50 minutes ago, Cognita said:

I doubt they are a large team and over the past few years they seem to have been focused on contracts for the military, that likely are demanding and rewarding, both in terms of the product and funding. I rarely flew GA in P3D, but when I did the Comanche was the aircraft I flew by far the most. Looking forward to seeing what they bring to MSFS.

Yes, I think this is the reason. A2A, like any company, just goes where the $$$ is. And they probably got a lot of money from the military, or other private contracts. For some of the planes they could release in MSFS, I don’t think it matters as much if they release it later.

A2A’s position is not the same as FSLabs, where FSLabs was really in a race  with Fenix to release the A320 n MSFS.  A2A can afford to bide their time in MSFS, whereas FSLabs could not.

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

From what I could get out of that post @ A2A they are aiming for a kind of "external" fm, using an adapted "accusim" for MFS.

This means they do not want to depend on the default FM offered with MFS, nor on it's dynamic characteristics that can bring new features but break compatibility with previous work. 

I confess I never like that much add-ons for any platform that relly on external flight dynamics. I do accept external systems simulation, but when it comes to aerodynamics I always think it can bring some sort of "out-of-sync" situations ...

Let's wait and see though...

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by jcomm

5 hours ago, Muwarr90 said:

Maybe A2A can earn my interest back. I hope they can.

Are you interested in an Aerostar 600 developed by A2A?

https://a2asimulations.com/2020/07/23/a2a-simulations-fs2020-p3d-and-the-aerostar/

6 minutes ago, polosim said:

Are you interested in an Aerostar 600 developed by A2A?

https://a2asimulations.com/2020/07/23/a2a-simulations-fs2020-p3d-and-the-aerostar/

I think that project has been abandoned. The Aerostar owned by Scott at A2A was written off in a forced landing some time ago.

29 minutes ago, jcomm said:

From what I could get out of that post @ A2A they are aiming at a kind of "external" fm, using an adapted "accusim" for MFS.

This means they do not want to depend on the default FM offered with MFS, nor on it's dynamic characteristics that can bring new features but break compatibility with previous work. 

I confess I never like that much add-ons for any platform that relly on external flight dynamics. I do accept external systems simulation, but when it comes to aerodynamics I always think it can bring some sort of "out-of-sync" situations ...

Let's wait and see though...

Yes, you can do a lot more with MSFS if you bypass the MSFS SDK and run things in an external process.  That's what Fenix is doing. 

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

6 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

You can do a lot more with MSFS if you bypass the MSFS SDK and run things in an external process.  That's what Fenix is doing. 

Yes, and somehow PMDG and FBW do that too, but systems wise, not really FM-wise...

All of my experiences with simulator add-ons, in any of the platforms I ever used, with th exception of ELITE IFT, were rather deceptive in terms of end result.

I remember the acclaimed Q-400 for fsx, which I bought ay 1 but never really appreciated for it's "flight" characteristics. Same applies to a few add-ons for X-Plane, and for instance with the Bell 47 for MFS. 

It is the integration that fails for me, specially when it comes to weather - making the weather from the core sim be correctly dealt with by the external flight model engine.

Fénix uses native MFS FM and even engine models. 

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by jcomm

I suspect if you asked everyone on this forum what developer, more than any other, would they like to see release a plane for MSFS, then 99% would say A2A!

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by Rockliffe

Judging by the levels of anticipation here and elsewhere ever since MSFS was released, I am 100% certain that most of you will be disappointed if and when A2A do release something. I only know them from FSX and I can't see what they could do for MSFS which would be anywhere near as amazing and ground-breaking as what they did for FSX. I'm sure they will produce a great addon but unless they can bring smellivision to Accusim, I don't think it will be better than what we already have from other developers. 

Those with the negative comments toward A2A are part of the minority. If an A2A airplane is released, that one will be the flavor of the month. If customers were willing to pay and wait two years for a PMDG 737, GA flyers are going to go crazy when A2A releases their first GA for MSFS.

It's evident by this thread.

A2A planes have been awesome and unmatched. However they don't release anything since when? 4 years? Doubts are legitimate in my opinion. 

 

11 minutes ago, DJJose said:

Those with the negative comments toward A2A are part of the minority. If an A2A airplane is released, that one will be the flavor of the month. If customers were willing to pay and wait two years for a PMDG 737, GA flyers are going to go crazy when A2A releases their first GA for MSFS.

It's evident by this thread.

Oh it's evident they will buy it for sure, as will I. I just don't think it will be as earth shatteringly amazing as the majority seem to be expecting. There is a bit of 'ice cream was better when I was a kid' going on here. 

5 minutes ago, 6297J said:

 

Oh it's evident they will buy it for sure, as will I. I just don't think it will be as earth shatteringly amazing as the majority seem to be expecting. There is a bit of 'ice cream was better when I was a kid' going on here. 

We are not expecting ground breaking technology. Just an A2A for FSX. What we remember as A2A in our new & amazing" platform.

For me, that will be good enough and I'm confident that this will be the case with A2A's first release for MSFS.

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by DJJose

7 minutes ago, DJJose said:

We are not expecting ground breaking technology. Just an A2A for FSX. What we remember as A2A in our new & amazing" platform.

For me, that will be good enough and I'm confident that this will be the case with A2A's first release for MSFS.

We or me? Who are you speaking for? 

I'm sure it will be very good. I'm also sure there will be a lot of 'they're not as good as they used to be' posts if one tiny element is missing or wrong. If we are lucky it will be as good as what we have had in the last two or three months. 

21 minutes ago, 6297J said:

We or me? Who are you speaking for? 

Me and everyone else who is just like me. Everyone here who is looking forward to an A2A GA. Me and the person right next to me. 🤪

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Yes, you can do a lot more with MSFS if you bypass the MSFS SDK and run things in an external process.  That's what Fenix is doing. 

True but, he was referring mainly to the Flight modeling.

Don't know if Fenix has a custom flight model that runs externally too, or it's just for system modeling, but regarding the flight model, the only simulator that is designed to have its flight model driven by a custom simulation, which can be either internal or external, is P3D, which has several features to deal with that, such as the External Sim feature ( now deprecated in favor of the SimObject API, but still available ), the ability to create a completely new SimObject class driven by fully custom code without using an external module, so it's very high performing ( the SimObject API ), and the special "Syncronous Simconnect" calls, that can be used to be sure your code is synchronized with the simulation, which of course means you can slow down the whole sim if you are not careful.

None of this is available in MSFS, which doesn't make exactly easy to replace the Flight model.

There has been some discussion on the MSFS developers forum, here:

https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/questions/3955/wasm-flight-model-replacing-game-flight-model.html

the topic is clearly important to many 3rd party developers and, the last reply from Asobo was:

Quote

As for custom flight models, there is still no intention at this moment to allow third-party developers to create them, as has been officially stated in the past. Of course this may change at some point in the future.

I understand that some people have been using SimConnect as a workaround - while this can look like a viable option right now, please note that it might not be future-proof.

The whole thread started because it was noted the Volocopter uses a WASM module using Simconnect for its custom flight model so, later replies from Eric (developer at Asobo), was that, when saying "It might not be future-proof", he was referring to external .EXE replacing flight model through Simconnect, now WASM modules.

So, right now, the custom flight model situation, according to Asobo, is as follows:

- There's no officially supported method to replace the flight model. But this might change at any time in the future.

- Some developers did that through Simconnect, but it's considered as a workaround and, not future-proof if done through external .EXE

- Asobo themselves used a custom flight model in the Volocopter, by means of a WASM module, also using Simconnect.

So, it's not entirely clear why the distinction between an external EXE using Simconnect to replace the flight model vs a WASM module. It is likely because they know WASM, running inside the sim, might have less overhead and less synchronization issues compared to an external .EXE, but that's just a guess.

Edited May 23, 20224 yr by virtuali