Air Manager should not be the only way

Discussion Hub Home Cockpit Builders
,
1

First, let me say, I’m amazed and humbled by the huge amount of community work that has been done making instruments and panels for Air Manager, and around these parts the Simstrumentation team deserve particular praise.

But (you knew there would be a but) the problem with Air Manager as the only real home cockpit solution we have is that there are way too many aircraft to possibly cover all their switch panels and bezels and all the other stuff that we need to build home cockpits with MSFS, and the only reason we really need to do this is because the sim is woefully inadequate for cockpit builder needs.

Let me give an example: I am excited to (soon-ish) have the AvroJet version of the BAe-146 in MSFS. It’s an aircraft I used to fly in P3D and which I did significant work for, including building custom software, to include in my old P3D-based home cockpit setup. Presumably the glass elements of the cockpit will be available as pop-outs. But there is a ton of other instrumentation and panels that you need to fly the aircraft, and they will not be pop-outs. In fact, I don’t think it’s possible to make a switch panel or anything other than a gauge screen into a pop-out in MSFS.

So Air Manager is the only hope here, but to really make it work you’d either a) need Air Manager panels for the overhead, the pedestal, the engine readouts, etc etc etc, or b) have a complete custom-built physical AvroJet cockpit and wire up all the hardware. I’m never going to have b) because I don’t have a single-type cockpit, and I don’t want one. And I’m never going to have a) unless someone decides to do all the work to create all the custom instruments in Air Manager for the AvroJet. That would require a huge amount of work and dedication and the community building Air Manager instruments is fairly small and (not unreasonably) focusses on building instruments and panels for the aircraft they want to fly.

Now, I like to be able to scratch my own itches, so I will try to learn how to build Air Manager instruments, but I’m no graphic artist and I suspect my efforts will not look brilliant. And even if I do, that does nothing for the dozens of other aircraft for which there are no good Air Manager solutions. Generic instruments work up to a point but it’s not really immersive.

The really sad (and annoying) thing is, all we really need is the windowing and camera capabilities already present in FSX and P3D. With the ability to save camera views, you could create a camera pointing to the panel you need to export, open up a window to the camera view, and drag it off to the monitor you want it on. It would need to be interactive - that is, you’d have to be able to use the mouse (or more likely, touch-screen) on it. Which FSX / P3D can do and have been able to do for literal decades. That’s how I operated the AvroJet in my P3D sim. It works, and works well. It’s not rocket science. (Of course, developer-provided 2D panels are even better for this, but almost no-one does 2D panels any more and MSFS doesn’t, AFAIK, even support the possibility.)

OK, so, this is yet more whining about stuff the sim doesn’t do that would primarily benefit a small % of the user base, so I’m sure people will jump in and tell me that it’s not a real problem and I should just use VR. Let’s take that as read, shall we? Thanks.

If we assume we’ll never get an FSX-equivalent windowing and camera system in MSFS, and I figure if we were going to we’d have had it right at launch; and if Air Manager instruments are the only way forward for type-accurate exporting of panels to other displays; then how can we get more of them? Could 3rd party aircraft makers consider making Air Manager panels to ship with their aircraft? Or as an optional extra for extra cost? I’d pay for that.

So what’s the solution here? Thoughts welcome.

5 Likes
2

There are three major issues with AirManager that hinders the development of new instruments:

Graphics Resources

You must create your own graphics material. The tools are available, but you need to master them to produce something acceptable to most of the users. You also need some creative talent.

If you are not that graphics artist, reusing graphics from other sources is the alternative. But this does not allow for redistribution of your personal instruments.

Software Engineering Skills

You need to study/understand the AirManager API that defines the functionality available to build instruments. That API is not a well-designed one. Instead, it has been growing over several major versions.

Also, it is at a very low level for an aviation instrument application. A high level API is missing. Which means you must write quite a bunch of code to develop any non-trivial instruments. Which brings us to the next issue.

You need a good knowledge of LUA, the programming language used for developing the instrument behaviors.

Although LUA is an appropriate language for the task and very efficient it has its downsides. It tries to mimic other procedural languages while in its nature it is a functional language. You really need to grasp that difference to understand/master it.

Interfacing AirManager

Obviously for MSFS2020 the main interface is SimConnect. And as many of us know SimConnect is not complete and also, not well designed. That’s why some ingenious people develop workarounds that are even more incomprehensible like RPN scripting or mappings to animation code.

Then there is the interfacing to the hardware. Input and outputs via microcomputers like Arduino’s, Raspberry’s, and some spooky others. A world of its own, and a world that needs another set of skills.

The preferred solution would be to get any kind of separable instrument “views”/“panels” or whatever you name them.

If we must stay with “AirManager”, what we need is:

First, a high level API in AirManager, that would allow us, instead of programming, to specify almost all the parts/features of an instrument and let the high level API create the instrument on loading. Leaving scripting only for highly specialized features as fall back.

Then, free access to graphics resources from out of the simulator under a license that allows redistribution as freeware. When I speak of graphics resources, I do not mean access to base materials. It would be sufficient to allow the reuse of the final displayed images/views from the sim in the form of parts/snippets of screenshots. For sure a proper credits notice would be required to be included.

Finally, a complete SimConnect interface, that allows fine grained control and supervision of the sim state.

9 Likes
3

Hi,
I don’t know what you have and haven’t voted for, but there are a bunch of Wishlist topics that might be helpful to you, filed under the tag undocking.

4

It’s often easy to be critical of something that one does not want to do or can’t do. You can make the same argument about aircraft development. It requires multiple skills in the areas that are required. Some choose to learn it and some do not. It’s the same thing with AM. It’s not ideal but when is anything. As time goes on more and more instruments become available and of those some are generic in nature and can be used in other aircraft.

I have developed many instruments and panels over the years and I can safely say that the single biggest issue that hinders development is not producing graphics or writing code but gaining access to the MSFS variables and events and the non standard way the cross section of aircraft developers do things. The sooner Asobo allow us access to the B, I, O vars the better things will be.

5 Likes
5

Although your comment is not explicitly directed at my previous post, I assume it is a response to it.

Criticism must be allowed, I think. Especially if it is accompanied with constructive proposals how to overcome the issues.

The main purpose for home cockpit builders here is to finally spend time flying the sim in an immersive environment. If creating an instrument takes more time to develop than the time you will be using the instrument in flight, then few users will ever create one.

And after creating more than 200+ AM instruments for my personal use, I really do know what I’m talking about. I also developed my own higher level APIs on top of the AM API to let me create new instruments in less time. Some of those interfaces are even available on my GitHub account for free use.

You are right that SimConnect needs some improvements. And yes, I have voted for many improvements wishes here on the forum.

But as home cockpit builders are a minority here (compared to the 10 million users reported lately) we should not expect too much. And even an improved SimConnect will not speed up development of instruments, it will just open new possibilities.

1 Like
6

Agreed. I just think it’s unfortunate that Microsoft / Asobo didn’t sit down originally and see that the flexible display / windowing / camera system of FSX already covered so many use cases that it would be folly not to copy it wholesale. I’m sure technical difficulty of implementing it on Xbox would be a factor, but I’m pretty sure it was never even considered because they were already throwing out the existing rendering engine (and with good reason, judging by the results in terms of quality and performance) and the single-view engine that we got was good enough for MVP and now there’s no time or desire to go back to basics. Instead we get a fudged multi-monitor solution that certainly improves the situation but is far, far short of what we needed.

We may be a small % of the 10 million but we can be vocal here which is how we got multi-monitor far enough up the wishlist to actually happen…

Meanwhile I’m off to check out your Github :slight_smile:

4 Likes
7

No not a response to your post just a general point about why criticism often comes when things are not perfect. We are all guilty of it from time to time. It’s absolutely fine to make a suggestion about a product just don’t be surprised when someone else thinks the opposite. These forums are rife with many just so examples.

Improving data access will speed up development to a certain degree because you won’t spend as much time hunting out something you can use and i for one welcome that.

1 Like
8

Criticism ALWAYS comes when things are not perfect. This is the nature of it. No one needs to feel guilty about it. If we did not have criticism, there would be no progress.

Coming back to building home cockpits. which is the theme of this topic. What I really admire at AirManager is that it is an open and community friendly application allowing for expansion, sharing and exchange. There are a few alternatives but they are either closed systems (e.g. SimDashboard) or geared at hardware solutions only (e.g. MobiFlight).

Until another alternative is coming around the corner (either in MSFS, or third party) I will stay with AM. If only progress was faster. Their BETA process fo the minor release 4.1 took almost a full year and contained just 7 tiny changes for the user. 4.2 does not look more promising.

Throughout this year a collection of requests/wishes have been posted of their forums. But they have been eiter rejected or not answered at all. Despite that there is no communication with the community at all.

So for the moment I continue developing my own higher level APIs just to ease the creation of instruments. Anybody is invited to be part of that process.

2 Likes
9

Air Manager is a great tool.

I was able to create panels, interface with audrinos, pi gpio with ease because of it.

A high level API would be fantastic, but it’s not the fault of Air Manager that one does not exist. I don’t believe the product was conceived with that as a focus.

Also, in further defense of Air Manager, I believe with the resources and manpower they have and the inherent challenges of interfacing with msfs variables, I think the are at a great stage of development (4.0)…

Perhaps later version will conquer “easy to deploy graphics” and high level api calls.

Sign me up for development and testing.

My trim, parking brake and full panel are all due to Air Manager. Home Cockpit builders are capable.

See @Crunchmeister71 has a great github as well

2 Likes
10

You make it sound like Air Manager is such a chore. Sim innovations is a small company and they have other things on the go. If slow steady progress is the way it has to be I am happy with that.

It is the best at what it does and we should at least celebrate that we have what we have. We always want more but the direction in which that takes will never be agreed on by all. From where it came I like where it’s at right now.

Developing flat canvas instruments might be ok for some that want instruments but can’t/won’t do the graphics work and in some instances that approach works. I’ve done it myself for glass displays mainly because it suits that application well, however you can’t beat an instrument that has custom produced graphics and code. That takes time that a lot are not prepared to invest. That is fine but no pain no gain.

11

I see Air Manager as not necessarily the best home cockpit solution, but the most versatile. And one could argue, the least expensive compared to building cockpits with hardware or other commercial parts.

It has a lot going for it.

When it comes to versatility, there’s really no beating it. With being able to switch up from a C152 to a fighter jet to a helicopter to an airliner , etc… (you get the idea) with a few clicks is something nothing else out there does. If you have the instruments (will touch on that below), it’s quick and easy and works with almost any plane. There’s nothing else out there like it.

Touch screens are getting relatively inexpensive. So it’s easy to deck out a cockpit with a bunch of them without spending multiple thousands of dollars. It even allows the extremely budget-minded user to use the touch screens on their existing devices such as laptops, tablets and phones (via Spacedesk) and have a good experience. If you’re somewhat handy, you can build a Knobster yourself for about 25 USD, It opens the door to so many people. In terms of “home cockpit”, this is a pretty low barrier to entry.

On top of doing all the instruments and touch screen goodness, it’s also amazing for interfacing with all kinds of hardware. In its most basic form, the Knobster makes Air Manager even more awesome. Not everyone needs this functionality, but for those that need it for building out a hybrid cockpit, it’s fully integrated so you have 1 tool that does it all.

Now, I get the disappointment by a limited number of instruments. That’s why I started making them for myself. Granted, I was an early adopter of AM for MSFS not too long after Beta 4 came out. There wasn’t a whole lot there at the time. But I started making them and I’d share what I did with others so they could benefit from it as well. That ballooned into Simstrumentation where a small group of us pool our efforts to be able to knock out larger cockpits (particularly on the more complex planes) than any of us could realistically do in a reasonable time frame on our own. Many hands make light work!

Air Manager is really just starting to pick up steam with the MSFS crowd now. There have been a bunch of new community-produced instruments released in the AM store in the last year by various people and covering a lot of the really popular planes - both for Asobo and other 3rd party planes. The library is growing.

But the library also depends on end users to make the instruments. The more people there are using it, the more people will make and share instruments for it. And that’s what we’re seeing. I see it on our Simstrumentation Discord with the excellent work people have done and shared with the community. Planes our Discord members have touched on are the C510 Mustang, BAe-146, DA62, and various instruments for the Fenix A320, PMDG 737, and others.

It’s not perfect. The interface is a little clunky, there are limitations, mostly due to SDK vars not being exposed by Asobo that would make it far more capable. But there’s nothing else like it. It may not be the best solution. But it’s the best solution for me and a lot of others.

5 Likes
12

100% agree. As an early adopter myself, I was very pleased with the ability to build and deploy a Cessna Dash panel as early as Sept 2020 with the Beta of Air Manager. The stable commercial build works great!

13

I was a bit later. I discovered AM’s existence in early Dec 2020 and started looking into it. Within about a month, I had started using it. It was still very limited at the time due to the MSFS SDK being in such a rough spot, but it showed so much promise. And over the following months until now, it’s certainly delivered on that promise!

Direct RPN support is coming as well from what I understand. That should make things interesting.

14

Where did you hear that?

15

I’ll freely admit that needing to use Lua to program instruments is putting me off. It’s one of my least favourite languages. It’s almost enough to make me want to create a C# to Lua compiler. Almost.

1 Like
16

Right here: Fs2020 rpn - Sim Innovations Wiki

image
image1149×1108 77.5 KB

17

Oh that I thought you was referring to something else. That is something I discussed with the guys a little while back. Hopefully it helps. I haven’t tried yet but I will.

18

Having read through this topic I will throw in some thoughts on some of the comments.

You make it sound like Air Manager is such a chore.

Air manager is an excellent program but for standard users needing panels and instruments that currently do not exist for many aircraft it CAN be quite a chore.

Sim innovations is a small company and they have other things on the go.

Makes me want to bring out the violins. There is no point is making excuses like this. They are selling a product. It seems like the excuse is that AirManager is merely a platform and it is up to those buying that platform to create whatever instruments they want to run on it.

It requires multiple skills in the areas that are required. Some choose to learn it and some do not.

This is so patronizing…. as if not learning the skills is a choice…. and failing to learn is our bad decision. Not everyone wants to or can spend hours making instruments and panels. Simply saying “bad luck for you” is not appropriate.

Now, I get the disappointment by a limited number of instruments. That’s why I started making them for myself.

I have spent many, many hours (that I didn’t really have) in Photoshop creating panel backgrounds for numbers of my chosen aircraft - CLONING existing instruments/gauges/switches and replacing the original images with ones that match the actual aircraft…… and modifying the script to make them work to suit.

I happen to enjoy the challenge, even so, I would rather be flying than making instrument panels. Thus I have a great deal of empathy for the majority of people who do not happen to have the particular skill set needed, and are not particularly adept toward the type of learning that is involved.

So I would say the suggestion by FlyerOneZero for a camera view of any instrument panel that can be “windowed and dragged” to place onto a touch screen monitor would be a delightful feature.
Given that such a feature was already present in previous SIM versions, it is not as if it should be some impossibly difficult thing for MSFS 2020.

This might not be something Siminnovations would encourage in respect to the future sales of AirManager, but some of the above defense of AirManager seems be a little too partisan.

1 Like
19

You’ve pretty much taken those quotes out of the original context and in isolation looked at each one. There are no false statements there. You need to understand that Air Manager is intended to be a platform where people make there own instruments that’s how it works and one of its strengths. If it were just an instrument panel serving platform it would not have even half of the stuff it currently has. It has grown continually.
The point about needing the skills to do any task is fact and the reality. It’s a community driven thing and some have the skills and some don’t. It’s simple don’t buy the app if you don’t see the instruments you want, don’t have the desire/skills to make your own and won’t wait for someone else to. It’s a simple choice that folks often get frustrated by due to their own lack of research prior to purchase.

I’m not claiming it’s perfect there are many areas that I’d like to see improvement but it’s the best tool of its kind by far so we should enjoy that.

20

There is an old saying: “Throw a stone into a pack of dogs and the one that yelps it the one you hit”. Your responses make me suspect that you have a conflict of interest for AirManager.

In my previous comment I was supporting FlyOneZero’s request for something easier for cockpit builders and I was calling out criticisms of that request that merely blamed others for failing to learn the skills in Graphics and Coding that are required for making AirManager instruments.

I agree that AirManger is the best tool of its kind… in fact I would say it is the only tool of its kind, but your comment “don’t buy the app if you don’t see the instruments you want” is myopic, dismissive and condescending.

If Air Manager “is intended” to be a platform where people make their own instruments, the METHOD and TOOLS provided for doing so are absurd - and just because you happen to have the required skills does not justify your criticism of others for failing to learn them.

In your hasty defence you have actually missed the whole point (as you often seem to do).
AirManager is great for running instruments but not at all easy for making instruments.

So discussion about alternatives - or better ways to make the instruments we need - is appropriate and does not warrant derision of others who do not enjoy spending hours making instruments with the current AirManger tools.

1 Like