So at the last Twitch Q&A, Jorg made some very interesting comments. As you may know, Jorg represents Microsoft, and is the de facto lead of MSFS. It is Jorg that reports to the executives at Microsoft, and it's likely that Jorg also reports to the CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella.  Well, in the last Twitch Q&A, Jorg says that Microsoft/Asobo is tied to the major companies that make aircraft, including the big companies and smaller companies.  Jorg also says most of the world's aircraft manufacturers have taken notice about the accuracy of MSFS and that more would be said about this later:

"More will be said about this later."  Hmm.  In those few sentences, I was getting the idea that there is interest from Jorg/Microsoft in the commercial market, that they have been exploring the commercial market, especially if they have been talking to the aircraft manufacturers.

So what features is MSFS missing to enter the commercial market? Rob Ainscough made a list of features that MSFS is still missing to enter the commercial market:

• Multi-view/Multi-monitor support (not NVsurround or equvilant) which is important for a 360 degree experience and to operate GNS/GTN/FMC on separate displays.
• Multi-channel support with genlock - this is where you can have multiple computers operating displays that are frame sync'd with genlock device (master server with client servers) which means the ability to run many displays at 60Hz/60 FPS
• PDK with lower level access to Simulator features (Prepar3d Development Kit)
• SimDirector (build scenarios)
• CIGI (Common Image Generator Interface) that allows on to run their own graphics rendering engine while still using the P3D underlying platform for aircraft simulation
• DIS (Distributed Interactive Simulation) which is an IEEE standard from communication exchange for networking multi-user environments to communicate state information of objects/events primarily used in scenario management
•  A combat system
• FAA certification

For multi monitor support, this is is a feature that is already scheduled to be worked on, within the next year or two.  For FAA certification, I think it was Matt from Working Title (or another developer from Working Title) who mentioned if Microsoft wanted to get MSFS FAA certified, they could go through the steps and paperwork, and likely could get MSFS certified.  Having said that, I'm curious how much work, or man hours, the other features would require. In addition, I assume if Microsoft were planning to enter the commercial market, Microsoft and Asobo could work on the features needed to enter the commercial market in secret, so nobody would know about it, until Microsoft officially announced MSFS's entry into the commercial market (so just because we don't hear about it, it doesn't mean they aren't working on it secretly in the background).

In addition, Microsoft signed the agreement with Lockheed Martin over 10 years ago.  If there was an agreement by Microsoft not to enter the commercial market and vice versa for Lockheed Martin not to enter the home consumer entertainment market when they signed that agreement, I doubt the agreement would go beyond 10 years.  

In any case, if there is $$$ to be made, Microsoft will be there.  There is $$$ to be made in the commercial market and I can't see Jorg/Microsoft not considering the commercial market in the future, in some form or manner.  It could be a direct entry by Microsoft with MSFS into the commercial market at some point, or it could be Microsoft licensing the MSFS engine for a 3rd party to build upon in order to enter the commercial market (ie. just like FSX ESP).  The bottom line is, if there is $$$ to be made, Microsoft will be there, even if it takes another few years.

Edited February 3, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

Very interesting hypothesis, but I wonder what would happen to the MS/LM licensing arrangement if MS were to decide to get into the commercial market. Would that arrangement be terminated or modified in some way as to ensure that LM did not compete with MS? Would that be the end of P3D?

When ESP was licensed to LM, FSX was about five years old and the development team had been laid off. MS has indicated that they consider MSFS to be a decadal product. Lots of moving parts here. Lots.

I'm confused, I thought Microsoft was targeting the "hardcore simmer market".😄

Great thread with mentioned good things.

MS/Asobo need to enhance the SDK/Simconnect as I have pointed out multiple times. 

Here what at least is needed for home/commercial cockpit trainers

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/enhanced-api-to-access-all-aircraft-state-and-trigger-all-cockpit-functions/454608

- - - 

Regarding multi channel : here I use WidevieW. It costs about 50 euros instead of the P3D Professional Pro version of $ 2500.

Multi monitor support is needed to incl NVsurround fisheye correction.

 

 

Edited February 3, 20224 yr by GSalden

I honestly couldn't care less about FAA certification or "envolvment" with RW manufacturers - that most of the time translates mostly into marketing hype...

All I want apart from the already great scenery and overall graphics, are believable flight and physics modelling.

So far it's not close to my expectations, yet, but from their letest Q&A Twitch things might change with the upcoming Sim Updates, namely what Sebastien mentioned about propwash effects and wash effects as a whole...

OFC I believe the aircraft geometric / 3d models should also be made more powerful in order to properly reflect the impact of the placement of some surfaces, and at least until now the 3d model is way tto myope to translate into the sim some basic characteristics of the real aircraft, not to mention that, for instance, muiti-wing / vstab  aircraft can't be properly represented... as well as aircraft with non-symmetrical designs, etc...

As others mentioned, another area which lacks is the SDK. They need to add to it many features that had long been available fro previous versions of the sim, and introduce further specific variables to make possible the modelling of the new characteristics they mention, more in-depth systems modelling and so on...

So, I give MFS the benefit of the doubt, but that's all...

Edited February 3, 20224 yr by jcomm

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Jorg says that Microsoft/Asobo is tied to the major companies that make aircraft, including the big companies and smaller companies.  Jorg also says most of the world's aircraft manufacturers have taken notice about the accuracy of MSFS

I heard that too but I had a thought that he talked about licensing aircraft models as commercial developers need to do to make an aircraft for a simulator.

So much click bait posts by this user that it's becoming to look like a paid promotion 🤣

TL;DR speculations and wishful thinking.

17 minutes ago, bvdboomen said:

I heard that too but I had a thought that he talked about licensing aircraft models as commercial developers need to do to make an aircraft for a simulator.

Yeah, but if you watch the video, the context of Jorg mentioning he is in contact with all the major companies that make aircraft, was around how the aircraft manufacturers felt about the accuracy of MSFS's flight model.  

The context had nothing to do with liveries.  

41 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Very interesting hypothesis, but I wonder what would happen to the MS/LM licensing arrangement if MS were to decide to get into the commercial market. Would that arrangement be terminated or modified in some way as to ensure that LM did not compete with MS? Would that be the end of P3D?

Like I said, it's reasonable that they had a 10 year agreement where they don't compete with each other.  I doubt any agreement would go beyond 10 years though because business conditions change all the time and that's a huge potential revenue loss for Microsoft if they stay out of the commercial market forever, especially if Microsoft wanted to make another flight simulator in the future (ie. MSFS).  The agreement was around 2008 or 2009, right?  More than 10 years has passed already.

30 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Yeah, but if you watch the video, the context of Jorg mentioning he is in contact with all the major companies that make aircraft, was around how the aircraft manufacturers felt about the accuracy of MSFS's flight model.  

The context had nothing to do with liveries.  

They'de better had to do with liveries, because as far as flight dynamics goes.... Mehhhhh

Liveries can look great though !

BUT! Again what Sebastien showed in that Twitch is VERY tempting, and it refreshed / relighted my hopes in MFS !!!

 

Edited February 3, 20224 yr by jcomm

Good on them. Anything to forward MicroS/Asobo to get the SDK along as far as possible so that third party add-on developers can churn out the apps/add-ons we all want to get things like proper ATC working to the Nth degree. If commercial folk utilize MSFS in some way profitable to MSFS I don't see where we simmers also don't profit from a better and further developed product. 

United001

49 minutes ago, jcomm said:

They'de better had to do with liveries, because as far as flight dynamics goes.... Mehhhhh

Yeah well they'd know better than you. Very likely that when you say "Mehhhhh", they say "WOW!".

Reading some of the comments here, it is beyond me how people can see Microsoft and a big pile of $$$ within MS' range, and call the idea that MS be at least thoroughly eyeing said pile of $$$ "speculations and wishful thinking".

Of course they are targeting commercial as well. They'd be word not allowed stupid if they didn't.

1 minute ago, rka said:

Reading some of the comments here, it is beyond me how people can see Microsoft and a big pile of $$$ within MS' range, and call the idea that MS be at least thoroughly eyeing said pile of $$$ "speculations and wishful thinking".

Of course they are targeting commercial as well. They'd be word not allowed stupid if they didn't.

Have you ever heard of MS FLIGHT ?

5 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Have you ever heard of MS FLIGHT ?

But MS Flight was not really targeting realism, based on what I have seen of the product and videos of it.

All along, MSFS has been targeting realism, the same way FSX was targeting realism.  Granted, MSFS still has some work to be done to become even more realistic, but they are working on it and it's clear from the Twitch Q&As, that's the direction they want to head.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if one day, they announced MSFS was entering the commercial market, either directly, or indirectly via leasing the MSFS engine.  

Entering the commercial market is not new for Microsoft. They did it before with FSX ESP.  It's entirely reasonable that Microsoft attempts it again with MSFS.