Sorry, its on Discord and I don't want to copy the thread completely here:

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1314007053337104444

 

There's a request why iniBuilds standard MSFS2024 aircraft do not wipe water with their windscreen wipers.

The answer from iniBuilds is:
"Rich
Thanks, for feature requests please post on MS forums as it is their call to make."

 

That further discussion is then about, that users (like myself) ask further
Q: "But that feature is already in SDK in 2024. Aren’t you suppose to take advantage of it?" 

A: "This is a microsoft product for which only they can decide when it comes to adding features/variants."

 

 

The essential answer is then at th end:
A: "Product is built per guidelines and requirements provided to us, and accepted by MS as meeting such requirements. 

Regardless of what you think it should or should not have had from the start, that is the fact of the matter. Adding a feature made available in the SDK is still in essence adding a feature. 

Any such requests for addition of features have to be decided by MS. So as mentioned in the initial post, please make such request on the MS forums ad we do not have the ability to unanimously decide what to add/remove from this product, be it something custom or entirely "default" to the sim.

Same is true for any other user-requested features such as integration with default charts/efb planner etc. All ultimately decisions that MS have to make to allocate resources towards to ensure they're on all their aircraft if they want it as such.
I'm not asking you to give up on your request. Nor am I saying it can't/won't be added.

I'm just guiding you to the appropriate place to make such requests as we at iniBuilds cannot make that decision."

 

 

So, in the end, this is not what I have awaited what it means how 1st party developers work with Microsoft.
Essence is probably "we as customers, get what MS pays developers for".
But standard SDK features are missing now, because MS does not pay for?
 

Maybe I'm naive, but I thought, 1st party developers develop their addons as best as they can with all bells and whistles. But in the end, its just contract work and what won't get paid wouldn't get delivered.

I do not want to judge this, iniBuilds and other 1st party devs should of course get their money for their work.
But I hoped maybe in my naive way, that the devs get an amount of money to deliver their product and we get it with all features the dev is able to implement, like on the free market.
But ok ...

Hope at least, solving bugs is included in the contract.

 

AND: this is not a rant against iniBuilds!! 

 

I was just surprised that contracts between MS and 1st party devs work in a different way that I thought. Doesn't sound like happy family/community, more like tough business.

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by guenseli

Suggestion: Follow their suggested protocol - create a thread the Official MSFS 2024 forum and ask for this and other features / bug fixes in that thread.

If it's a new "Protocol" than we have to try it and then wait for the outcome. If positive, it'll prove to be the right protocol to use in future similar situations, otherwise, write about the protocol not working at their Official forums and also here at AVSIM...

Just my suggestion 🙂

25 minutes ago, guenseli said:

Doesn't sound like happy family/community, more like tough business.

I am not really surprised about this. Of course it's a business relationship, based on a defined feature-set and a defined time frame. So many desirable features are left out from the beginning or may even be cut during development.

It's not like some aviation nerds gather in a garage and tinker until they are done. It's a multibillion dollar mega corp outsourcing part of a product to another small company, and the other company must adher to the definitions of their contract.

The difference is in the wording: 1st party developers are not working WITH Asobo, they are working FOR Asobo.

To add to Mario's post, I imagine other contract relationships between devs work the same way - something like Thranda helping JustFlight port the 146 to XPlane.
Not that I have specific knowledge of that, but rather it makes sense to have structured obligations.

49 minutes ago, guenseli said:

I do not want to judge this, iniBuilds and other 1st party devs should of course get their money for their work.
But I hoped maybe in my naive way, that the devs get an amount of money to deliver their product and we get it with all features the dev is able to implement, like on the free market.
But ok ...

I won't divulge the ranges that Microsoft offers but what they do offer does not constitute what is require to build an aircraft with all its bells and whistles. I also don't blame Microsoft here either. Like it or not ultra-niche high fidelity aircraft do not represent majority of simmers. Avsim represents a minority. Microsoft contracts out work that will suffice the needs for the majority of simmers to a "good enough" degree. Cause what Avsim wants, microsoft is not paying for, nor does it make a lot of financial sense.

This still allows high-fidelity to coexist, but it also provides a means of cash flow for high-fidelity devs to "quickly" build up an aircraft whilst they work on their "creme de la creme" and need a bit of cash.

This is also.. the free market at play, Microsoft wants X with ABC features. No dev is going to get paid extra for doing things Microsoft didn't contract for. the 1st party devs chosen for the job suffice those needs. This is different to having customers who want the best aircraft and aircraft devs are one-upping each other(in feature set) to get a customer. That is also free market at play but that is B2C, this is a B2B situation.

1 hour ago, guenseli said:

Sorry, its on Discord and I don't want to copy the thread completely here:

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1314007053337104444

 

There's a request why iniBuilds standard MSFS2024 aircraft do not wipe water with their windscreen wipers.

The answer from iniBuilds is:
"Rich
Thanks, for feature requests please post on MS forums as it is their call to make."

 

That further discussion is then about, that users (like myself) ask further
Q: "But that feature is already in SDK in 2024. Aren’t you suppose to take advantage of it?" 

A: "This is a microsoft product for which only they can decide when it comes to adding features/variants."

 

 

The essential answer is then at th end:
A: "Product is built per guidelines and requirements provided to us, and accepted by MS as meeting such requirements. 

Interesting. There's a thread on the official forums asking why the Sky Crane helicopter thing, made by Milviz, that can do firefighting in one of it's versions doesn't actually have any of the mechanics operational to do this, even though it's shown in the promotional material of 2024 as one of it's features.

Milviz reply was similar to Inibuilds; they themselves hope to have this feature working in future but it's up to Microsoft to okay the work.

Similar conversations in FlightFX discord regarding the differences between their payware Vision Jet and the default one in MSFS24, it's on Microsoft to update or something.

So, seems Microsoft stopped paying/development at one point?

Hope they resume now. According to their teasers, they have promised us a lot more.

1 hour ago, guenseli said:

So, seems Microsoft stopped paying/development at one point?

Hope they resume now. According to their teasers, they have promised us a lot more.

No. More likely, Microsoft pays for a certain feature set and iniBuilds will try to meet the contracted feature set they were paid for.  And there is probably a support period where 1st party developers like iniBuilds get paid to support their add-on in MSFS.

Where in the teasers did you see any of the iniBuilds planes using their wipers during rain? Even if you saw other planes in the trailers that used windshield wipers, it has to be that specific iniBuilds plane that used windshield wipers for you to have a legitimate case, and not even for the other iniBuilds planes would count, unless Microsoft made a statement saying all iniBuilds planes should have working wipers, or they said all planes that come with MSFS 2024 should have working wipers.

What I get from you is that you kind of expect certain features like windshield wipers to be a part of the iniBuilds planes.  But iniBuilds was not contracted to do this, even if that feature is possible via the SDK. So the formal way to get them to do this is to push Microsoft (or push the MSFS team, probably Jorg) to do it. If the MSFS team/Jorg hear from the community that it's extremely important to have windshield wipers on the iniBuilds planes, then Microsoft may then pay iniBuilds extra money to implement them.

This is how the entire software industry works, not just the flight simulation industry.

Now bugs are probably within the contract that iniBuilds need to fix. Note that fixing bugs is not adding a new feature.  So iniBuilds is probably required to fix the bugs that shipped with their planes. IniBuilds is not required to add new features though, including windshield wipers, even if the SDK allows for that feature to be done.

You should really read what @Lucky38i wrote above and understand what he wrote.

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

The best 1st party dev is Mike Johnson (he did the S.55 and the Albatross), because he keeps improving his planes rather than the standard "ask Microsoft" answer.

You can see how he's active on the Albatross thread on the MSFS forum too.

1 hour ago, guenseli said:

So, seems Microsoft stopped paying/development at one point?

Hope they resume now. According to their teasers, they have promised us a lot more.

I don't think they stopped paying.  

If I read this right then they are essentially contractors with very specific task lists and projects and they do not go above and beyond project scope or what they have been paid to deliver. So yes, MS stops paying when the project as they defined it is "complete"

Makes total sense in that context. 

10 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

No. More likely, Microsoft pays for a certain feature set and iniBuilds will try to meet the contracted feature set they were paid for.  And there is probably a support period where 1st party developers like iniBuilds get paid to support their add-on in MSFS.

Where in the teasers did you see any of the iniBuilds planes using their wipers during rain? Even if you saw other planes in the trailers that used windshield wipers, it has to be that specific iniBuilds plane that used windshield wipers for you to have a legitimate case, and not even for the other iniBuilds planes would count, unless Microsoft made a statement saying all iniBuilds planes should have working wipers, or they said all planes that come with MSFS 2024 should have working wipers.

What I get from you is that you kind of expect certain features like windshield wipers to be a part of the iniBuilds planes.  But iniBuilds was not contracted to do this, even if that feature is possible via the SDK. So the formal way to get them to do this is to push Microsoft (or push the MSFS team, probably Jorg) to do it. If the MSFS team/Jorg hear from the community that it's extremely important to have windshield wipers on the iniBuilds planes, then Microsoft may then pay iniBuilds extra money to implement them.

This is how the entire software industry works, not just the flight simulation industry.

Now bugs are probably within the contract that iniBuilds need to fix. Note that fixing bugs is not adding a new feature.  So iniBuilds is probably required to fix the bugs that shipped with their planes. IniBuilds is not required to add new features though, including windshield wipers, even if the SDK allows for that feature to be done.

You should really read what @Lucky38i wrote above and understand what he wrote. e

 With my games developer hat on and my games publisher hat on simultaneously (at least I will be warm!) this is exactly how life is in the industry. There is usually an agreed scope, which is often the longest part of the contract negotiation. Then you deliver to that scope. I have spent weeks both as publisher and dev just sorting this part of the contract with the team, the lawyers et al. You then cost and budget manpower against that scope with an agreed contingency in time and resource. We would often love to throw in the kitchen sink, but strict delivery schedules and cost vs return analysis often means we have to compromise on feature set to fit the project "in the box" of the contract and the required financial margins.

all the best

Jane

Yeah, if you want new features added to the default aircraft, make requests on the official forums

It has worked in the past.

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

17 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

You should really read what @Lucky38i wrote above and understand what he wrote.

Your answer comes a bit rude with all that underlined and bold text etc, sorry.
I have understood of course, what others have wrote.

Don't get too hooked about the iniBuilds wipers. Do you think people review the teaser and the anouncements made and then difference between certain addons? No, wipers where promised, why not on certain planes?

Whats about the Skycrane firefighting? Is it working?

 

As I said, I don't judge anyone or any company. But I'm surprised that there was bought a certain set of features and thats it probably.