lwt1971

There you go again putting words in people's mouths. No one, including me, are saying that MSFS offers "everything a dev needs". But it certainly is not as deficient or lacking as you always are eager to make it seem. As FBW's Lucky38i noted about you here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/643658-why-msfs-must-be-xbox-like-or-die/?do=findComment&comment=5088648 and here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/643658-why-msfs-must-be-xbox-like-or-die/?do=findComment&comment=5088655 one can only conclude you're being intentionally obtuse. Funny that you mention V1-Simulations the IRL A320 pilot and level-D sims.. this is what V1 had to say about the Fenix V2 B2 as compared to the real bird, level-D 320 sim, and other sims' A320 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFuEutQpCyU&t=6113s "handling in flight I gotta say, it's right there, that felt very realistic all the way around compared to the real airplane" "felt very much the same as when I do single engine training in the Level D sims, almost exactly the same honestly" Well heck what do you know, not bad for an aircraft whose FM according to Aamir uses and extends the MSFS FDE ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You keep harping about BlackBox711 comment's about MSFS's supposed SDK deficiencies based on his experience working with and testing Fenix's A320 on their *initial* version (he's not a developer obviously).. he was going by whatever initial struggles Fenix had on extending the default engine model (which is different from the flight model). And as with all other sims when it comes to systems, to truly do what the aircraft developer wanted they did their own custom engine model and associated systems. And regardless of what BlackBox711 said about Fenix's initial development experience, there is what Aamir himself said about MSFS's flight dynamics and base FDE, SDK, etc and also about their latest Fenix V2: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-4990988 (I'm going to go with the CEO of Fenix here to get the actual facts on their experience in developing for MSFS and its FDE). You also keep harping about the default ini A310 not showing inertia difference based on weight, and now the 787 (which you got schooled on above). The freeware ini A310 is quite a simulation for its price but not as high fidelity as the top tier payware obviously (like their A300), if it's not showing different behaviour for different weights then that comes down to that particular aircraft's FM implementation by iniBuilds and what fidelity levels they were aiming for, and not about the sim platform. Unless you have deep insights into ini's development too (as you seem to with PMDG, Fenix, etc 😂) and can explain to us exactly how due to the sim platform's deficiencies that the ini A310 is not doing something you expect it to.

Speak for yourself matey.

Precisely what most of us are saying, these are opinions. Those who keep saying MSFS doesn't provide for good flight models are also stating opinions, despite trying to peddle statements like "MSFS is clearly lacking" as facts 🙂 And yes, as stated upteen times how the flight model all comes down to how the aircraft developer implements their particular aircraft, accurate flight models can indeed be experienced in certain expertly developed aircraft available for MSFS. And this in the opinion of various IRL pilots who're also experienced simmers, users like those who took the navigraph survey where they chose flight dynamics as the #1 factor in a sim who *also* chose MSFS as their primary sim by a wide margin, non-IRL-pilot users, etc.. so to all these folks, it's far from "a big maybe".

No you keep missing what everyone is saying and keep talking besides the point.. sure for an already experienced pilot the accuracy of the FM does matter, and they can get that with properly implemented aircraft in MSFS currently. Read what the actual experts have to say above, and you might just clue in.

Related to your question Krakin, note what simbol (Raul) of FSReborn had to say when he gave a nice detailed account of his experience in developing aircraft FMs using CFD: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/626199-is-anybody-else-excited-about-the-new-20-km-cfd-in-su11/?do=findComment&comment=4872362 Like Lucky38i says above guess it all comes down to what amount of detailed customization they've done using non-CFD (additionally also the likes of PMDG/Fenix/etc) vs looking into CFD. Fenix started their development before CFD came along I believe (or maybe they chose the non-CFD route to best fit their development/design), and PMDG ported their existing codebase so didn't shift over to CFD. But aircraft devs building FMs currently from the ground up seem to be using CFD more and more. Also, from an earlier post of mine I found these quotes from iniBuilds re: CFD: - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1017423315771596880 "Asobo are also making big strides in improving their physics with the new CFD simulations" - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1040653493914058873/1041129939333820477 "Yeah we're super happy with it, blessed be CFD 🙏" - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1031242737741217913 "The flight physics in SU11 are the same as XP now you know with CFD"

You seem to be confusing and conflating your own opinions as facts, though I have to wonder like Lucky38i of FBW above how obtuse one really has to be pushing this narrative repeatedly. Nobody is saying MSFS is perfect, yet it is not a "fact" that MSFS is "clearly lacking". As the actual experts on sim aircraft, i.e. the developers of aircraft like Fenix/FBW/others have repeatedly said on these forums and in this thread (try reading what they actually say), the MSFS *generalized* FDE caters to various and widely varying types of aircraft and then allows the aircraft devs to extend, customize, and/or override as they wish. One well-known problem area in the FDE was ground-handling and the ground<->air transition modelling, and at least ground handling has been finally addressed in SU15 (with fuller rework coming in v2024). I've mentioned the other sore point in the FDE's SDK especially from an aircraft development perspective which is the ability to more finely define aircraft surfaces and geometry in order to take better advantage of something like the sim's CFD tech more easily (also being addressed in v2024). Apart from these, competent aircraft devs have been able to deliver superb flight models for their aircraft either fully using the base FM, customizing/overriding parts of it, or fully overriding it (as Aamir and Luck38i say above).. such is the flexibility the sim platform allows. And no, they're not struggling or going thru hoops or doing "hacks" as *some* would desperately like to make it seem.

Hard for me to tell if you're joking or being serious but if the latter 🙂.. this is certainly not like the beginning days/months of MSFS when developers had to learn a whole new sim platform. And MS/Asobo are aiming for minimal to no changes required for existing add-ons to work, so all the existing high fidelity birds will not need a long time to get working in MSFS 2024. In order to take advantage of new features (i.e. the more detailed aircraft surfaces/wings definitions, etc) 3rd party devs will need more time, but that too MS/Asobo are aiming to make it easy for them to do.. certainly don't expect years for 3rd party devs to utilize the new sim capabilities.

Oh the irony 🙂 So you have insights into PMDG's development and "hacks" they've done? They've spoken about adjusting their FM for MSFS's turbulence modelling prior to MS/Asobo fixing that up and allowing for multiple user settings, but where have they said their FM has the various hacks you make it sound like it has "to compensate for the bad base FM"? And as with most high fidelity aircraft developers for various multiple sim platforms, Fenix customize or do their own systems code such as their own engine model (and with V2 B1 and B2 they weren't just working on engine model code but also other areas including visual fidelity such as rebuilt external model/texturing, EFB, tuning their FM, support for new engine types, etc.. all that work done in the huge changelog https://msfsaddons.com/2024/02/27/fenix-simulations-releasing-airbus-a320-block-2-update-within-hours/ at the level of detail Fenix likes to do takes guess what, time). Oh wait, let's hear what Aamir himself of Fenix had to say about all this: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-4990988 This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. A2A had to go external in places to build it to their standards, which is understandable, because they're brilliant and build a brilliant product. What I don't get is people taking that and spinning it into "Asobo sucks!", yeesh. We had to go external on our engines and a portion of our flight model too, in this next update. It doesn't mean Asobo sucks. It means we, as developers, have specific needs and requirements from our product that we want to see - and that we can go build it ourselves. I don't think anyone railing on Asobo understands what a monumental task it is to have an FDE that is just bang on perfect for every single type of aircraft out there - including helicopters, gliders, etc, out of the box by default, and globalised. Insanity. p.s if anyone manages to do the above, perfect globalised modelling, and it's capable of running on anything less than a super-computer in real time, you're probably sat on a few billion dollars in training contracts - forget the piddly consumer market 🙂 Well gee, I concur with Aamir 🙂 And MSFS as a platform provides various tools in the toolsbox, and didn't block Fenix from what they wanted to do 🤷‍♂️ .. Re: engine simulation, would add that all/most high fidelity aircraft out there, for any sim platform, are not using using default systems like engine models as-is.. customization or full overriding is the norm. Even if it's hard to swallow for some die-hard fans of other sims, MSFS is not "clearly lacking" like their narratives portray it to be.

It is, but aircraft flight models need to be updated to take advantage of it (MS/Asobo only updated their C172 and Cabri). 3rd party aircraft devs soon will hopefully, i.e. iniBuilds did for their A300 per https://youtu.be/N4cxNccH66U?t=1318

The topic of flight dynamics has been discussed a lot here over the past few years, and as always the usual suspects will come around here trying to push the narrative that MSFS does not enable good flight dynamics.. but the fact still remains it all ultimately comes down to aircraft developers and how they develop the flight model for their particular aircraft using the tools available in the core FDE of the sim platform (there is no one "flight model" in the sim, it's the base flight dynamics engine on which particular flight models *per* aircraft are built on). Even before MSFS introduced computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tech the FDE was already quite capable (as Matt Nischan noted in https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236), but of course at that time not too many well developed aircraft were out and all the default aircraft at that time had subpar flight models so this talking point started spreading. As MSFS currently stands there are numerous expertly developed 3rd party aircraft out now (such as the Fenix B2, PMDG 737, etc) which have received acclaim from various IRL pilots out there (i.e. V1 Simulations an IRL 320 captain has lauded the Fenix B2 and thinks it is probably the best 320 simulation ever, compared to his experience of using all the ones out there for various sim platforms, and he particularly finds the hand flying of it the most realistic.. A330 Driver and 320 Sim Pilot have similarly lauded the Fenix and other MSFS birds). In addition to the 3rd party aircraft, some of the enhanced default aircraft like the Citation Longitude, SR22, 787 also certainly hold their own when it comes to flight models. Now that's not to say MSFS can't do better with the FDE and the tools they provide in the box to make it easier for aircraft developers to flesh out their FMs.. one popular request from many of the devs has been for a more precise way to define the aircraft geometry in terms of how the wings and other surfaces of the aircraft can be modelled, beyond the basic planform shape so that the FDE tech (be it CFD or non-CFD) can be properly leveraged (i.e. https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/assets/images/Additional_Information/flight_model/flight_model_10.png, https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/Primers/Flight_Model_Physics.htm) .. and that's something MS/Asobo have revealed as coming in the reworked FDE and physics/aerodynamics engine in MSFS 2024. Another sore point was ground handling, but that also is being addressed in v2024 and also partially backported to v2020 SU15 now and developers like iniBuilds have taken advantage of it in their A300 to great effect (https://youtu.be/N4cxNccH66U?t=1318). But my earlier point remains, even with the MSFS FDE as it currently stands, the platform and the tools in the toolbox are certainly enough for stellar flight models, in the hands of the right developer.

I wonder however when they're going to start releasing the v2024 SDK builds and docs to developers.. not sure if they place devs under NDA with this sort of stuff so we might never know until MSFS 2024 releases from devs about how much lead time they've had to get a grasp on the new capabilities and changes. Perhaps based on the type of questions that pop up on https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/ we might get a clue 🙂

Good find @ca_metal, looks like we'll get the next batch of new info/reveals at the June XB event (probably at least a new trailer, hopefully more), and then later in June at FSExpo is likely when detailed info & deep dives come out, including probably live/playable demos for those at the conference. Per https://en.shiftdelete.net/2024-xbox-games-showcase/ According to Tom Warren, who is closely associated with Microsoft, the event will feature information about significant titles such as Indiana Jones, The Great Circle, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024, and Avowed. It is expected that various trailers for these games will be released during the event. And FSExpo already announced MS/Asobo as one of the main presenters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwgZg2jtPPg&t=1568s (complete list of presenters: https://youtu.be/pwgZg2jtPPg?t=1755)

https://forms.microsoft.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=v4j5cvGGr0GRqy180BHbR1r3nNQ_40JBjVeCHjmDms9UMFdKSEhBUkk3RUtSNUdPTUZQWTVBUzI4Ni4u This form probably is just carrying the wording from earlier this year, but then again they would've removed the MSFS 2024 bit if they wanted to take questions about it.. like discussed on another thread, we likely won't get meaty info until June when the XBox 2024 showcase event is and also FSExpo. That said, hopefully they can at the very least give more tidbits at the Q&A like Jorg did earlier with that screenshot of the grand canyon in MSFS 2024 🙂 I suppose indirectly we're also getting a feel for what's coming in v2024 given all the backports or sub-backports of its features to v2020 like new ground handling, a tiny bit of the reworked atmospheric engine that fixed the sky colors a couple of SUs ago, multi-rotors for helis, etc.

Truth is, you keep spewing the usual nonsense as if repeating it enough times makes it true.. "anything default is just garbage" 😂. You might find that to be the case for other sim platforms but MSFS sorry no. The default avionics like G1000Nxi, G3000, G5000 and now the G3X are "just garbage"? Far from, and in fact better than previous payware .. the default AAU/SU-enhanced aircraft like the CJ4, Citation Longitude, 787, Cirrus SR22T etc are "just garbage"? Nope, they are far better in fidelity than any default aircraft for any other sim past and present. And these, including the free iniBuilds-contracted A310 and A320 while not being at the level of top-tier payware high fidelity aircraft (which no one ever claims), are still medium fidelity at worst and unprecedented for default aircraft, and far from garbage. What development experience do you have for MSFS to keep repeating this "MSFS requires hacks and clumsy workarounds" talking point? Please share with us your deep technical and development expertise as to why "MSFS has still a long way to go" and give us specific examples of hacks and clumsy workaround 🙂 Actual developers, with actual expertise, seem to be doing fine.. like, pretty much all the top tier aircraft developers out there who're exclusively or mostly developing for MSFS. Yes PMDG had initial difficulties due to their particular situation of wanting to use their C++ codebase with WASM (and release for both PC and XBox) that got resolved later, and yes Fenix had to develop their own engine model because the default one wasn't detailed enough... which is par for the course with all sims and Fenix were able to develop it without the platform blocking it. A2A wanted to build everything custom and they did so without the platform blocking them. In addition to these devs, there are countless other examples of top tier developer either building bespoke, or using the default, or extending the default aspects of the sim. If you want to pick on weather not being open yet , well ya, it is what it is, but that doesn't make the whole platform inflexible.

Umm ok sure?.. As some others have said the whole premise of this thread is non-sensical, and what Phil Spencer is talking about doesn't have to do with MSFS (he was asked about layoffs after the Activision acquisition, and about the whole gaming industry in general). These spurious claims of MSFS backtracking in fidelity due to XBox is farcical because the reality is the very opposite.. firstly the whole premise that the expanding of the flight simming audience to XBox must therefore mean MSFS and add-ons have to regress in fidelity is bogus given that the opposite is happening (as I mentioned above). MS/Asobo wouldn't be spending resources to increase the fidelity of the default aircraft, avionics, etc if that were the case surely. Why bother bringing on Working Title to bring us payware level quality avionics in the default sim and increase the FDE/systems/etc fidelity of default aircraft if the focus is on the supposedly non-serious arcade-loving masses of XBox users? Why bother contracting iniBuilds to build a higher fidelity default A320 primarily for XBox users, or give as a free A310? Why are PMDG, A2A, etc bothering spending more effort in order to enable their study-level aircraft for XBox? And like I said before on this thread, the work coming out from the likes of Fenix, A2A, PMDG, JustFlight, iniBuilds, FSW, Milviz, sure don't seem to be less in fidelity compared to similar add-ons before MSFS. Irrespective of whatever one's "definition of reality" is, this whining about how "XBox is causing MSFS and my precious adults-only niche flight sim genre to regress" is rather silly. Oh and given how the Phil Spencer article talks about growth or lack thereof, MS/Asobo doubled their extended team size from ~250 to ~500.. so guess they definitely are growing 🤷‍♂️

That definition seems to be the opposite of reality given how the sim keeps increasing in fidelity at its core, its default fleet, and the various 3rd party add-ons including funnily enough study-level airliners that those devs have strived to make available *for* XBox (i.e. PMDG, A2A, FSReborn, iniBuilds come to mind with all their 'study-level' aircraft). Heck, MS/Asobo have even contracted iniBuilds to develop an A320 for the default fleet that's significantly higher in fidelity than most default aircraft for any sim, a big reason being to provide something more deeply simulated for XBox users. So all these 3rd party devs and MS/Asobo must have missed this "XBox is opposite of study-level" memo 🙄

Found it interesting that Mathijs posted this recently, FWIW: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/288084-22mar24-bits-of-this-and-that-about-big-and-little-twins/page4#post289104 There has been major progress this weekend. RSR just told me he and Alex cleared 80 issues from the bug tracker in the last two days. You have to understand that the 777 is a bit of a special release for PMDG. It is not only the first of a new aircraft platform but also one where we want to deliver a product that is 'complete' (whatever that may mean). So, it is a release without promises to add things, without a large list of things we still would like to change, etc. We are in no rush. In most companies, a release date has to be set because a sales or marketing department needs to plan for it. And everybody gets mightily upset when things change. Not so in PMDG. I am the marketing/sales department, and nobody listens to me. So, the ONLY factor determining a release date is how happy the devs and beta testers are. That second paragraph stood out.. proof as always will be in the pudding, but it's good they are striving to release as 'complete' a product as possible.. wonder if that means the RNP & RF support will be there in the first 777 release as opposed to a subsequent update.

Ya hoping more info starts to roll around now that we're in Spring, but increasingly am thinking they might wait till June to reveal/show anything substantial.. given that the XBox 2024 showcase event is planned for June (https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-confirms-june-2024-xbox-showcase) and also FSExpo 2024 is June 21-23 where they're sure to give more details and actually probably show MSFS 2024 in action. Going by what they showed at FSExpo last year and the detailed interviews they gave, I'd want at least that level of info but new 🙂 , hopefully much more of course.

I think some have focused on the balloon part and dismissed it prematurely, but the key as you keenly observe Krakin is that's it a demonstration of the CFD tech in action along with the new abilities to define more precise geometry and surfaces in aircraft (or any object, balloon in this case). Seb started here https://youtu.be/VPhScg_FINE?t=778 where he briefly shows the Cessna and Cabri updated for more precise geometry and surfaces (but doesn't say more), and then goes on to show the balloon example.. where the balloon is modelled as a set of multiple tiny flat surfaces which together in that geometry setup forms a balloon shape, and then the CFD and airflow physics are applied to that and it behaves aerodynamically like it should depending on the airflow. Unsurprising the round of applause it received at the end of that demo 🙂 Can't wait to hear more details and deep dives on the new aerodynamics engine and FDE in MSFS 2024, and how aircraft benefit from that (of course from what little MS/Asobo have revealed so far, we know at the very least aircraft devs will have to re-work their birds to take advantage of this more precise geometry/surface modelling capabilities before we see the true benefits I guess). Seb and Andrey Petrovich taking the helm on this area of MSFS is the best thing that could happen to the sim!

Well, thanks for stating the obvious about how the real world works 🙂 ... I'm not saying that businesses are fully transparent, and of course obviously they do what's best for their business. My point is that then doesn't mean we can make conclusions on what they really must be doing or thinking, and if they are being "protectionist" (it's a term that Ray Proudfoot used so I responded, and I took that to mean they are intentionally not wanting to open up live weather because they don't want extensions to make it better or something... which does not make sense to me given how open they are with various other aspects of MSFS and letting add-on devs extend, one example being the core avionics framework). Now if MS/Asobo came out and explicitly gave reason(s) for why they haven't opened up MSFS weather for writing/extending then it's up to us as consumers to take them at their word or not, but certainly in the absence of them saying anything it's even more foolish for us to come to sweeping conclusions re: their intentions.

And how have you come to the conclusion that Asobo is being "protectionist"? Just because they haven't opened up live weather write access yet, and/or prioritized it higher yet, and/or given us any explanations as to why it might not be doable and why (on my earlier post above I gave my hunches to possible technical roadblocks).. all/any of these does not then translate to them intentionally holding back. They have been very open and welcoming of developers, as witnessed by the healthy ecosystem of add-ons thriving for MSFS. We can't really make sweeping claims about MS/Asobo's intentions without confirmation on their side. And re: historical weather, well, the reality is that it's not high priority for the majority of users (and I completely get that it's a deal-breaker for some). If it does turn out that MS/Asobo really don't want to prioritize the work to open up live weather to 3rd party devs even if it's technically feasible, that's just still a prioritization decision (as to where to allocate their dev resources), and not anything to do with being open or protectionist. If they were being protectionist, they certainly wouldn't be doing all the things they're doing for add-on developers outside of weather, one big example being the open sourcing of and making available the Working Title core avionics framework suite for developers to use/extend as they like.

I'd argue that's just utter nonsense (and this "kids" trope is just comically stale now).. just because MSFS appeals to a wider audience than any previous sim ever did, and therefore a greater variety of developers producing add-ons that fall on various positions in the quality/fidelity spectrum, does *not* therefore mean all add-ons quality is lower. We still have high-fidelity high-quality add-ons coming out in great numbers for MSFS from all the usual established players and new ones (like Fenix), and yes also garbage add-ons from the usual suspects and new devs. Regardless of various sub-standard add-ons out there, the standard of work coming out from the likes of Fenix, A2A, PMDG, JustFlight, iniBuilds, FSW, Milviz, <insert major developer name here> is pretty darn good, and has never been as good I'd argue. I've used nearly all the sims before MSFS, and yes for some only the quality add-on devs ever developed for that sim, and they did so at glacial paces.. With MSFS the pace of development and pace of updates along with how the devs interact with the user base is just so much better and refreshing. By all indications a great majority of the user base and 3rd party developer base have embraced the new world of flight simming that MSFS brought about, and thankfully let go of the legacy ways. And just in case this is news to some, it is quite possible in 2024 for sims and add-ons to have *both* visual fidelity as well as flight realism fidelity, without either having to come at the expense of the other (another quaint legacy mindset from having been conditioned by legacy sims that needs to go the way of the Dodo).

In terms of "write" access to MSFS live weather not being possible yet I wonder if it's purely technical issues given the client/server architecture of MSFS (above and beyond any Meteoblue licensing issues that may or may not exist). Unlike other sims the MSFS live weather system is partly/mostly being processed and served up from the server-side AWS cloud to all its client machines, so there is no "local to the end-user" live weather system purely on the client machine per se that could then be overwritten/modified via 3rd party extensions. I could well be wrong in this interpretation though and happy to be corrected. So if that's the case, the only way to "write/modify" weather on the MSFS client machine would be via control of manual weather? And then it's a matter of MSFS providing APIs low-level enough, and fine-grained enough, to modify and control manual weather which 3rd party plugins could then populate with their own data. I guess what currently exists in terms of APIs are the just the controls for manual weather we users see in the options?, which some 3rd party weather add-ons manipulate to varying degrees of success. All that said, I'm with the camp that would like to see MS/Asobo keep advancing default weather in the sim.. yes METAR integration in SU7 was a step back global live weather wise, but since then various SUs have improved the situation a fair bit, and they're looking do to do more in coming SUs (on an aside, re: turbulence in clouds Seb confirmed in the March Q&A that due to live weather rendering clouds not dense/thick enough that then effects the level of turbulence within them, whereas with manual weather with the proper clouds in place turbulence is seen, and they're looking to fix this).. And in MSFS 2024 the stated intention is to improve weather significantly (i.e. simulation of proper storms and T-cells, tornadoes, etc.. such level of simulation therefore implies core weather is getting improved in non-trivial ways). MS/Asobo are quite open to 3rd party development in all aspects of the sim obviously, where it makes sense.. for example how they are ensuring to always review what high fidelity aircraft are being developed to not then also do the same via AAUs or contracting out. Just because legacy sims required 3rd party weather add-ons shouldn't have to mean MSFS also should, and nor should it mean it goes out of its way to accommodate such add-ons at the expense of default weather not getting the improvements. But, if MS/Asobo can continue to advance the default weather while also allowing for more flexibility for 3rd party weather add-ons, then sure I'm all for that.

Great demonstration of the updated ground handling. Hopefully more aircraft devs quickly adopt the SU15 ground handling physics improvements and FM parameters and tune them properly/optimally for their aircraft too (Fenix B2 came out early in the SU15 beta so hopefully on a subsequent update, PMDG 777 better be using this, etc). Wish Asobo would also get the updates out to more of their default fleet, especially the AAU treated ones.