In theory I agree. And with sceneries this is all fine. But since the aircraft have proven to be more finicky than scenery and since MS/Asobo take a long time to approve updates, the result for you may be that you’ll be sitting around without your favourite airplane, as soon as a new upgrade to MSFS breaks the plane - as happened before several times now.
IndiaFoxTecho had the update ready for download within two or three days.
1 Like
Well, I figure if I can put up with a real life airplane being down for an annual for a week or three every year, I can do the same for a sim-plane, too. 
If I ever get to the point that owning another plane becomes hypothetically possible, which will require getting my legs to work properly (possible, but by no means a sure thing), and then getting a yay-oh-bee afterwards, then maybe I’ll have that real life problem again.
But even if all that happens, I damm sure won’t be able to afford more than one, and even if I could, I wouldn’t get more than one anyway.
1 Like
When oh when are you coming Waco? I am so bored of the airplanes in the sim lol… I need variety until someone releases a study level GA airplane “cough A2A cough”. Testing my patience.
I’ve ported over several Alabeo ships. and except for clickable switches and a missing panel object the appear and work excellently, I see no reason for them to start from scratch as the modeling of aircraft is largely based on the FSX .flt, (same lousy flight model). A standard FSX airfile with maybe a couple of lift coefficient tables tweaked. And it’s still look up tables. But I’m sure we will never know what they will eventually do. The fact that you can import many FSX models so easily attests to the fact that very little has changed. The consensus among several developers is that they have actually dumbed down the flight model, but that’s speculation, as there is little to come from Asobo on the particulars.
Considering I have only come across one ported FSX aircraft so far that could be considered to be “working fine” (Grumman G21 Goose) while still having some major bugs, I cannot share your assessment of the situation. If it were that easy I’d also expect more aircraft would be available already after over 4 months.
“consumer ready” and successfully ported are two different things. My point was that there are more things similar than different in the flight model from FSX to MSFS. right now the issues are around panels instruments and DDS imagery conversions in some cases. Porting for your own use is quite possible using the MSFS Legacy importer, and the issue for publication among those mentioned above is copyright infringement and permissions. That’s why you don’t see so many yet.
I agree with the first part. But still there are many good freeware FSX planes out there, and all the ports I’ve seen so far are incomplete. Often without moving parts, cockpits and a flight model that barely works in legacy. Basically a nice looking “flying” shell. Thats below my expectations.
Also I’ve read from several developers like Aerosoft that conversion is difficult and they had to learn a lot about the new FS first. And those guys have been experts for decades now.
But hey if you could whip me up a nice ported Stearman with a working cockpit and working surfaces, compatible to the new flight model, I certainly won’t complain. If you get it ready before Carenados Waco comes out I’ll even pay you the same price 
As noted, Just because they were released as freeware to use, does not mean anyone other than the original author has the right to convert and distribute those planes. That was @Soarscale’s main point.
After that, yes, Asobo recently broke click spots (again), and, yes, most aircraft don’t convert easily, as the authors often “did stuff” to get them to fly correctly in FSX, and gauge design was a forever evolving task.
1 Like
I understand that. And from all those - often experienced - freeware developers I expect several had a desire to convert their planes to FS2020. The fact that barely anyone has actually done it tells me: it probably ain’t easy. That’s the main point I wanted to make. 
But I didnt want to highjack the thread for that. Sorry
1 Like
A lot good info can be had on the developers forum if you have even a little technical expertise you can see what developers are saying about the flight model and getting new aircraft to “behave” properly. The porting thing is rife with issues, and there are a lot of parameters to consider, some convert easily, most do not, mostly but not always having to do with inside the cockpit issues, gauges that work, panels that appear, and textures missing. The best one I have produced so far was the Alabeo Tri Pacer, all gauges work and appear, but the panel object is missing. I’m converting a few then going to try to get into the CFG etc. and look for solutions to the various issues. Just for yucks (but I can’t legally share it) I’ll look at a Stearman and see if it converts. If I have one 
Not a fan of Carenado, but I just might purchase if they would release one of the bigger ones like Fokker, Saab or ATR. Is there a reason they haven`t done that? After all there is a gap in that category.
Reason?
There’s only so much time in the world. And a tonnn to learn right now, not to mention, the rug keeps getting pulled out from under by changes Asobo is making as they add more functionality to the sim and squash those niggling creepy crawlers running around.
While Asobo has the external modeling pretty well in hand, and are getting there world and weather system modeling-wise, it’s going to take a lot of time to get systems running smoothly and all the handles developers need access to get their systems running ok. And turbine engines have always been a mess in FSX, so there’s a lot to do there. Cockpit gauges and the whole cockpit interaction system is still a mess in progress that needs a bunch of work to get working properly, and now VR has been added to the mix, and nobody is going to stand for a lack of VR support.
IOW, one thing at a time, work on the easier planes to start with, figure out design methodologies and how to get things working, and work their way up to the more complex planes. Aerosoft chose to tackle the harder plane first and get their feet wet there (you’ll notice it’s not a turboprop), and then figure it’ll be easy to back apply to the easy planes. I think Carenado took the opposite approach, work their way up to complexity and release a bunch of different planes to the community faster. Aerosoft probably has deeper pockets so they can get by without earning for longer, and invest in themselves.
yep, perfectly sensible analysis. Porting plane over is a long and complex process, so practicing on “simpler” airplanes makes a LOT of sense.
Man, I have been OBSESSED with A2A in the last week. Bought 4 of them for P3D. SO MUCH FUN! Aerostar is coming this year! (To MSFS too)
1 Like
This may be delayed. The Aerostar they’re modeling had a belly landing…
1 Like
Any one else notice that aside from the 182: the Seminole, Ovation and now Waco have all been from the sister company Alabeo side of ghe house?
Yeah, I read about it. Scott and his son are well though, that’s all that matters. It will come. I love what they do.
1 Like
Interesting. I don’t know if that’s just a coincidence…
I thought this thing was imminent! I could use a radial in the sim!
The WYMF5 is now in the Marketplace. Just bought it, downloading now.