence I've seen suggest that PMDG are pleased with how well it's done so far

At the moment I enjoy the bush trips a lot - this shortens the time until PMDG or others release a nice tubeliner. 
and I swear to god: if it costs 200$ - I would buy it. 
Want to say: developers sure will make tons of money with FS. 

I got to know you crazy people here over the years. Flightsimming is your hobby and you will spend silly amounts if it’s worth it. So do I 🙂

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

Could we count they excellent PMDG DC-6 as "the first "high tier" commercial project on MSFS" ?

If so the (very) anecdotal evidence I've seen suggest that PMDG are pleased with how well it's done so far

This could indeed be very good news. But I'd like to see a 737, or A320 - 330, or 787, succeed spectacularly. At that point you would really see some movement 🙂

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Another set of misinformation and assumptions.

 

Assumptions...yes...based on current info and evidence. Misinformation? Definitely not. It's Jorg Nuemann and his team that's been spreading misinformation and false advertisements since day one. Or may be they have no idea that what they have been advertising is incorrect. Go to MSFS store page (in MS store or Steam) and what does one see? 1. "Fly day or night with live real-time weather including accurate wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, rain and lighting." << This is absolutely false. It doesn't work as advertised and everyone knows it. There are countless bug reports and articles written about it. 2. "Premium Deluxe editions include 10 additional highly accurate planes with unique flight models" << Again, false, incorrect and well-documented. Nothing about any system, avionic or flight model in any of these MSFS 2020 aircraft is "highly accurate", yet people paid extra money for these. Yes, improvements have been made, but they are still nowhere close to as "highly accurate" as MS advertises. 

Yes, A2A's business manager clarified further by saying that what he said earlier wasn't related to A2A products for MSFS 2020, but that doesn't mean the problems with custom-programming, limited SDK and an overall buggy base gamey product with gamey flight model aren't hindering A2A or other high-fidelity devs from offering some of their products for MSFS 2020. They have already issued multiple statements regarding this in the past, albeit in a cryptic way.

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Yes, MSFS is indeed not suitable to be a commercial trainer right now.

True. It's an entertainment console video game at its core, optimized first and foremost for the Xbox platform and Xbox controllers. This is also why they shove a Xbox console UI, hardware control configurations, and Xbox liveries down our throat during first-time installation, whether we asked for them or not. And I don't think a flight school will want to wait for 8 days for the download of the base product to finish. 

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Not due to the reasons you think at all, though

I have strong reasons to assume that it's indeed due to the reasons I think. Gleim Aviation sells a FAA-approved BATD that uses X-Plane 11. On their Youtube channel, they were asked if "they were looking into possibly integrating Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 into this current setup (FAA-approved BATD) or any future ones". Their reply was: "No. MSFS2020 is not capable of an approval. It is pretty, but it more of an entertainment platform. It does not have the accurate flight modelling, navigation, or a number of other features necessary to be integrated into an FAA approved system.". Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNBJNqmoUyQ These are not my words or opinions, and the problem apparently goes far beyond framerate requirements and paperwork. 

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

And your home X-Plane setup is not FAA certified either

But I can have my home X-plane setup certified if I want, and I can do it tomorrow if I want, by buying the professional version, required hardware and and by following the relevant rules and regulations. Yes my home XP setup is not certified, but what are the differences between the home and professional version? Not many, according to Laminar Research themselves. In short, "the certified version of X-Plane includes all the scenery and capabilities of the home use simulator, but includes additional hardware and frame rate checks, as well as cylindrical and spherical projection capabilities.".

Can I have my MSFS 2020 certified by FAA though? Definitely not. Not with a video-game product that does a 180 degree and flies back to the departure airport once user presses the Approach button to activate his approach. Not with a video-game where the Garmin avionics look nothing like the real units, and are filled to the brim with rubbish like USR, Timeclimb waypoints etc. Not with a video-game where its producer calls a default-level aircraft "high-fidelity" and has the audacity to charge money for it. Definitely not with a video game that takes 8 days to download and CTDs every 15-30 minutes. Yes it's pretty and that's where it ends, for now. 

 

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

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

I looked at it. Your point? It's not using a completely external flight model. It's using Asobo's default flight model, optimized for Xbox controller, albeit with some or lots adjustments. But if you are referring to a fully external flight model, this is definitely not it, and hence the DC-6 is affected by some of the issues that exist in Asobo's default flight model. One of these issues includes the Xboxey, gamey, twitchy, comedy, GTA 5 ground-handling during take-off and landing and is well-documented. Source: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/127421-msfs-flight-model-patch-4?p=127700#post127700 and https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/127421-msfs-flight-model-patch-4?p=128236#post128236

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

PMDG DC-6 flies more accurately than its P3D counterpart

Even the developer Robert Randazzo himself isn't too sure about this hilarious and incorrect assertion. When asked (about the DC-6 FM in MSFS) if it's better than P3D, he says, "I think so". He also admits that his DC-6 in both P3D and MSFS 2020 "behaves and performs nearly identically". Source: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/127421-msfs-flight-model-patch-4?p=127700#post127700

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

FlyInside Bell 47 which uses a fully custom flight model

Yes but does it work correctly? Is it affected by some of the base game issues? And is there a possibility that MS and Jorg one day might decide to close the loopholes or areas that are necessary for devs like FlyInside to design such an external FM? What happens to our investment then? What SDK producer and lead SDK developer Alyzzee and Eric said in public in the SDK Q and A Twitch livestream so far about this is that they won't allow 3rd parties to override the default FM. They haven't made any further statement regarding this ever since then. 

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

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.

1) I'm not worried. I bought and have been using most of their products in P3D. I have very little reason to re-purchase the same aircraft for a pretty little video-game rated 'E' for 'Everyone', PEGI 3 etc that can't provide me with accurate live weather and avionics, a game that doesn't allow established, high-fidelity and top-end third party developers like Active Sky and Reality XP to come and fix these issues, a product that continues to degrade its graphical features with each update. 

2) I'll believe it when I see it (the true, raw Accusim and not Jorgsim running in MSFS 2020). Until then, MSFS 2020 is a console game.

9 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Rest of your comment really comes down to "I agree, base X-Plane and P3D is as inaccurate as MSFS..."

Yes, but the 3rd party developers in most platforms such as XP and P3D are allowed and invited to come in and attempt to improve, best to their abilities, some of the things the base sim is lacking. Laminar Research's Austin himself did a presentation on XEnviro for example. In the case of MSFS 2020 though, what happens if and when we ask for high-fidelity products like ActiveSky and Reality XP avionics in MSFS 2020? "Not planned", Jorg says. And the solution Jorg decided to use for weather (Meteoblue) doesn't work accurately, but it doesn't matter cause the clouds look soooo pretty!

In the end, I'd like to clarify something. It seems to me that you and many people in this forum/thread are offended by me calling MSFS 2020 a game. I don't mean it in a negative, condescending way. I myself am a big video-gamer and regularly buy major game titles from Steam. I see absolutely nothing wrong with MSFS 2020 being used as a video-game for sight-seeing, entertainment etc. It is first and foremost an entertainment product. The confusion arises due to its legal name "Microsoft Flight Simulator". It's not illegal to use the word "simulator" in a video-game's title. Goat Simulator and Surgeon Simulator 2013 do the same thing. Why do people get offended by that? 😆

Edited August 13, 20214 yr by EvidencePlz

10 hours ago, fppilot said:

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. 

What is sending positive signals to developers is really high revenue. The only place you get that now is in MSFS. 

Some people really try and nitpick every little word that gets typed on various forums from various users. Glad I have better things to do like fly whatever platform I want on any given day than to search the flight sim forums for all the doom and gloom to make my E-Peen feel bigger.

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.

17 hours 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, 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.

Totally agree.  PMDG seem to be developing for the MSFS platform just fine.  You don't see RR and the PMDG team curling up in the corner and sooking.  Developers need to take notice of what CAN be done, not what CAN'T be done.  Successful people leave clues. 

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

I have strong reasons to assume that it's indeed due to the reasons I think. Gleim Aviation sells a FAA-approved BATD that uses X-Plane 11. On their Youtube channel, they were asked if "they were looking into possibly integrating Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 into this current setup (FAA-approved BATD) or any future ones". Their reply was: "No. MSFS2020 is not capable of an approval. It is pretty, but it more of an entertainment platform. It does not have the accurate flight modelling, navigation, or a number of other features necessary to be integrated into an FAA approved system.". Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNBJNqmoUyQ These are not my words or opinions, and the problem apparently goes far beyond framerate requirements and paperwork.

Given that they were comparing the base simulators, I am very curious how P3D gets FAA approvement with its even worse flight modeling and navigation capabilities... So maybe the problem really does not go beyond framerate requirements and paperwork.

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

Yes my home XP setup is not certified, but what are the differences between the home and professional version? Not many, according to Laminar Research themselves. In short, "the certified version of X-Plane includes all the scenery and capabilities of the home use simulator, but includes additional hardware and frame rate checks, as well as cylindrical and spherical projection capabilities."

Thanks for making my point again about certification has nothing to do with overall realism of a simulator. X-Plane's home version fails to be certifiable due to those very simple requirements. This does not make it less realistic though. Why would the same requirements make MSFS any less realistic.

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

Can I have my MSFS 2020 certified by FAA though? Definitely not. Not with a video-game product that does a 180 degree and flies back to the departure airport once user presses the Approach button to activate his approach. Not with a video-game where the Garmin avionics look nothing like the real units, and are filled to the brim with rubbish like USR, Timeclimb waypoints etc. Not with a video-game where its producer calls a default-level aircraft "high-fidelity" and has the audacity to charge money for it. Definitely not with a video game that takes 8 days to download and CTDs every 15-30 minutes. Yes it's pretty and that's where it ends, for now.

And then you connected FAA certification into realism of the default simulator, after admitting P3D is worse in those aspects. So we are really stuck in a loop here - you keep showing inaccuracies of the default simulator to explain how uncertifiable it is, but when I mention how P3D is even more lacking in same areas you convert your argument into how uncertifiable MSFS is due to its lacking modding abilities, which is also not true.

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

I looked at it. Your point? It's not using a completely external flight model. It's using Asobo's default flight model, optimized for Xbox controller, albeit with some or lots adjustments. But if you are referring to a fully external flight model, this is definitely not it, and hence the DC-6 is affected by some of the issues that exist in Asobo's default flight model. One of these issues includes the Xboxey, gamey, twitchy, comedy, GTA 5 ground-handling during take-off and landing and is well-documented. Source: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/127421-msfs-flight-model-patch-4?p=127700#post127700 and https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/127421-msfs-flight-model-patch-4?p=128236#post128236

This is usual for PMDG products, they do not use fully custom flight models in P3D either. They use their own rigid body simulation for lifting surfaces, and the default flight dynamics engine for the rest. That is the main reason why PMDG aircraft "fly on rails" and behave very inaccurate in crosswind conditions & when rudder inputs are used. So overall, PMDG DC-6 for P3D is affected by the same "comedy" flight dynamics engine of FSX/P3D, which you admitted to be worse. So what exactly is different with MSFS?

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

Even the developer Robert Randazzo himself isn't too sure about this hilarious and incorrect assertion. When asked (about the DC-6 FM in MSFS) if it's better than P3D, he says, "I think so". He also admits that his DC-6 in both P3D and MSFS 2020 "behaves and performs nearly identically". Source: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/127421-msfs-flight-model-patch-4?p=127700#post127700

Hilarious and incorrect assertion? It is so hilarious that even Robert Randazzo himself thinks it is better than P3D counterpart, but somehow my statement is "hilarious and incorrect". Okay...

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

Yes but does it work correctly? Is it affected by some of the base game issues? And is there a possibility that MS and Jorg one day might decide to close the loopholes or areas that are necessary for devs like FlyInside to design such an external FM? What happens to our investment then? What SDK producer and lead SDK developer Alyzzee and Eric said in public in the SDK Q and A Twitch livestream so far about this is that they won't allow 3rd parties to override the default FM. They haven't made any further statement regarding this ever since then.

Yes it does. No it is not. What made you assume that they are using loopholes to use an external flight dynamics engine? Flight dynamics engine overriding is a feature in the SDK, it is surprisingly straightforward as well. Also, it seems like you misunderstood their comment about third parties not being able to override default flight dynamics engine, as that was about hacking the default flight model in weird ways, not completely or partially overriding it. Ironically they added several features to make overriding default flight dynamics engine even easier right after that Q&A.

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

Yes, but the 3rd party developers in most platforms such as XP and P3D are allowed and invited to come in and attempt to improve, best to their abilities, some of the things the base sim is lacking. Laminar Research's Austin himself did a presentation on XEnviro for example. In the case of MSFS 2020 though, what happens if and when we ask for high-fidelity products like ActiveSky and Reality XP avionics? "Not planned", Jorg says. And the solution Jorg decided to use for weather (Meteoblue) doesn't work accurately, but it doesn't matter cause the clouds look soooo pretty!

They are also invited to improve the experience in MSFS? Navigraph have already released their navdata for MSFS, which addresses the navigational issues. Working Title is working on default avionics. HiFi told that they will use undocumented methods (like REX Weather Force uses) to inject their weather. While it will likely be limited, it will definitely not be more limited than X-Plane. Given that you are fine with your Active Sky experience in X-Plane, your standards for weather are not too high anyway, so you will be fine.

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

In the end, I'd like to clarify something. It seems to me that you and many people in this forum/thread are offended by me calling MSFS 2020 a game.

No, we are not. We are not annoyed by you calling MSFS a game, as a matter of fact it is. We are annoyed by the misinformation you spread and how you try to make MSFS out to be severely inaccurate or limited compared to other platforms when this is simply false.

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

I don't mean it in a negative, condescending way. I myself am a big video-gamer and regularly buy major game titles from Steam.

From your last 3 posts:

"Xboxey, gamey, twitchy, comedy, GTA 5"

"pretty little video-game rated 'E' for 'Everyone', PEGI 3"

"and now you are stuck with this scenery generator console game"

"comedy, gamey, arcade, twitchy and entertainment flight model that is hyper-optimized to be operated with Xbox video game controllers first and foremost"

Sure, you definitely don't 🤣 You are definitely not trying too hard to explain how inaccurate it is (which is factually incorrect) compared to other simulators by pouring in several gaming related terms, as if it being a video game has anything to do with how accurate it is.

Lastly, here is a recommendation, do not go with what commercial people says about simulators and form your own opinion by gaining required technical knowledge.

Here are ProSim developers' comments on X-Plane 11:

https://forum.prosim-ar.com/viewtopic.php?t=12986

"They want their simulators to be certified and whereas P3D can provide a positive alternative for that, Xplane, which is very different from those industry standards, usually makes that important step impossible.

Most probably apart from North Korea, no sane authority would certify a simulator that for some reason doesn't at all has THRUST modeled... Finding out the rest of the intricate differences, depends on the depth of your own research."

"Therefore you need to evaluate and layer the importance of certain aspects. Namely that what is more important to you in an airliner simulation?
1. Lights depictions in close proximity or the system simulation behind a given A/C?
2. Are those lights more important than weather, which is one of the worst part of X-Plane capabilities? Happy with the lights but at the same time lack proper and realistic AI traffic, ATC and the like?
3. Are you more interested in those close proximity lights than having a proper aerodynamic flight-model? X-Plane in relation with its flight-model is an admittedly experimental venture, as a matter of fact NOT capable of coming even close to other methods (regardless the stress upon how it is advertised), that make it possible to come extremely close to the real A/C's well known and well-measured numbers?
4. Are some individually lit pixels more important than having realistic landing or flying capabilities?"

"Should we go into even more detailed discussions about the technical reasons why flying ProSim with X-Plane would result in driving a Trabant with a BMW engine inside the paper-thin cardboard fuselage?"

Developing for X-Plane, I know that none of these is true. I guess some people's commercial interests are more important than telling the truth. How do you know that it is not the case with Reality XP and some others who say the same things ProSim says about X-Plane either? This is again why I recommend you to gain the required technical knowledge and form your own opinion based on your own experience with the SDK.

Edited August 13, 20214 yr by BiologicalNanobot

EvidencePlz: I’m CFI who chooses and bets on MSFS. I really don’t care if another CFI chooses other platforms as training aid . I can assure no one in professional aviation training world cares about P3D, XP or MSFS. Result is count on student pass rate not on which “realistic” platform they trained on. After all what is used in training up to CFI, flight school and etc.

Look at this from different angle - some company use Boeing, some Airbus. Which on is better? The one that makes money!
 

Just to be realistic. I haven’t seen  another CFI who uses  XP as integral part of his/her training. I presume  such CFIs do exist, but I haven’t met them yet!
 

All of that kiddie talk “my sim more realistic then your” is childish.  Everyone uses what fit their needs. Who cares which platform is someone’s favorite !
 

My philosophy is simple if someone is happy with XP11 there is absolutely no reason to come to MFS forum and contrast sims. Stay in your lane and be happy with your choice ! 🙂

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.  

11 minutes ago, bcuomo said:

And if MSFS is first and foremost an Xbox game as you say, why did the PC version come out almost a year earlier?

Wild guess: to lure simmers and get their money which was needed to sustain the additional year of development for the Xbox version?

Don't take this comment seriously, it is just to show one version released before another doesn't prove anything at all, both theories (yours and mine) are equally valid because they are just speculations!

1 hour ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Developing for X-Plane, I know that none of these is true. I guess some people's commercial interests are more important than telling the truth. How do you know that it is not the case with Reality XP and some others who say the same things ProSim says about X-Plane either?

Maybe it is because it is late here, and I don't have all my lucidity, but I really don't understand at all what it is you're trying to say about Reality XP. Can you please clarify?

Edited August 13, 20214 yr by RXP