We’re not talking about integrating a G3X, or a Boeing, we’re talking about integrating a GNS 530 which has been developed and documented. I’m well aware of what WT is working on and what AAU2 contains. The fact that they are making changes to other avionics has very little bearing on developers not implementing the systems that are already available.
Well I have actually done systems development in MSFS, including GPS and autopilot integrations. You don’t have to believe me, of course, because I’m not going to give any more details for various reasons. The WT package is not particularly difficult though, in fact it’s probably easier than using the base system because it’s actually fully functional.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt in many cases. There’s a big difference between “I have other projects to focus on and I’ll get a fix out as soon as practical” and “go complain to someone else because it’s not my problem”.
Discord is where the majority of the FS community is, and while you may not appreciate it, that’s where the daily discussion is happening. Of course WT also monitors here and the FS Dev Support forums, and published an entire set of developer documentation after AAU1. However I’m not even sure what the users have to do with it, I certainly wouldn’t expect most of them to be able to fix these issues, nor should they. That’s why “just remove the WT 530” is such a poor response, that’s putting it all back onto the users who just want to use a far superior piece of avionics.
The issue is the autopilot isn’t working with the WT530. For that to work, the developer has to do the work. He hasn’t. That’s all there is. I have no idea what you’re going on about or why you seem to be defending WT. Nobody asked you to do that and nobody is blaming them for anything. This is just the current state of MSFS today. The BN2 is not the only plane with an issue in this regard. It is what it is. For MSFS to see the improvements we need, this is what has to happen. There has to be some pain for what will be exponential gains in the future.
Yes, there are a few people over there on Discord. The majority… that’s hilarious.
Ok So someone please confirm,
If I remove the Marketplace WT Packages, will this plane work with the WT Base GPS? If not ok no problems at least I know what the issue is be that me or somethiong else, no blame games just asking, and then the Defensive Dev can explain why, and why they felt the need to act in this way and if they will be doing the work required or not.
In the mean time I will just fly the Thundra BN2 in X-Plane 12. No problems, no arguments, I am confused, I have not blamed anyone for anything, I just asked. In all honesty I think the dev should be applogising! But whatever!
Ok so I think I understand, in the List @NixonRedgrave just posted, I can see all the add-on’s that need or should be updated, I also own nearly all of them, and to be honest I just find it somewhat lazy that WT/Asobo have gone to all that trouble to update the avionics making them almost a 1:1 of the real thing, and I assume made it clear and some devs have not bothered and it has been months now.
So in all honesty I think I will be swerving these devs in the future, I understand they got other things on the go, but this adds so much realism to the planes that it is crazy not to add it? How hard is it?
It also annoys me that 1st Party planes are not using it?
This whole Saga needs to come to an end, it really is terrible, to have all these great planes and avionics and they are not being used.
As a “Third party developer” Nobody has contacted me
and MY Final word on the subject is this …
IF a 4th party developer wants to create nice Avionics as “ADD ONS FOR EXISTING PRODUCT” Then THEY must ensure that they are fully compatible and Not rely on the original developers to Re work their products to fall in line with them.
but you miss my point …
A commercial developer should not be having to blindly play catch up to some “avionics mods” without Proper SDK, changelog and instruction.
Don’t get me wrong … I am ALL for improvements but where existing product must be modified to become compatible then Communication is the key !
We should NEVER Have to hear of any incompatibility via customer complaints before we know there is an Issue !
It doesn’t really matter what you consider WT to be. Their business is directly with Asobo, meaning the onus is on Asobo to correspond with other 3rd party devs.
There are some devs who may be privy to an unofficial “inner circle” with Asobo/WT, but that is obviously not the case for everyone. So blaming a dev for being “out of the loop” makes no sense, when they have already stated there was no direct communication.
Working Title’s avionics is not a mod. It is the default avionics now Unless I’m missing something here. Unless we’re talking about those mods that made it work with planes that didn’t support it, in which case yeah, you can’t be expected to support that. All of this aside though, I hope you and others are able to update to support the improvements WT (who is as closed to first party as it gets, they are officially a Microsoft subsidiary now) have made.
Why would you need an apology? Nobody actually accused you of anything… You asked the question, having mentioned that immediately after installing the WT update you experienced problems… the dev advised you to contact WT and raise the issue with them (the Islander was released way before WT even started work on the GNS430/530 revamp), I advised you to uninstall the add-on to which you pompously replied “Why would I do that?” - I would have thought the answer to that question was obviously the one you posted originally, and that was also hinted at by the dev’s reply too!
It takes seconds to install/uninstall that mod (personally I’ve left it uninstalled) so it’s not really as big an issue as you seem to be making it out to be… The Islander is a great aircraft, just get in the thing, fly it, and enjoy it! You’ll have great fun!
I don’t feel You are due an Apology … If I missed something then please explain ?
And I think there would be less misunderstanding if we can see the difference between
“A Customer complaint”
and
“A complaining Customer”
I deserve one because I asked a question with no blame on his/her product and I was met with sarcastic replies, asked to delete my post, and told to ask WT?
How is any of that helpful or warranted, What did I do wrong? How am I supposed to word a question?
Unless I’m missing something here. Unless we’re talking about those mods that made it work with planes that didn’t support it, in which case yeah, you can’t be expected to support that. All of this aside though, I hope you and others are able to update to support the improvements WT (who is as closed to first party as it gets, they are officially a Microsoft subsidiary now) have made.