Aerosoft will only produce dumbed-down aircraft for MSFS

[Manschy]

There will always be complex aircraft for MSFS. The names of the developers may change and the prices may go up, because they are expensive to develop, but business is business. I don't blame Aerosoft for doing what they're doing. They would be stupid not to. The nice thing is, if you're really angry about it, there isn't anything stopping any of us here from learning to develop these on our own. Especially now, more than ever, the tools to develop aircraft are becoming free. Before, you would have to spend thousands of dollars to buy 3DSmax to develop something for FS. Now you can use Blender, which is free. As is Gimp, etc. Hell, Just Flight has a line of much simpler military aircraft, because in depth aircraft take so damned long to develop. Now, what I would like these companies to do is make all the switches in the cockpits "clickable/operable" and give out the variables to which they are assigned, but without any systems behind them. There are so many freeware developers, if they want to take the time to develop the systems, let the community have at it. It lowers costs for developers, but allows the users to develop them to whatever level they prefer. Plus, it would give users the ability to upgrade the models to whatever level they like. That's just my two cents.

Good cents, mate.

That's what I am hoping for - that Aerosoft is immaterial sometime and that most other developers keep on doing their great work without loosing passion for the simulation.
I understand that Aerosoft is a company which has to generate money to pay all its personnel.
But to forget all users which big Aerosoft up all the years just in that moment as Kok realize how easy it is to make money - I can't accept this anymore.

[Alan_A]

There will always be complex aircraft for MSFS. The names of the developers may change...

Agree - I think we're seeing a changing of the guard. if so, it's actually pretty typical - the businesses that lead at any given time usually aren't leaders twenty years later. When you have a settled way of doing things (and that settled way makes you money), it's hard to change to accommodate new ways of working. A new set of leaders emerges from among the companies on the fringe. They can afford to take innovate and take risks - in fact, they have to if they want to grow.

Thinking about this as I find myself spending a lot of time with Flying Iron's warbirds.

Also worth noting that the dynamics around MSFS are pretty complex. It's hard to tell what's the fault of the developers for "dumbing down" their products and what falls to Microsoft/Asobo for not providing adequate documentation or debugging tools. Then, XBox presents a new set of technical limitations. I'm not sure it's clear whether Aerosoft is committing to a new development style or just being conservative - if I'm reading his posts correctly, Mathijs' posts correctly, he's saying that certain features (for example, animations) could be added back in if the memory constraints on XBox turn out to be less severe than estimated.

About the changing of the guard - I'm not saying it's a hard-and-fast rule. PMDG did in fact do beautifully with the DC-6 (though not on XBox - they ran into barriers there, and they're struggling with the lack of documentation, resources and debugging tools for their airliners). And Milviz has come out of the gate strong. But there's also great work being done by new names.

MSFS is a pretty big sandbox and a couple of years out, there'll probably be offerings to suit a variety of tastes.

Final note - I agree there's also some late-stage capitalism involved. True, companies want to make money, but they also make bad decisions when they try to, and they come to grief. That could be Aerosoft right now. Time will tell.

[Seahawk72s]

Has anyone see a response from PMDG about Aerosoft's comments.?

We might have to see what happens with their 737 and its associated systems to understand what the future might bring.

[Daube]

I suppose it depends if an editor is interested in publishing into the XBox market.
What did PMDG say about their DC6 ? Do they intend to make it avaiable for XBox users ? (or is it already available?)
Does that plane use any external module/program to run ?

[K5083]

Interesting thread.

I assume that many, perhaps nearly all, developers are thinking along the same lines as Aerosoft. Aerosoft is just saying the quiet part out loud, and I give them some credit for that.

But saying it out loud might not be the best marketing strategy. Also, it might be a bit early to make that call. Unless I've missed a memo, the jury is not back yet on whether MSFS will succeed on the Xbox platform. I can understand the decision to design within Xbox's limitations FOR NOW. I wouldn't necessarily commit to it permanently until I know where the long term core MSFS users will end up being.

That said, the DHC-6 is not a bad plane and I can live with planes of this quality at this price point from most MSFS developers, if that is what the future holds. Not only will there likely be hardcore developers for MSFS that are willing to forego the Xbox market and cater to the most demanding PC users, but this might breathe a little new life into P3D and X-Plane.

August

[StormILM]

I think all this speculation is a little premature, contrary to MK's strong post about the Twin Otter (which was in response to what I would call an "Attack Post" on the bugs of the model), the Twin Otter does not seemed dumbed down, aside from the bugs/minor issues, it pretty much give you the simplicity of the actual aircraft which I agree with some, some animations and features need to be fixed/upgraded. I think that will be accomplished without too much fuss (MK indicated this as well).

That being noted, I tend to agree that a balanced approach to this new market is wise, perhaps the incoming models from Devs who build Study Level software could build them to accommodate both genres by having the features that are not currently supported on X-Box to be disabled while the standard features are still in place? Just an idea (not sure how big of a hassle that would involve). But of course many developers are going to build a general set of models for both markets, this is actually nothing new (with past versions of the sims). I fly both Study Level and non- for fun.

I think everything will work out in this. Looking at what PMDG and other Devs are doing, I think the higher end of the market is safe and will only get better. This sim platform is the most promising we've seen so far, just needs time to grow like the ones did before it.

[tiger1962]

Just to re-iterate; there are no features which are not supported by Xbox as such, but some features such as the number of animations/moving parts ARE limited - that's why the doors don't open on the default aircraft.
If Microsoft can remove these limitations, or at least raise them to a higher level, AND provide a better developer toolkit for Xbox, all third party developers will have a field day.
Microsoft must be aware of this, since they've taken the Working Title team on board and hired extra staff for them too - Microsoft seem to want highly realistic glass gauges from the start, so the rest must surely follow?

[tommieboy]

I will no doubt move on over to MSFS and have a look-see once I get the specs for my new Windows 11 computer ironed out. That being said, though I do love the new level of model detailing that MSFS allows for, I simply don't have the inclination to invest any time in a study level aircraft, so here is one vote for "dumbed-down" aircraft. X-box is not an option that I would consider.

Tommy

[SkippyBing]

It can't be that complicated to develop aircraft with a fairly deep system functionality.

Yes, developers generally just don't do it out of spite. Or it's a hideously complex process even once you've got access to the manuals and can figure out how to replicate the features.

[ceo1944]

Yes, developers generally just don't do it out of spite. Or it's a hideously complex process even once you've got access to the manuals and can figure out how to replicate the features.

I can offer you some detailed development facts about this situation. It's not that developers don't want to create complex systems for MSFS, it's that a major tool for doing so - THE major tool, actually - isn't available to us if we want to publish our work on Xbox.

I work for Milviz, but what I say here isn't their opinion, it's mine. And it's hardly an opinion at all, just facts.

In every version of FS I've ever worked with it was/is possible to simulate an aircraft at a basic level using default systems and RPN (XML) to interface to them. But for complex custom systems (PMDG, A2A, Milviz and others) it is necessary to use C++. Only a deep mature language like that has the power and heft to model the systems, say, of an authentic, complete 737 or even a 350i.

MSFS supports C++ in a system called WebAssembly (WASM) which provides a subset of the full capabilities of the language and its flight sim libraries. Enough for PMDG to do their DC-6 or 737 in MSFS for the PC.

Currently, the Xbox will not execute WASM code.

Period.

Therefore, devs are locked out of the Xbox if they code in C++ (WASM). This code will still work on the PC version of MSFS. Thus you have the DC-6 on the PC but not on Xbox. All Milviz aircraft use C++/WASM and therefore will run on the PC but not XBox.

This is the dividing line between PC and Xbox, not developer desires or intent. Everyone would like to have access to the Xbox market. But to do so, right now, your aircraft can't have any C++ custom-built systems.

We hope Asobo will implement WASM on the Xbox, but have no timeline of when, or if, that will happen.

Dutch

[heywooood]

thanks for breaking that down for us - it matters that folks understand the truth so they don't create and then act on theories - kind of an epidemic of that going around these days

[LostPilot]

Thanks for that insight Dutch!

[Tom Clayton]

Well, I've been educated for today! It's good to know that basic difference between PC and console. All this time I thought that the consoles were running with essentially essentially the same abilities as a regular PC, but now I know different. So the question then becomes whether the hardware in the console can run WASM. If so, then it would be a matter of MS pushing an OS update, which would be a rather expensive undertaking for MS. If not, then console users will have to convince MS to build that into their next iteration, and also be willing to pay for that iteration - just to be able to fly the more complex planes that they'll also have to pay for.

I suspect it would be easier for the end user to convert to PC gaming...

[heywooood]

Curious to see what, if anything, MS/ASOBO can do now to make amends to both their Xbox customers who expected to run MSFS in full and complete equality with PC users - and to developers who already see their potential sales estimates cut in half.
Seems to me they have no choice but to get WASM to run on Xbox - what options can there be?

[DennyA]

It's a security issue. You're never going to get a virus or get hacked on a console. That's because code has to run through the Xbox libraries, you can't execute custom C++ code. The console is more than powerful enough to do it (it's more powerful than a mid-range gaming PC), but opening up to external code libraries like that would open the Xbox to hackers.

WASM doesn't allow magic complexity. What it DOES do is allow addition of systems that aren't in the core simulation. Replacing flight models, adding complex underlying systems, etc. Nothing WASM does can't be added to core sim functionality, but obviously a lot of features are still "to come" in MSFS, with their roadmap already out into 2023.

Not having access to WASM doesn't mean a plane is "dumbed down." It just means its limited to core sim functionality. So you can't replace the flight model, add new features that aren't yet in MSFS, etc. You can still do a perfectly realistic aircraft within the realm of what MSFS supports. It doesn't mean "arcade planes," it just means the folks who like their planes in the top 25% of complexity aren't going to find those on Xbox for a while to come.

Planes on the Xbox aren't "arcade" level, and they deliver everything that MSFS explicitly promised. There's no bait-and-switch. They just can't take things to the next level past what's there now until the core sim adds additional complexity. But I'd venture for the vast majority of fliers, there's enough there to justify their $60-to-$120.

Guys who thrive on engine management and 100% system replication aren't going to be happy. But MSFS, even on the Xbox, still provides an amazing flying experience, and has a variety of add-ons available.

I have a feeling Austin is going to work hard to make the switchology fans happy in X-Plane 12. Alas, he doesn't have the development resources and data stack MS has.

[Mathias]

@DennyA
Another time that I wish we had a like button here for such well leveled posts. Thank you!

[FlameOut]

I appreciate the explanations fellas !

[DennyA]

From the most recent Asobo developer Q&A, as summarized by FSElite:

A member of the community asked about how the team is handling the PMDG DC-6 on Xbox. Specifically, the team said that they were looking to bring the plane back, but ran into issues after the launch. This was due to the team using ‘Dev Kits’ for Xbox which had certain security settings different to retail units. This meant during the testing, the plane was running fine. However, on consumer units, the plane was unable to work due to some restrictions.

That said, they are working with the Xbox platform team to make the possibility real and also keep the console safe. The bad news is that this may take ‘months’ to fix. Asobo and Microsoft however may have a shorter-term solution in mind.
Jorg said, “we are working with the platform team to make it real and keep the console safe. They’re committed and it will take a few months. This is the reality and we’ve done what we can right now. We’re highly motivated and the platform [team] is doing it. And we might be doing something shorter-term”

So the TL;DR essentials here are that WASM stuff isn't working on Xbox right now, but the MSFS team is working with the Xbox platform team to find a way to enable a solution for extensibility that will still keep the console security intact.

Once this is resolved X months down the road, Aerosoft and others will be able to do planes for both PC and Xbox that use external modules to add capabilities and systems that aren't yet implemented in the core sim.

So as is often the case when folks get upset on the Internet, the story is more complicated than initially communicated, and the long-term situation is not nearly as doom-filled.

[XR219]

Interesting read,

I noticed that Asobo and the MS guys where very open about the WASM issue on Xbox last week on their webcast. I said this on another forum, but Microsoft is like an oil tanker... actually several oil tankers all doing there own thing. If the captain of one needs help from another the typical response is "what's in it for me".

To get the Xbox platform team to make changes to the Xbox OS is a huge ask... because, basically they never do it. And when they do, it takes 6 to 12 months. There is no special treatment for the inhouse Microsoft studios when it comes to Xbox. The Xbox platform team top trumps all. And if they don't want to do it, it wont happen.

In some ways, the Xbox is a great platform to get people into flightsim. But the expectation was set that it would be the same experience as on PC; which it was never going to be. A better tack might have been that Standard edition would support most aircraft on PC and Xbox, but more advanced aircraft would need premium on a PC (which would be more open). Anyway, the bed has been made. TBH I think the Twotter is very good, I'm not interested in Glass Panels (I actively avoid them) so it hits the mark for me.