On 10/8/2024 at 8:13 AM, JBDB-MD80 said:

Sorry Damien but it is not MS and Asobo  fault to keep your business open.

I'll fix that for ya :

"sorry Damien but it's the corporate legal policy of MS and Asobe to veto any attempt by respected and well supported 3rd party developers to produce addons using superior code to the default base install that improve the flight simulation experience to the level it existed at in previous sims ." 

10 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

"sorry Damien but it's the corporate legal policy of MS and Asobe to veto any attempt by respected and well supported 3rd party developers to produce addons using superior code to the default base install that improve the flight simulation experience to the level it existed at in previous sims ." 

If you're actually being serious then that statement implies MS/Asobo would be pretty much against any add-on since most of them improve upon the default simulation experience (aircraft addons being a very obvious example). The fact that they haven't opened up write access to their weather system in the SDK is not something nefarious or intentional in order to prevent "superior code" that could "improve the flight simulation experience". The answer likely is one or more of: a) that not being high enough a priority for them with respect to their entire backlog, b) technical/architectural hurdles due to the client/server nature of MSFS, and/or c) legal/license related issues with Meteoblue.

What the answer is very likely *not* however is they are trying to prevent add-ons from improving the simulation experience. In fact it's in their interest that *any* type of add-ons are possible and can be created since ultimately it improves the MSFS experience, and possibly also MS/Asobo's income stream if said addons are in the marketplace.
 

Edited October 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

What the answer is very likely *not* however is they are trying to prevent add-ons from improving the simulation experience. In fact it's in their interest that *any* type of add-ons are possible and can be created since ultimately it improves the MSFS experience, and possibly also MS/Asobo's income stream if said addons are in the marketplace.

 

I can guarantee you they are loosing revenue;  and lots of it; because they have left out marketplace a good number of devs.

Edited October 9, 20241 yr by Marc22

8 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

What the answer is very likely *not* however is they are trying to prevent add-ons from improving the simulation experience. In fact it's in their interest that *any* type of add-ons are possible and can be created since ultimately it improves the MSFS experience, and possibly also MS/Asobo's income stream if said addons are in the marketplace.

So how would you explain the hostile attitude towards e.g. Atmos and AutoFPS on the official forum then? If you’re correct in your assumptions there’s a huge discrepancy between MS/Asobo official standpoints and that of the community managers.

Edited October 10, 20241 yr by Cpt_Piett

49 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

So how would you explain the hostile attitude towards e.g. Atmos

Based on what others have said, it violates the Terms of Service. If this is indeed the case, then it is completely understandable why they do not want that topic discussed on their site. No company would want such products or the discussion of such products on their site if it violates TOS. It's really simple, discuss it elsewhere. 

 

1 hour ago, brinx said:

Based on what others have said, it violates the Terms of Service. If this is indeed the case, then it is completely understandable why they do not want that topic discussed on their site. No company would want such products or the discussion of such products on their site if it violates TOS. It's really simple, discuss it elsewhere. 

 

I'm confused as to why people are still struggling to understand this, it's very very clear.

I'm confused as to how this ever got to five pages without being shut down. 

Pointless discussion on Avsim falls mainly on deaf ears. You can't make this stuff up!

If MS/Asobo are so against it, why have they not done anything about it?

5 hours ago, MarcG said:

I'm confused as to why people are still struggling to understand this, it's very very clear.

I am not sure people are struggling to understand that.  From my own perspective, I am pondering why they don't open their mind to these things, like the ARPC app and the new sky colours. 

They certainly recognised that, and even said they liked the colours and basically changed MSFS to accommodate them.  So as ARPC basically 'injected' the new coefficients and also broke the TOS to do it, but was recognised as an improvement (and even talked about on the twitch streams), why is it one rule for one, and another rule for others? 

Simple I suppose, because it is up to them what they want to recognise and talk about.
But anyway, "keep sending that community feedback in guys!" 

16 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I am not sure people are struggling to understand that.  From my own perspective, I am pondering why they don't open their mind to these things, like the ARPC app and the new sky colours. 

They certainly recognised that, and even said they liked the colours and basically changed MSFS to accommodate them.  So as ARPC basically 'injected' the new coefficients and also broke the TOS to do it, but was recognised as an improvement (and even talked about on the twitch streams), why is it one rule for one, and another rule for others? 

Simple I suppose, because it is up to them what they want to recognise and talk about.
But anyway, "keep sending that community feedback in guys!" 

I was referring to the official forums removing the threads/posts, not the acceptance and implementation of ideas by Asobo.

8 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

So how would you explain the hostile attitude towards e.g. Atmos and AutoFPS on the official forum then? If you’re correct in your assumptions there’s a huge discrepancy between MS/Asobo official standpoints and that of the community managers.

Not allowing discussion on their own forums that breaks ToS is a different matter entirely from the comment I was responding to which was about supposed nefarious reasons that MS/Asobo are not accommodating enough in the SDK for weather add-on developers to inject their own weather (like Acive Sky). MS/Asobo want as much add-ons as possible for the health of their sim ecosystem, and they'll allow discussion of any (on *their* forums) that follows the ToS and proper use of the SDK. Additionally, they're not "hostile" to add-ons that break the ToS in that they are trying to prevent them from being available to users, etc... all they're doing is not allowing discussion re: these in their forums, which they get to set whatever rules for (like avsim, etc). OTOH, add-ons like Active Sky can be discussed since it's using the SDK properly and not breaking any ToS. Not quite sure why this is all so hard to understand for some 🙂
 

1 hour ago, MarcG said:

I was referring to the official forums removing the threads/posts, not the acceptance and implementation of ideas by Asobo.

Yes I know Marc.  The other part was my link into that, based on the fact that they were accommodating towards the thread for the sky colour change / ARPC program, even though that broke their conditions as well.  From my perspective, that is the point some people don't understand, why that thread was allowed and the subject matter acknowledged, but others are not.

But like I say, there is no arguing with them.  Their site, their rules.

Another dupe! 

Another dupe! For heavens sake!    My fault - getting used to where the edit button is in the new layout. 
I wish we had a delete own post button - it's embarrassing! 

5 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

But like I say, there is no arguing with them.  Their site, their rules.

Indeed. I'm happy to discuss the "banned" topics here and on discord. I do try to keep up to date on news and updates though, but other than that I've pretty much stopped using the official forum. 

7 hours ago, MarcG said:

I'm confused as to why people are still struggling to understand this, it's very very clear.

It's not difficult to understand. We're just discussing it here. I'm with @bobcat999 on this topic - I think he makes some good points.