6 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Such a rapid illustration of my recent post about worn out and silly clichés 😋. I forgot this one, the lack of aircraft worth flying in MSFS 🤣.  

I like detailed simulations. Nothing in MSFS approaches even remotely what addons like the HS Challenger, FSLabs, Leonardo Mad Dog, Majestic Q400 or Felis 747-200 can offer. 
 

The DC-6 is fine but I don’t often feel like true vintage flying.  
 

The Aerosoft CRJ is a total mess. The LNAV tries to kill you out of Innsbruck, the systems modeling is just fake “if… then…” logic with lots of flaws (unlike the actual simulated systems in the HS Challenger) and it’s still buggy as heck. 
 

Why we, as a community, insist on giving Aerosoft money for terrible products is a mystery to me. I’m glad I’ve finally stopped. 
 

I don’t blindly reject MSFS at all. I’ll happily fly it as soon as some decent addon is around. Maybe the incoming A320, who knows. 

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

DC Designs are developing a Concorde for MSFS. Here’s the link to what they admit is not a reference level aircraft.

Alternatively, there is the reference level FS Labs Concorde being developed for P3Dv5. But with no release date there’s a chance v6 will arrive first.

I’ve seen that. Not interested given the systems.  The FSLabs Concorde on the other hand… 🙂 

Edited February 5, 20224 yr by flycln

24 minutes ago, flycln said:

I like detailed simulations. 
 

We have different views on what we like to fly and what is a  detailed simulation. Thats ok and can open a field of interesting discussions. Saying that all aircraft in MSFS are garbage except the 6 is just not true and cannot lead but to a brawl 😉.

I won’t comment on the CRJ, I don’t have it and have no intention of getting it.

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Here’s the link to what they admit is not a reference level aircraft.

You could also pretty much make out an FMC in their Concorde screenshots, which I don't really get as they had an INS in their P3D/FSX version, and I (slightly?) doubt MSFS is unable to have a proper INS simulation.

On 1/25/2022 at 4:00 PM, B777ER said:

Another case of MSFS crushing the third party developer market for P3D but yet, their sim is in such a way that third party developers are having a horrid time getting aircraft of high system depth into it 19 months later. Thanks MS! 

 

one day people will release ms2020 was always going to be aimed and sold to young gamer kids who like farting about, and not old farts like us who like to fly tuber liners and take it a bit more seriously.

Theres just no money in "serious simmers" we learnt this years and years ago when they did a runner from fsx.  Its not rocket science, it really isnt.  

Microsoft are here to make as much money as they can from "gamers"  not "simmers"  theres a HUGE difference between the 2.

 to give you an example as of 21.45z tonight.

there is 250 people watching some old dude on twitch playing ms2020 using the ms2020 neo , which is bag of junk.

there is 1757 watching some young buck playing The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special Edition  (whatever that is)

There is 8,669  watching some other kid playing Fortnight 

This is not a hard concept to grasp.  Money. 

Edited February 5, 20224 yr by fluffyflops

1 hour ago, arwasairl said:

You could also pretty much make out an FMC in their Concorde screenshots, which I don't really get as they had an INS in their P3D/FSX version, and I (slightly?) doubt MSFS is unable to have a proper INS simulation.

Concorde had 3 INS systems for enhanced accuracy. That looks like a placeholder in the image you showed. I don’t have MSFS but if aircraft can navigate with a GPS system I imagine that’s what will be used.

I imagine the reason for not having an INS is because the SDK is incomplete.

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I imagine the reason for not having an INS is because the SDK is incomplete.

There aren't any SDK issues that would prevent someone from coding an INS in MSFS. 

14 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

There aren't any SDK issues that would prevent someone from coding an INS in MSFS. 

Then I presume it’s for other reasons the developer hasn’t revealed. Cost perhaps given the price is a fraction of the anticipated price of the FSL Concorde.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I imagine the reason for not having an INS is because the SDK is incomplete.

This is not accurate.  Aside from a weather radar which requires data from the MSFS engine, whatever the 3rd party dev wants to do with their systems in MSFS, they can do it and there are no limitations.  This has been verified by Iceman, the lead developer of the FBW A320.  And it’s also further backed by the coming Fenix A320.  From what I understand, the systems logic in MSFS can be executed in an external process, like Fenix is using.

The catch is that such an architecture that uses an external process to emulate systems cannot be sold on XBox, because of XBox’s sandbox.  So that’s why FBW will not release the A320 on XBox, and the same for Fenix,

Ray, since you are a moderator, I hope you can pass around this information in the future to help educate people on the capabilities of MSFS, since we hold you to higher standards because you are a mod, compared to other posters. If need be, I can find you the direct quote from Iceman from the FBW team who says this, Let me know if you want the direct quote from Iceman.

TLDR: For products targeted for PC only and not Xbox, there are no systems limitations with the MSFS SDK, aside from the weather radar.

@abrams_tank, thank you for confirming the MSFS SDK is now sufficiently developed to allow the integration of features previously unavailable albeit unavailable to users of the XBox.

Since this is the P3D forum and I don’t own - or plan to buy - MSFS I’ll leave it to others to pass on the information you have provided to the relevant place - the MSFS forum here at AvSim.

It would be hard if not impossible for me to educate MSFS owners when I don’t possess it. You appear to be the ideal candidate. Not being a moderator is no bar to educating fellow members. 😉

41 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@abrams_tank, thank you for confirming the MSFS SDK is now sufficiently developed to allow the integration of features previously unavailable albeit unavailable to users of the XBox.

Since this is the P3D forum and I don’t own - or plan to buy - MSFS I’ll leave it to others to pass on the information you have provided to the relevant place - the MSFS forum here at AvSim.

It would be hard if not impossible for me to educate MSFS owners when I don’t possess it. You appear to be the ideal candidate. Not being a moderator is no bar to educating fellow members. 😉

No worries.  Anyways, for those who are interested, here is the source quote from Iceman, the lead developer of the FBW A320:

Quote

There is absolutely nothing regarding the SDK that presents a blocking issue to aircraft development besides a custom weather radar API.

I can say that with 95% certainty having worked with aircraft development in MSFS for nearly a year and a half, and having spoken to numerous other devs and with Asobo developers themselves. Although we primarily use HTML gauges at FBW, we also use WASM gauges for systems and autopilot/fly-by-wire, the same technology that payware aircraft use for all of their code. And if Aerosoft is able to put out the CRJ as a complete product (with the exception of WX & terrain radar), I don't see why others cannot do the same.

So to emulate any systems for aircraft products that target the PC and not X-Box, the MSFS SDK has always been complete from day 1 (aside from the weather radar).  The Fenix team always knew that the MSFS SDK was capable for their needs since 2020, and that's why they were able to proceed with their A320 project.  The limitations and dependency on the MSFS SDK kick in for aircraft products that target the X-Box (ie. PMDG want to release their 737 on the X-Box, so PMDG is more reliant on the MSFS SDK than Fenix is).  Regarding PMDG, I believe they have surpassed the last of their hurdles with the MSFS SDK, so it's very likely the PMDG 737 will have all of its capabilities on the X-Box version as well, so the MSFS SDK should be comprehensive enough now (minus the weather radar), even for the X-Box (however, due to sandbox issues, Microsoft still needs to patch the X-Box so that the PMDG DC-6 and PMDG 737 can be released on the X-Box).

Edited February 6, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

This is not accurate.  Aside from a weather radar which requires data from the MSFS engine, whatever the 3rd party dev wants to do with their systems in MSFS, they can do it and there are no limitations.  This has been verified by Iceman, the lead developer of the FBW A320.  And it’s also further backed by the coming Fenix A320.  From what I understand, the systems logic in MSFS can be executed in an external process, like Fenix is using.

The catch is that such an architecture that uses an external process to emulate systems cannot be sold on XBox, because of XBox’s sandbox.  So that’s why FBW will not release the A320 on XBox, and the same for Fenix,

Ray, since you are a moderator, I hope you can pass around this information in the future to help educate people on the capabilities of MSFS, since we hold you to higher standards because you are a mod, compared to other posters. If need be, I can find you the direct quote from Iceman from the FBW team who says this, Let me know if you want the direct quote from Iceman.

TLDR: For products targeted for PC only and not Xbox, there are no systems limitations with the MSFS SDK, aside from the weather radar.

Understand wanting to clarify a point.  I'm not sure why it seems so important to you over in a p3d forum to clarify though.  Look at it this way.  When the aircraft arrive people will no longer be able to make these claims.  yet at the same time, until they do arrive it's natural these claims will be made in forums.  Either way this thread isn't about having to defend the honor of MSFS.  Everyone here either already uses both sims, or has no interest whatsoever in MSFS.  right?

10 minutes ago, micstatic said:

Understand wanting to clarify a point.  I'm not sure why it seems so important to you over in a p3d forum to clarify though.  Look at it this way.  When the aircraft arrive people will no longer be able to make these claims.  yet at the same time, until they do arrive it's natural these claims will be made in forums.  Either way this thread isn't about having to defend the honor of MSFS.  Everyone here either already uses both sims, or has no interest whatsoever in MSFS.  right?

Yeah, but it helps to pass around accurate information, IMO.  I would want accurate information about P3D or XP as well, even in the MSFS forum, in case I want to purchase those products one day.

I don't think it's helpful to pass around inaccurate information, regardless of of the forum, IMO. This goes not only for Avsim, but any forum on the internet, IMO.

7 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Anyways, for those who are interested, here is the source quote from Iceman, the lead developer of the FBW A320:

There are a few “if's“ and “when's“ in that statement, so, personally, I would take it with a grain of salt.

@abrams_tank, you really need to post a new topic in the MSFS forum with that link. It’s unlikely to be read in this forum.

17 minutes ago, d.tsakiris said:

There are a few “if's“ and “when's“ in that statement, so, personally, I would take it with a grain of salt.

Then you can wait a few months.  As Mic said above, when the airliners arrive like PMDG and Fenix, we will know for sure.