Released: MilViz Porter for MSFS2020

[Deimos 45]

15 minutes ago, Milviz said:

The service only checks for validation of the product whilst in use   It’s otherwise not used  

And it constantly communicates with your servers then? If so this may be an avenue of attack onto my system. Your servers get compromised and I have a program on service level running on my machine, that can be misused. Is it run with user or admin rights? If the former that would do a lot to alleviate concerns. Could you please elaborate on that fact? That would be much appreciated.

[kaosfere 3,115]

17 minutes ago, 6297J said:

At first I kept the NXI installed and the only thing I noticed in a quick flight was a bug in the AP altitude being stuck at 99,999 which I didn't fancy climbing to.

That sounds like it's the same alt slot issue that's made it tricky for some folks to use external hardware.   I can't say from that description precisely what the problem in this particular model is, but if the MilViz folks look at the instructions we've provided on our known issues page to users who're having that problem it might give them a workaround, too.    Or folks can just wait until SU6, at which point the core sim will have an enhancement that means that's no longer needed.

As for the engine pages, I'm not quite sure what the issue there is.  But we want to get it working, too.  I'd been planning to purchase this for my own personal use, and when I do that I can have a look what's going on, though if one of the folks at MilViz wants to reach back out to us it could help that along.   The final note I'll give there is that the EIS is definitely something that's still a little raw in the NXi, but it's currently receiving active work to bring it fully up to snuff.  (The just released 0.7.0, for example, adds a new gauge type and the support for lean and system pages.)   Hopefully any remaining issues should be fixed soon, but of course I can't make any precise promises as to timeline.

Fortunately it sounds like the issues using the NXi with this are fairly minor and not true obstacles to enjoying it, especially if the alt slot mixup is fixed.   But I can definitely understand why a developer would feel the need to hedge on compatibility so as not to make their own product look sub-par when faced with external EA issues.   🙂

Edited September 24, 2021 by kaosfere

[Milviz 919]

I believe that Jim (lead dev on this) has been in touch with Matt on this already.  I will ask him when he’s up.  
 

The service is at user level and is only, again, sending and reviving a code validation much like steam does.  If it’s not there and using the serial code given by the purchaser, the product(s) won’t work.  

We’d love to be able to use the P3D method as that was/is not as “invasive” but… we’re locked out.   
 

 

[Matchstick 1,886]

Just now, Milviz said:

I believe that Jim (lead dev on this) has been in touch with Matt on this already.  I will ask him when he’s up.  
 

The service is at user level and is only, again, sending and reviving a code validation much like steam does.  If it’s not there and using the serial code given by the purchaser, the product(s) won’t work.  

We’d love to be able to use the P3D method as that was/is not as “invasive” but… we’re locked out.   
 

 

Why are you using a service rather than an application (and if you need the application to autorun adding it to simconnect exe.xml)  ?

[Milviz 919]

Because external applications aren’t allowed. Same as network access.  
 

We tried many possible solutions but given the restrictions, this was decided as the best balance.  
 

if you have suggestions, we’re all ears.  Please contact us directly using DM 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Milviz

[kaosfere 3,115]

19 minutes ago, Milviz said:

I believe that Jim (lead dev on this) has been in touch with Matt on this already.  I will ask him when he’s up.

Sounds good.   I talked about it briefly with Matt late last night and he mentioned issues with the KAP, but not engine pages.  I'll cross-check with him when my day gets fully started, too.  🙂

Edited September 24, 2021 by kaosfere

[Milviz 919]

Thanks much!

[Deimos 45]

25 minutes ago, Milviz said:

The service is at user level and is only, again, sending and reviving a code validation much like steam does

Thank you for your reply. What bothers me the most about stuff like this is that I get drawn into a conflict I am no part of. My system security gets lowered because someone else steals from you. Not trying to troll or anything. Just trying to explain, why this is still a little bit of an issue for me. I see your reasoning, I am just sad that I am the one having to bear the burden for someone elses doing.

I thank you for your openness though. You could just have said nothing about it. Putting it right there in the product description was the right move!

Edited September 24, 2021 by Deimos

[Pochi 68]

Hi,

Isn’t the G1000 Nxi using integrated GFC700 autopilot ? I would have thought the KAP140 is not needed if Nxi is installed in the aircraft.

Pierre

[Matchstick 1,886]

24 minutes ago, Milviz said:

Because external applications aren’t allowed. Same as network access.  
 

We tried many possible solutions but given the restrictions, this was decided as the best balance.  
 

if you have suggestions, we’re all ears.  Please contact us directly using DM 

Sorry I don't follow - a service is an external application in the sense that it's running outside of the MSFS sandbox, so why can you communicate with the service and not with with something run by the user?

[Republic3D 1,229]

I've been doing a few takeoffs and landings now and I'm really happy with it!

- Beautiful model, textures, everything.
- It's a very complete aircraft even in "stage 1"
- Seems rather complex with just about every switch working
- Love the tablet with the loading / unloading as well as chocks, tie downs etc. 
- Very easy on the frame rates for me.

A few tips:
- Remove or uninstall the G1000 mods / addons you have (The one integrated seems to work great)
- Turn off Aircraft Stress Damage and Engine Stress Damage under Accessibility menu, so you can open skydiving door during flight 
- Follow the integrated check lists. Very useful.

[Republic3D 1,229]

This is a very complete aircraft as it is now. I highly recommend it. 

And if you decide to wait until Stage 2, you'll have to pay the full price. Those who buy it now gets the free upgrade. And it's very worth the current price. 

[Milviz 919]

7 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Sorry I don't follow - a service is an external application in the sense that it's running outside of the MSFS sandbox, so why can you communicate with the service and not with with something run by the user?

If you want to know more, you’d have to speak with the devs who developed this.  I’m not that person.  
 

Forums for that on our site…

[Fielder 3,645]

7 minutes ago, Republic3D said:

Which level in order to fight this Boss?

[fppilot 4,355]

9 hours ago, MattNischan said:

I don't think the MSFS team misunderstands any such thing. It's one of the big reasons why we were brought on board: to make the default avionics great. 🙂

-Matt

Matt.  I respect that. What I wrote was not intended to be relevant to WT.  WT is the bright star in the sky.  Your NXi in particular is a huge step forward and I am fully enjoying it. The NXi and SU5 w/HFs have brought MSFS to life for me and I am fully appreciative of your presence and efforts.  No question.  For my point of discussion it is key to recognize that you were indeed brought on board.  Brought on board well into MSFS development. And that after your excellent initiative. You deserved to be brought on board.

What I wrote was based on the fact that none of the aircraft models I mentioned have employed glass panels. So that adds to the design challenges for their MSFS models if they choose to go in that direction.  Those models in previous simulators were adapted to more fully modeled GNSs and GTNs.  And even today the GTN and GNS available for MSFS fall woefully short of those previously available.  The welcome advances made to-date in those for MSFS have also been accomplished by 3rd parties.  

We have already seen the need for aircraft model developers to update their MSFS products. In some notable cases those updates have come slowly.  I doubt seriously that they have any eagerness to release models followed by the need to pour additional cost and resources into continuously updating those models.  So I suspect they may be waiting it out.  Waiting for the dust to settle.