Oh it has been educational as well. I think the people who I meant know who they were. I fully agree with your entire post.
Thanks for that reasoned response. make sense to me now !!
I would pay upwards of ÂŁ20 for a fully working add-on mod for the default A320neo Ă la FBW A320nx.
I donât think developers quite realise the potential of the Xbox user base. Yes, it might be more work, but there is serious potential as unlike PC users, Xbox users donât have freeware mods and have much less choice and only one platform to choose from.
WOW what a pis#$@& contest this thread has become! lol I look at it this way. Their model their choice. Either way itâs still available to us, for free I might add, so who cares where itâs available from, all I can say is still after 9 months of using the FBW version, GREAT JOB FlyByWire! Canât wait to see what the future has in store! Kudos to your work, your commitment to the project and to this, sometimes harsh, community. Your work is NEVER looked down upon by me or many others. I wish you all the best⊠Oh look at that! Gotta go thereâs another dev update I want to try out for the A320âŠ
Colour me not surprised. Wise move. Shame for the XBox users, but completely understandable. You have my full support. Reality is very simple: a whole lot of complex simulations will simply not be available to those who choose (willingly or by nature of circumstances) to use XBox for MSFS. This, the Fenix bird, we will see about DC-6 (no idea on that one), upcoming MilViz aircraft. Itâs just something that needs to be fully understood and accepted by the XBox users. For the sake of transparency, it should be stated when you get the XBox version that not all add-ons will be available so that itâs not a surprise to those users.
So it seems the âNo Pilot left behindâ does not apply to X-Box users ?
I believe that slogan was created before an X-BOX version was even conceived.
It certainly does not seem to apply now âŠ
BTW âColourâ ??? BostonJeremy77 is a Britt ???
Oh, make no mistake, pilots WILL be left behind. Thatâs just the reality. Itâs not very good - there seems to be a diversion from the original vision of what the XBox product âwould beâ and what it actually IS now. I donât think things have been thought through very much.
And BostonJeremy77 learned English in the UK. So, âcolourâ comes from that. (English is my 4th language)
In that case, we better hope Iâm right, eh?
Kev
Thatâs were I also learn English. Now I am America, I am having to learn American, and be very careful when I ask for a Cigarette, or to borrow an Eraser !!
You should see the look on the waitersâ faces when I ask for a glass of water. Half of them canât understand what I am asking for.
With regards the vanilla base game experience no pilot is left behind.
However, I donât recall any official suggestion that this would extend to User Generated Content
That consoles have limited access to user generated content should really come as no surprise to anybody because itâs been that way for ever.
Even those titles which have provided access to user generated content on the console it has been a great deal more limited.
This is simply the nature of a closed ecosystem and one of the trade offâs that surely in 2021 everybody already knows about.
To me, the more interesting reason for FBW not returning to the marketplace was this:
Finally, although the SDK has improved since the release of the sim a year ago, it still lacks some key functionality that limits what we can do with the aircraft. In an effort to work around this, we are considering the possibility of running certain components of the aircraft outside the simulator - something that would also not be compatible with the marketplace.
Everything that is wrong with Microsoft Flight Simulator is well summarized there. If we had a sufficient SDK, the whole debate about âsimmersâ versus âgamersâ would be gone as would all of the whining about all of the stuff that Asobo canât seem to get right. With a decent SDK, the community would have already developed suitable replacements for all of the poorly implemented features. They would have also already tackled the missing features and we would already have the kinds of add-ons that would address the âsimmersâ needs for realism. People could stop caring about that fact that (for many of us) the development roadmap (and therefore Asobo) is missing so many of the most important things that need to be addressed from a simulation perspective.
That even FBW is finally admitting that the SDK is insufficient for their needs is fairly telling. Iâve been saying this from day 1: WASM sucks and trying to force developers into a tiny little sandbox to ensure X-box compatibility is the wrong approach. What is going to happen is what is already happening: developers interested in producing add-ons with the level of realism appropriate for the simulator are going to find ways to bypass the obstacles that embody the SDK. That Fenix is building on top of ProSim may or may not be a happy accident, but now that cat is out of the bag other developers are going to follow suit.
Unfortunately, the X-box is a second-class development platform for flight simulator add-ons because of that platformâs locked-down nature. Many of the things that developers are doing (or will do) to work around SDK limitations may not work on X-box without platform changes that would enable a far more open cross-platform development environment. While undoubtedly add-on developers would love to take advantage of the X-box market, I suspect that those add-on developers producing cutting edge of flight simulator realism arenât going to be willing to target X-box if it means delivering a lesser product. As a result, such products arenât going to be available in the marketplace presumably due to the fact that they wonât work on X-box.
Plus, the reality is that cross-platform development is never completely seamless. Yes, stuff built with the SDK should work on X-box, but making products available in the marketplace is a commitment that it will. That requires developers to have access to x-box hardware for testing as well as the willingness and know-how to support that platform. For small shops, that may be a large ask and ultimately too much of a bother.
Of course, the other thing that Iâve been saying for quite some time is that the Marketplace itself is unfriendly to developers and customers alike. MSFS is the first FS platform that Iâve bought add-ons for and in the early days I bought into the idea of âone marketplace to rule them all.â However, my experiences with the marketplace were so bad that I quickly realized that as a customer, the downsides far outweighed the upsides. Now I wonât buy from there if given a choice, and if Iâm not given a choice, that will work against vendors who sell exclusively there. There are definitely vendors who are cool on the marketplace because the slow turnaround times in making updates available result in the vendors looking bad to their customers. The reality is that unless Microsoft addresses the myriad problems with the marketplace, there are most likely always going to be products that will never be available in the marketplace regardless of whether they could run on X-box.
Exactly. The FBW A320 from their stand alone installer is the only plane I use in MSFS. I also appreciate all of their hard work. If it wasnât for this aircraft I wouldnât be using MSFS at all. Keep up the great work.
Yes:
And therein lies the rub.
Thing is, I donât know of any âserious simmersâ that run vanilla anything. No one flies default aircraft that is into high-fidelity simulations. So, in terms of XBoxers⊠do they expect that the XBoxers will be satisfied with just flying default aircraft? And if itâs ONE platform, ONE sim, remember? âWe are one communityâ etc⊠Is that not a prime example of the reality not corresponding with rhetoric?
In a way they try to present the simulator is that itâs a âsim for simmersâ, remember? And since itâs âone platform, one communityâ, doesnât that look like âsim for simmersâ except if you are an XBox simmer - in which case itâs a âsim for XBox usersâ thatâs devoid of high quality aircraft.
I am not an XBoxer, thankfully, but I am playing devilâs advocate here and am empathizing with the XBox users because it surely must be frustrating. The product they are able to enjoy on XBox is handicapped by a myriad of limitations, so in no way, shape, or form would I consider it to actually BE what they are striving to achieve. That is to say, what they are trying to achieve is IMPOSSIBLE. It should have never been a claim they put forward. It should have always been more of âXBox runs it TOO⊠you may be limited in terms of your 3rd party add-ons, but if you want to fly MSFS as it comes with a limited selection of 3rd party add-ons, we can give you that TOO⊠But the PC version is obviously going to be superior in that regardâŠâ
It should have never been âone platform, one communityâ - from many different angles. Tech issues is one reason - the XBox players may be experiencing XBox-only issues. PC users may be experiencing different issues. There COULD have been a separate Forum section for X-Box users, but this overarching desire to unify everything and everyone is starting to show its ugly side.
Is this another reason why the debate rages whether this is a game a simulation?
Hides
That debate is dumb. Itâs a game⊠or a simulator. Or a simulator game. Whatever. The point is that, for WHATEVER it is, they are trying to make it seem THE SAME on both platforms. Except it isnât, and it will never be.
We are in danger of drifting off topic hereâŠ
Well, depends. FBW A320 is very much related to this. Itâs just ONE of the things the XBoxers wonât be able to enjoy. So itâs a shining example of how this just isnât the same thing.
But weirdly⊠(and playing devilsâ advocate) are we really getting âoff topicâ so very much?
The a320NX is the nearest we have got to Study level aircraft so far, and now FWB are announcing their decision not to release on that platform.*
I wonder if this decision helps to inform the debate, given that this is supposed to be a unified offering across both platforms?
Hides again
*with possible exception of the PMDG DC-6