FSX airplane developers...heads up..

[Guest PPSFA]

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

[N400QW 205]

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:-)

[DadJokeCinema 145]

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.

[N400QW 205]

>"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:-)

[ramsa329 0]

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.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

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.

[N400QW 205]

>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:-)

[Guest PPSFA]

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.

[Guest weeniemcween]

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.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>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.

[Guest PPSFA]

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

[N400QW 205]

>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:)

[Guest weeniemcween]

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.

[n4gix 4,947]

>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.

[N400QW 205]

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:-)