Jump to content

RXP

Commercial Member
  • Content Count

    7,282
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,464 Excellent

About RXP

  • Rank
    Founder of Reality-XP

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    Yes
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

10,566 profile views
  1. Back in December 2019 until a sudden unexplained stop in March 2020...
  2. There are only solutions 😉 Please note Microsoft reached out to us and we're not passing any requirement to port our add-ons. Instead, we were engaging with Microsoft to share our experience so that they get better insights about what it is we're doing and how we're doing it. The goal of course is contributing and helping them building a SDK tailored to actual real 3rd party needs among other things. If you find this a bold attitude, I wonder how you'd qualify the following: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/more-candid-insight-from-aerosofts-project-manager-on-msfs-the-crj-the-sdk-and-the-add-on-market/327843 PS: I forgot to add all suggestions I'm giving are helping not just RXP, but every 3rd party developers. 20 years experience is not insignificant in this industry either.
  3. I'm sorry it didn't help you solving this specific problem, it was not meant as a mockery to your situation, only to relax about the situation. I'd agree with @himmelhorse idea to try out without any community add-ons to get started and to cross-check a with and without a bunch of them at a time.
  4. A novel way to prevent you using X-Plane or Prepar3d, keeping you stuck in the FS2020 cockpit ad vitam eternam? 😂
  5. @Cristi_Neagu It might sound surprising me saying this, but I see nothing wrong with Carenado aircraft and I enjoy them a lot, as much as I enjoy the more complex PMDG or MilViz aircraft to cite just a few. Before someone says I'm enjoying them all as long as they support RXP Garmins (which to be honest is not unpleasant either), I genuinely enjoy them for their differences because when I'm not test flying RXP gauges in dev, I'm also enjoying being a simmer myself, and depending on the day, the mood, the availability, I sometimes like just jumping in a convincing cockpit and flying a little less by the rules, while having the assurance the flight model and the overall gauges are still working close to reality. I would refrain from using this personal experience of how variety and choice of aircraft is good to my simmers needs, to justify how variety and choice of avionics is certainly as good for my fellow simmers for similar reasons, because we're all different, but I don't doubt for one minute it wouldn't be the case though. However I wouldn't blame Asobo either, unless someone reminds me again I'm just assuming things, I don't believe they hold such design decisions entirely (well this is not what some of the developers told me anyhow). They are taking pride in what they do I'm sure, and looking at Sebastian's talks is definitely convincing me he is genuinely passionate as most of us are in this community. They have nothing to prove either in my opinion, we're not in a who's got the longest contest. And actually, if I'd tend to naively believe that if the real message is "this is a simulator for simmers", and Jorg is genuinely considering this is a platform, they should take pride 3rd parties are elevating their platform to higher and different levels. Anything else is just ego driven otherwise, and I can't resolve myself thinking they'd be driving their business by ego alone, in voluntarily making their best not working with some renown 3rd party vendors.
  6. It seems to suggest they are doing just what you're questioning: 3rd parties are necessary to deliver a better IFR experience. Except they made a 3rd party a 1st party only contractually. Let me say this loud and clear: there is nothing in the last 20 years experience I have in this industry leading me to think for one minute, PMDG, A2A, MilViz, Majestic Software, F1, and so many others, are less trustworthy than a group of individuals which were not producing anything for the hobby just 9 months ago. I'm not trying to show any disrespect to WT individuals in saying this at all either. Regardless of their past achievements, you can't forgo all of a sudden how these experienced and established companies and individuals have been contributing to the franchise for the better over many decades, and not just in the form of selling products for money, but also in sharing among their peers and the simulator developers (P3D and X-Plane) their knowledge and recipes. In any case, this is not a Manichean question: if XP11 is proving something well, you can build very sophisticated GPS as a stock device in the simulator, while encouraging and supporting 3rd parties building alternatives (better or worse). Sure I agree. In the meantime, Microsoft is still not accepting RXP's market place application after so many months, and these devices were high in our list... You can still voice your concerns here in the meantime: Open up communications with Reality-XP - Self-Service / Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums
  7. I'm afraid we'll keep circling with this question, and I'm not better either at this. In my opinion certification or not, the topic question is "it is just a VFR sim". All comments are pretty much agreeing it is not just a VFR sim, but there is room for improvement as an IFR sim. I believe there is room, like in all other simulators, but the main difference which was brought up to the discussion is that the SDK might not be open enough to support 3rd parties delivering better IFR experience, and they are just ignoring RXP expertise in this field as well. This can only be contributing to raising some questions to the authenticity of their claims.
  8. But they don't even have to! This is not what 3rd parties are asking them to do either (at least those who are voicing it that I know of). I've already documented this is not what we need nor want really (although it would be easier I agree) in the following discussion, where I'm presenting a very easy solution to make things much easier for 3rd party developers. This solution enables binding both the WASM Sandbox world and the C++ open world in a safe and very efficient way (i.e. IPC via shared memory + sockets): https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sdk-q-a-stream-feedback/394224/8?u=cptlucky8 Let's be clear about this: I understand the reasons behind WASM and this is a good technology for what it is good at, and there are solutions they could implement which will not lower the convenience of sandboxing at all, and will preserve its security while raising 3rd party add-on development capabilities. However, this doesn't seem to be the main focus for now. Instead, I might read English wrongly sometimes, but this is unequivocal to me the official transcript is not only deforming Asobo's words, but it is also accusing 3rd party vendors of possibly stealing their customers personal information, and this is the sole reason they are using to justifying sandboxing. Here is: the official transcript and the live Q&A video are pretty much similar, except for this specific question: "Can we talk about DLL?" And don't believe I'm the only one voicing such concerns, here are some 3rd party developers comments about this:
  9. And I'll be blunt, but you're assuming wrongly what it is we are doing and what it is we are needing in the FS2020 SDK. For more details, I've already posted all of these and how this is not about injecting anything in FS2020. Just search my post history. PS: besides, if it is about injecting anything in FS2020, we can already in many ways, including a new loophole I just found out yesterday, and the WASM sandbox which can be bypassed to grant any add-on access to any DLL and programs on your computer, and they won't be able to secure this one at all unless they restrict the CRJ from running properly!
  10. And I concur this is detrimental not just to RXP, but I also believe it is bad for FS2020 in the long term. I often get supportive private messages or emails, but this one less than a week ago is special: You see, in spreading FUD and in not engaging with older companies like RXP, they are even creating fear among some newcomers who feel they'll be treated even worse. I really feel sadden for him and for our hobby. I'll keep thinking for now they've have been really busy chasing bugs and helping other 3rd party vendors they didn't have much resources for RXP yet, but this is just an unfortunate delay. I've had the chance to exchange a few with Asobo developers in the private dev forum and I've always received good feedback to my suggestions privately, so I believe they are open to communication, at least at Asobo.
  11. Like I said in back in March: the 2 most voted topics for the last Q&A where both asking Microsoft/Asobo to get in contact with Reality XP. I won't judge why they still aren't, there is no need to judging this, but I sincerely thank everyone who is supporting us, this means a lot: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/live-dev-q-a-guided-question/370628/14?u=cptlucky8 https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/live-dev-q-a-guided-question/370628/59?u=cptlucky8 Having said this, and not judging at all, but don't you find peculiar new comers get's approved on the Market Place for selling modded default files (vegetation for example), but 20 years old experienced and renown RXP engaged with Microsoft under an NDA since Dec. 2019 should resort to getting supportive votes in the public forum... I mean you might not remember it, but RXP was the first commercial offering for a GPS add-on in Flight Simulator, at the time there was a few payware aircraft only: "UPS Aviation Technologies is pleased to support the Reality XP product. The product’s ability to simulate the real-world workings of avionics systems is so good that we suspect many pilots who operate our equipment will acquire the Reality XP product for training purposes." — Sam Seery, Director of Sales and Marketing http://reality-xp.com/flightsim/apollo/customers/index.html
  12. I'm certain any 3rd party vendor working daily with Asobo developers directly wouldn't find any major problem in the SDK holding them back, because they would be able to work hand-in-hand with Asobo developers directly to solve any problem holding them back.
  13. It is equally weird they freeze out other 3rd party add-ons vendors and they are preventing any other app from interfacing a 3rd party GPS properly in my opinion. NB: RXP is not impaired to making a Garmin trainer based GTN or GNS in FS2020 but it wouldn't be a RXP product either: It won't fly like a Garmin but like a FS2020. It won't fly all Garmin leg types properly. It won't guarantee latency of operations, i.e. you have to expect delays between touching the screen and visible feedback, sometimes often, sometimes not. It won't connect to any of your gauges in your panel except for a few of them, sometimes working, sometimes not (i.e. no deviation on the HSI for example). Please understand this is not an unsolvable technical problem: XP11 SDK is natively supporting creating 3rd party GPS products so much, it doesn't require any hacks at all. Just pure SDK. FS/P3D SDK doesn't support any of the above natively but we can supplement the deficiencies in patching the code at runtime. These are not very complex patches either, just a few missing features easily plugged in where it should. FS2020 SDK is exactly the same as FS/P3D SDK (gauge and systems C++ part of the SDK), but we can't augment it nor supplement it's deficiencies. We've offered to share our source code with Microsoft/Asobo, and to actively help them and sharing our 20 years old expertise, but they are not answering our phone calls nor our emails, even if we're under NDA. LR developers are also making an excellent set of default Garmin devices available in the simulator (GNS + G1000). The stock devices are so good they are sufficient for FAA approved training, and LR developers are not shy of sharing their pride about their Garmin devices. Nevertheless, LR has always been supporting 3rd party offering like RXP Garmin so that their customers get more choices.
  14. @marchamilton74 Please, don't cross-post. Do you actually have purchased a RXP product or are you just having an issue when running the Garmin trainer standalone?
  15. Hi, This is a crash report for the Garmin Trainer Launcher, not the trainer nor the RXP plugin. Sig[0].Value=Aviation_Trainer_Launcher.exe You might want to contact Garmin for this specific error with their product? NB: it appears you're loading fraps in the Garmin trainer. This might not be the cause of the crash, but I'd consider disabling fraps and compare to get started: LoadedModule[39]=C:\Fraps\FRAPS32.DLL NB: this also indicates the fraps dll is most likely injected in any single application you're running on your computer...
×
×
  • Create New...