Sign in to follow this  
Guest PPSFA

FSX airplane developers...heads up..

Recommended Posts

Outside of Eaglesoft, I have yet to find any other plane that works in multiplayer/shared cockpit, and its getting very frustrating, to the point I am no lomger buying addons unless they are verified to work in MPSC.Aces added what I consider ( and many others) to be the greatest step forward since Flight Sims inception, yet it seems that the addon developers are ignoring it, which makes no sense to me.They are releasing planes designed for 2 pilots, we now have the capability to share a cockpit, yet for the most part, none work.Developers, if you want my money, and I spend a LOT of it on FS, please ensure your planes are MPSC ready!If anyone knows of any planes working properly, please post here, I'll buy them in a heartbeat!Tks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Thanks for noticing:-)We work hard to make all of our FSX aircraft as feature rich as possible while trying to hold down costs as well:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers aren't ignoring it at all. While I appreciate Ron's ability to compliment himself (:() and I like his planes, it's non-trivial, as Phil would say, to have shared cockpit and advanced client side functionality at the same time.For example: If I have a FMC that I write for my plane, and it's run off a SimConnect client I write, that is all being run on the local users computer. There is no built in functionality in Flight Simulator to send that data to the connected Shared Cockpit player. Therefore, I can punch stuff into the simulator until I'm blue in the face, and the other guy won't see any of it.I'm not sure if they've come up with some new technique that I haven't thought of or heard of over at Eaglesoft, but it's not logical to say that because one devs planes is capable of something that everyone else is ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I haven't thought of or heard of over at Eaglesoft, but it's not logical to say that because one devs planes is capable of something that everyone else is ignoring it."We appreciate the poster noting our aircraft and their capabilities but agree that other developers are certainly capable of accomplishing what this user suggests they should do.As for "complimenting ourselves", the OP did that and we simply responded to a positive post. We know the general trend is often negative in forums so took the opportunity to add a positive:-)Hope this helps:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I have some clarification on what is meant by "non-trivial" and what relevance it has to this discussion?It would seem to me that in the very least if a developer advertises a plane as being FSX compatible and shared cockpit is an element of FSX than ................they should announce on their respective sites (on the front page-not buried in the forums) that the plane is non-functional in shared cockpit and therefore NOT truly FSX compatible allowing the consumer to make an informed choice.One can understand that the issue of programming FMS is obviously a difficult one in shared cockpit however that is not the only non-functional element present within many of these add-ons in shared cockpit.The AP is also dysfunctional in all but a few add-ons that are available.I also see no relevance in bringing Eaglesoft or Ron or any comment regarding him since this obviously detracts from the original issue which is..............Companies are developing planes that are not compatible with FSX or at the very least a major component of FSX and claiming compatibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just taking a jab at you, Ron. I'm a fan of the work you guys do, and I wish everyone took the same outlook as Eaglesoft on certain issues. :DNo harm done?Out of curiosity, on topic, does Eaglesoft specifically test or develop for shared cockpit compatibility, or is that just an element of how they run? I'm interested if you've run into areas where a feature has been pulled back or scrapped to avoid shared cockpit problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Just taking a jab at you, Ron. I'm a fan of the work you>guys do, and I wish everyone took the same outlook as>Eaglesoft on certain issues. :D>>No harm done?>>Out of curiosity, on topic, does Eaglesoft specifically test>or develop for shared cockpit compatibility, or is that just>an element of how they run? I'm interested if you've run into>areas where a feature has been pulled back or scrapped to>avoid shared cockpit problems.Of course no harm done and thanks for your kind words regarding our products.:-)The question of shared cockpit and simconnect can be bit of challenge not only for us but others as well...we attempt to provide the best in FSX compatibilty but are aware that there are some issues that may preclude those features being fully implimented.Hope this helps:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the reply, but let me clarify, I am not too concerned with the FMC, although for the most part it does work with the CJ I fly.The bigger issue it that unless planes are tested with shared cockpit, a lot of the 'basics' do not work. I see the gear up, the other player sees the gear down, AP not working for both, lights on for one and off for the other, etc, the list goes onI have just completed a 44 leg 'round the world' flight using the Citation CJ, and about 1/2 of the time I was flying in the same plane and sharing duties. We also tried numerous other planes that have been released for FSX, and have yet to find any other than Eaglesofts, who work properly. This isnt an endorsement of one, or a slam on others, simply a question as to why, if the default planes and one developer can get it right, why arent others following suit Regardless, I will continue to buy from those who get it right, and ignore those that don't, and I fly almost exclusively multiplayer now,, when flying for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Brian about shared cockpit. I think we're just going to have to wait until the next version for complex airliner support.Ron, the LSK debug was nice but fix the vc not loading all the time and the configurator not saving with the sr22 and I'll believe you about your "attempt to provide the *best* in FSX compatibility". There's also the widely reported non-stellar performance of the, however, not very complex hawker and liberty. It seems to me that you are in fact improving fsx compatibility as well as the quality with each release, but I question your level of support once the sales level off. Look to aeroworx's 2.2 king air patch for an example of how things should be done.That's all I want to say; I'm not going to fight with you anymore since I'm just another eaglesoft detractor to ignore and pretend to bully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I appreciate the reply, but let me clarify, I am not too>concerned with the FMC, although for the most part it does>work with the CJ I fly.>>The bigger issue it that unless planes are tested with shared>cockpit, a lot of the 'basics' do not work. I see the gear up,>the other player sees the gear down, AP not working for both,>lights on for one and off for the other, etc, the list goes>on>>I have just completed a 44 leg 'round the world' flight using>the Citation CJ, and about 1/2 of the time I was flying in the>same plane and sharing duties. We also tried numerous other>planes that have been released for FSX, and have yet to find>any other than Eaglesofts, who work properly. >>This isnt an endorsement of one, or a slam on others, simply a>question as to why, if the default planes and one developer>can get it right, why arent others following suit >>Regardless, I will continue to buy from those who get it>right, and ignore those that don't, and I fly almost>exclusively multiplayer now,, when flying for fun.>I admit that I haven't flown a lot of add-on planes for FSX, or for any other flight sims for that matter. I would assume that any time a feature doesn't work it's because it's not using the default system, for example, implementing it's own landing gear system. Personally, I can't see the point in this, if performance is as important to the developers, as adding systems on top of the built-in systems would add overhead.I'm not discounting the possibility that it could be bugged in shared cockpit, but it does seem more likely that it's a factor of added-on functionality. The trend I've noticed, based probably on the difficulty of programming for FS9 and prior, is to create complex hacks to the system to incorporate your own methods for doing everything. With SimConnect these days, it would probably be much more efficient to write your code to do the minimum amount of work and try to use the default systems whenever possibile. As long as you have a reasonable mesh to go along with that, you could work to lower your impact on FPS as well as increase compatability with shared cockpit.Long story short, if those basic functions aren't working, then yes, I agree that they should. If I were developing a plane (which I'd still like to do) I'd want it to be fully shared cockpit functional if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a good point, but a coder Im not, nor do I want to be. I simply want a product I purchase to work correctly in all aspects of the sim, since thats what its designed for. In my mind, developers not taking advantage of the MPSC feature is a huge mistake and is going to cost them not only money, but hard feelings, in the long run, as more players discover the multiplayer feature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Agree with Brian about shared cockpit. I think we're just>going to have to wait until the next version for complex>airliner support.>>Ron, the LSK debug was nice but fix the vc not loading all the>time and the configurator not saving with the sr22 and I'll>believe you about your "attempt to provide the *best* in FSX>compatibility". There's also the widely reported non-stellar>performance of the, however, not very complex hawker and>liberty. It seems to me that you are in fact improving fsx>compatibility as well as the quality with each release, but I>question your level of support once the sales level off. >>Look to aeroworx's 2.2 king air patch for an example of how>things should be done.>>That's all I want to say; I'm not going to fight with you>anymore since I'm just another eaglesoft detractor to ignore>and pretend to bully. Weenie, the subject of the post is simply Simmconnect/Shared cockpit features.As to the VC not loading and Configurator not saving...Have you posted either of these in our support forum? I see no reference from you or others on these issues?? As to user performance of individual products...we suspect you are aware that blanket statements aren't always correct. There a number of OS/machine/hardware/driver issues that contribute to performance for any user and any product and we certainly aren't going to rehash all the variables involved.That is not to say that we can't or won't improve our own products as we move forward:-)Henning is friend from way back and we can say that their Kingair is the best available and the patch was well done.:-)If you choose to be an Eaglesoft detractor that is of course your own business but we fail to understand why you would choose to do so..is there some personal gain you would receive??Hope this helps:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how I get serious people to say "weenie", especially when I'm being one.Ron, first, these forums do not belong to you. So if I choose to respond saying that I agree with Brian, but then also disagree with something about eaglesoft *you* actually added to the discussion (not me, remember), that is my own call, not yours.Anyway, the VC not loading is a sort of a quirk of the sr22 product. As was noted in your forums a while back by Bill I think, you need to load the 2d cockpit first, but with some variants other than the sunburst and silver gts (those I know for sure) this doesn't always work. The configurator doesn't save settings for me in either vista or xp with anything but the silver gts which is by default ready to go (so it could very well not be saving there either). Yes, I guess I should have brought that up in your forums, but I am certain it is not a latest installer, permissions, etc issue and kind of stopped caring after your attitude soured me on your products, to be honest. I chose to mention the other things here because of what you just said about fsx compatibility and mainly because I think you consistently exaggerate your efforts to support and please your customers. Besides, I've seen that your forums don't accommodate general complaints rather than minor bugs. You basically just tell people it's their system that's the problem and that your relatively modest system runs the add ons quite well - of course. As for the Hawker and Liberty, you must be kidding me with that user variable nonsense. Blanket statements aren't always correct, yet what I am saying is not a blanket statement but, as you said, about individual products. Some people are just okay with lower frame rates. The hawker is about as complex as the default lear and gets far worse performance. The liberty, which I don't have but felt pressed to cite, is widely reported (on these forums for instance) as having unusually low fps. An avidyne is one thing, but a simple model combined with a 530/430 and a vm1000, which is merely an electronic display of faux-analogue gauges along with a simple fadec... I wouldn't expect the performance to be near to or worse than the dreamfleet bonanza, which it apparently is. I hope that you rework the gauges of these aircraft, as you did the sr20 to get the 22, and give the hawker the better programming that is apparently in the cj1 and II.The personal gain I receive is pretty obvious: my being satisfied in undercutting your go-eaglesoft prating and exaggeration. That's all it is, I don't have any interest in flightsim market share or price points, to use your terminology. Okay, no more fighting, you get the last word this time if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You make a good point, but a coder Im not, nor do I want to>be. I simply want a product I purchase to work correctly in>all aspects of the sim, since thats what its designed for. In>my mind, developers not taking advantage of the MPSC feature>is a huge mistake and is going to cost them not only money,>but hard feelings, in the long run, as more players discover>the multiplayer featureFirst of all, the only things that "shared cockpit" will transmit/receive across the net are FSX default sim variables and commands. Period."Shared cockpit" cannot transmit "custom variables" or "custom commands" since it has no way of knowing in advance what - if any - will be used.Now, that said, it is entirely possible for a programmer to code a SimConnect client that will be configured during installation, and that - provided both parties have the same package - will allow the sharing of custom variables and commands for that specific release. It's simply more work for the programmer, and would also require a lot of testing/debugging during development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weenie, by your own admission you are and we quote: "I'm just another eaglesoft detractor"...We see this sort of attitude displayed from time to time in these and other forums and always scratch our heads wondering why folks like yourself feel the need to detract from us or other developers??To us it seems to be an odd pastime and can only surmise that detractors get some strange ego satisfaction out of posting half truths and accusing and smearing others??Oh well, it's a shame that folks have nothing better to do than try to bait someone into such fruitless discussion.Hope this helps:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called sarcasm, and you just proved my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am missing something here but........If I decide as first officer that I will set a pre flight altitude of 15000ft and I than select an IAS of say 310 than my 2nd officer should be able to see this and even to modify these conditions if I request it and in certain specific add-ons he/she is able to do so along with any other options that I would choose on the AP.and if I turn on the FD than I would expect from an add-on claiming to be FSX compatible that he/she would see that action or AP being activated or any one of many simple shared cockpit commands.If I input a flight plan into the GPS, switch to GPS and intend on flying that FP I expect that the 2nd officer when he/she opens the GPS will see that plan. What was raised here was that this is NOT HAPPENING with many many payware add-ons where even basic information is NOT being shared !!!!!In fact even worse are the cases where any attempt to share these common commands will cause uncontrollable flight behavior. It is one thing to discuss that certain levels of programming may be difficult or time consuming it is another to basically "dupe" people into believing that a product is something that it is not.No matter how anyone twists and turns in the wind or yells "hooray" "best thing since flush toilets" or "thankyou thankyou for your hard work" when a long awaited past "love of your life" is sold to you (or even given free in some cases)you and I, the consumers, are being cheated.Plain and simple.Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's called sarcasm, and you just proved my point.sarcasm n. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. Usually associated with egotistic folks who THINK they are being witty:-(Hope this helps:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Like somebody else in this thread has indicated, the shared cockpit (SC) features included in FSX are very limited and rather secretive at this time.Up until SP1 no-one even knew which variables were being shared over the SC concept until they were disclosed in the updated SDK ! And even now we don't really know HOW these are being shared, why do we not know ? Because MS isn't telling us !If you look at the list in the SDK you will notice that only very basic stuff (throttles, lights, landing gear) are shared between connections and 90% of what happens in FSX is NOT. Add to that, that almost every advanced FS panel doesn't use most of the standard FSX stuff but rather "creates" it's own electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, autopilot system etc... which isn't using standard FSX commands and variables at all or only partly. So basically this is the situation:- MS is not telling us how SC works- We have 1 list of variables that are shared over the SC system and this list is rather short- Many or most of the shared variables are NOT used by advanced panel builders or are used in a non-conventional way- Possibly SimConnect can be used to send data over a shared cockpit connection, apparently some people know how this works but most don't. Those who know will probably not share this with those who don't so they keep the competitive advantage (?)So while the user gets the impression that SC is a well developed standard feature in FS, in fact it isn't. It is a feature that only works with the basic aircraft and that has very limited capabilities. Just like basic FS aircraft don't have an FMC, a descent hydraulics system, any type of pneumatic system, a very very crappy fuel system, ....So what I guess most add-on builders did was try to get their panels to work in FSX (much of the gauge logic was broken from FS9 to FSX so even this "simple" step was a huge challenge) and forget about the SC stuff for now. Since probably only 1-5% of pilots are using SC at this time it doesn't make sense to postpone the release of an FSX update by several months while trying to figure out how SC works or while reinventing SC from the ground up. Once we know how SC works you will start to see the functionality being added, but I think this will take time.Bj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>It's called sarcasm, and you just proved my point.>>sarcasm n. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. >>Usually associated with egotistic folks who THINK they are>being witty:-(>>Hope this helps:-)>So what dictonary did you use?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm[q]Sarcasm from Greek (sarkasmos), 'mockery, sarcasm' is sneering, jesting, or mocking at a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound[1]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,Yes the Maddog people took the difficult route and developed SC from scratch, it also works in FS9. From what I have heard they did a great job !Bj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen the Maddog in action. I'm still waiting for the VC ;-) But I will get it, when they release the update. And I'm sure it will be worth the money ... only for the SC.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not want to come across as supporting one product over another since I don't see this forum as a place to do that.But in my opinion the main issue is still not being addressed.Accountability whether from ACES or some 3rd party developer is the issue here and it seems as though this factor is in very short supply when dealing with FSX.Every post which excuses accountability only adds to the confusion whether the post is technically based or not.Even here in this topic a user is now depressed about using SC in FSX due to a tech post thus missing out on a great experience and adding to the looooooooooong list of complaints about an excellent simulation while another thanks the poster which in fact only reiterates that "life is tough" and adds very little to the original topic.What difference does it make to the regular user that a developer has a hard time or not, does this than mean that we should excuse that developer or team from delivering a fully functional product.Why is it so hard to simply put an announcement on the purchase page that a product is not fully compatible and allow the consumer to make a choice.Here's a hint to ACES and others apologize first for obvious screw-ups than go on and explain what went wrong and why and do it in a language that everyone can understand.Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this