FSExpo 2025 wasn't bad but I wasn't too impressed with many of the announcements except for Winwing. Nothing surprising until I saw the unexpected news that Toliss and Aerosoft are partnering to bring the A340 to MSFS.

Quote

Aerosoft says they will be handling the modelling work on the addon, while ToLiss works on the systems. Given how ToLiss is already known in the X-Plane community for their deep systems functionality, this is a partnership which is bound to raise eyebrows among the community.

https://fselite.net/content/aerosoft-and-toliss-announce-partnership-to-bring-a340-to-msfs/

More income streams are great for ToLiss and future add-ons. There isn't a great study level a340 on the platform yet so this could be a big seller just by the association to ToLiss' name.

Interesting. Going thru the comments I found this.

"Giuliana ToLiss — 18:34

Hi all! We’re super busy at the expo but just wanted to drop in to let everyone know we’re definitely not leaving XPlane. XPlane is the heart of our product. ToLiss will be to Aerosoft the same like Prosim is to Fenix.

[18:35]

I won’t have time to answer all questions and messages here but just wanted to make sure you heard it from me !  "

 

 

Amusing to watch the asobo24 fans with this. One would think that that market would be sufficiently saturated with high quality systems that it wouldn't be a big deal. Guess not.

As sad as it sounds, the licensing deal is a logical step. They don't have to do any significant additional work given that their systems are largely already replacing XP's internals. It's portable. Let someone else handle the quagmire side of that other dev world. Money printer go brrrr....

Porting the systems shouldn't be a big deal, asssuming that MSFS can handle C++ plugins. Basically just adapt the inputs and outputs to suit the simulator and that's it.

What's going to be more interesting is making the MSFS release perform on the numbers in the flight department. If even XP requires some trickery to do that, MSFS might require even more.

1 minute ago, Bjoern said:

What's going to be more interesting is making the MSFS release perform on the numbers in the flight department. If even XP requires some trickery to do that, MSFS might require even more.

I assume that "performing on the numbers" is not a prerequisite to having great monetary success as a MSFS add-on.

I am not saying that it is not possible to make a highly accurate add-ons for MSFS, but due to the larger userbase, even appealing to just a small fraction of it (those that don´t mind to have just an approximate aerodynamic performance), would eclipse the sales available on the X-Plane basis. In other words, getting rich is much easier on the other platform.

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Amusing to watch the asobo24 fans with this. One would think that that market would be sufficiently saturated with high quality systems that it wouldn't be a big deal. Guess not.

As sad as it sounds, the licensing deal is a logical step. They don't have to do any significant additional work given that their systems are largely already replacing XP's internals. It's portable. Let someone else handle the quagmire side of that other dev world. Money printer go brrrr....

What’s interesting is Torsten announced that he had to make a flight model within MSFS because the MSFS flight model doesn’t deliver what he needs. This conflicts with other people’s and developers opinions on the fidelity of the CFD being used. 

Edited June 29, 2025Jun 29 by GoranM

heh heh heh. I was just about to add to Litjan's comment with the fact that there's no better way to dust that stuff under the rug than a stability control system like Airbus'...but that addresses that thought.

 

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

What’s interesting is Torsten announced that he had to make a flight model within MSFS because the MSFS flight model doesn’t deliver what he needs. This conflicts with other people’s and developers opinions on the fidelity of the CFD being used. 

I believe the same happens with his airbuses for X-Plane - they're mostly done outside the sim, including the flight dynamics, which is more or less obvious if you open them in Plane Maker ...

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

What’s interesting is Torsten announced that he had to make a flight model within MSFS because the MSFS flight model doesn’t deliver what he needs. This conflicts with other people’s and developers opinions on the fidelity of the CFD being used. 

So we're going to believe one guy who's never produced a SINGLE flight model for MSFS over the dozens of developers who have...?

X-Plane's raison d'etre is it's (excellent) predictive aero modeling, which alleviates a ton of FM work for devs.

It would seem MSFS is far less "auto-magic" in that regard, as well as having essentially 3 aero models (e.g., non-CFD, CFD, and a highly variable mixture of both).

Thus, getting a good FM in MSFS involves a lot MORE work on the part of the developer (and that IS an MSFS sim problem).

Ive had many devs factually assert they just couldn't get anything done in [insert common development language/framework/platform here]. And then others factually assert the complete opposite...

So this could just as easily be one of those situations.

In sum, I'm gonna take the word of guys like V1 Sims, an IRL Airbus pilot, who has a long history of favorable Toliss reviews, when he says the FM of Airbus add-ons like Fenix ends up being at least as good as Toliss.

And the Fenix team has never used an "external flight model".

Fair and constructive criticism is always a good thing, but it's far past time for everyone in both sides of the aisle to step out of their bubbles.

Oof. Here we go. Ok…

37 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

So we're going to believe one guy who's never produced a SINGLE flight model for MSFS over the dozens of developers who have...?

It could either be subjective or objective. This project has been in the works for at least 6 months. And he’s been in talks with aerosoft about the finer details, and it was determined the MSFS flight model wasn’t sufficient to satisfy the needs of the Toliss Airbus. I would trust aerosoft, who have been in business for the better part of 20-30 years. 
 

 

39 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It would seem MSFS is far less "auto-magic" in that regard, as well as having essentially 3 aero models (e.g., non-CFD, CFD, and a highly variable mixture of both).

Thus, getting a good FM in MSFS involves a lot MORE work on the part of the developer (and that IS an MSFS sim problem).

Very much agreed. 
 

 

39 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Ive had many devs factually assert they just couldn't get anything done in [insert common development language/framework/platform here]. And then others factually assert the complete opposite...

This is a touchy subject. I trust Saso (Toto) when it comes to what is or isn’t possible in X-Plane or MSFS. If he says it can or can’t be done, then it can or can’t be done. 
Sone developers will blame limitations in the sim when it’s their own lack of competency that is to blame. In Toliss’ case, I can confidently say he knows what he’s talking about. He’s very intelligent and a talented programmer. 
 

43 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

In sum, I'm gonna take the word of guys like V1 Sims, an IRL Airbus pilot, who has a long history of favorable Toliss reviews, when he says the FM of Airbus add-ons like Fenix ends up being at least as good as Toliss.

I would have to see/hear what he said in full context. I do hold him in high regard and have no ill feelings towards him, at all. 
 

 

44 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And the Fenix team has never used an "external flight model".

I’ve seen things from other Airbus pilots fault the flight model. One fault being the fuel flow. 
 

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I believe the same happens with his airbuses for X-Plane - they're mostly done outside the sim, including the flight dynamics, which is more or less obvious if you open them in Plane Maker ...

The same is done with the CL650. My point being, going by what some have said about  MSFS’s CFD, that not much, if anything at all was needed to mod the flight model. 

33 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Oof. Here we go. Ok…

It could either be subjective or objective. This project has been in the works for at least 6 months. And he’s been in talks with aerosoft about the finer details, and it was determined the MSFS flight model wasn’t sufficient to satisfy the needs of the Toliss Airbus. I would trust aerosoft, who have been in business for the better part of 20-30 years. 
 

 

Very much agreed. 
 

 

This is a touchy subject. I trust Saso (Toto) when it comes to what is or isn’t possible in X-Plane or MSFS. If he says it can or can’t be done, then it can or can’t be done. 
Sone developers will blame limitations in the sim when it’s their own lack of competency that is to blame. In Toliss’ case, I can confidently say he knows what he’s talking about. He’s very intelligent and a talented programmer. 
 

I would have to see/hear what he said in full context. I do hold him in high regard and have no ill feelings towards him, at all. 
 

 

I’ve seen things from other Airbus pilots fault the flight model. One fault being the fuel flow. 
 

Agreed, Sir!

I'm firmly in the camp of hoping this combo team can bring an objectively great add-on to MSFS. Perhaps ironically, I've far more faith in Toliss to bring the win than I do in Aerosoft (given AS' repeated aircraft fumbles in the past years).

And if Toliss really does have "portable" or sim-agnostic code, well, the opportunities extend far beyond a single airframe/manufacturer. 👍

I.e., since the Airbus market in MSFS is almost saturated (hence the likely reason for the 340 - one of the few clear gaps at present), will they do aircraft other than Airbus, or are they going to duke it out with FSL, Fenix, iB, Synaptic, FbW, et al...?

Really just curious - far too early for any firm answers on far future outcomes.

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

I believe the same happens with his airbuses for X-Plane - they're mostly done outside the sim, including the flight dynamics, which is more or less obvious if you open them in Plane Maker ...

Not 100%. The turbines and some of the drag calculations are external. Otherwise he made it sound like the rest is native planemaker/XP. "Dynamics" is going to come from the 6dof solver itself.

Certainly the flight control logic is external as well, but that's all part of the portable bits. Just tune some controller coefficients to match the underlying physics solver...and it sounds like he said "nope" to that part anyway. Too many W T F hoops to jump through compared to the native XP capability.

If this puts a bit more cash in his pocket to hire more/better blender-ists, great. 

Religion and Politics and aside, it's a good match. Both companies are nailing down their weak points. Sad that it's for the wrong platform!!! For now.

Edited June 29, 2025Jun 29 by blingthinger

I don't have anything against this collab, except the fact that I am afraid the release will still be managed by Aerosoft and given their lack of good support and updates, this aircraft will suffer the same fate as all their other MSFS releases. They have unfortunately lost the goodwill with a lot of MSFS clientele and that includes myself. I have their CRJ... It's a decent aircraft. Their Twin Otter was abandoned as soon as it was released and then it was taken off the market. Their A330 in MSFS is best not really taken seriously. It's just wild that of ALL the people to collaborate with, Toliss has chosen to go that route. Oh well, I hope it works out for them! I really do.

49 minutes ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

It's just wild that of ALL the people to collaborate with, Toliss has chosen to go that route. Oh well, I hope it works out for them!

Pecunia non olet.

Edited June 30, 2025Jun 30 by Litjan