Generic Aircraft Models Seen Instead of Base Aircraft (Multiplayer) Proposed Fix

Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Wishlist
,
1

Problem statement
When “Use Generic Aircraft Models (Multiplayer)” is OFF, and another player has the exact same aircraft model as the user but with a custom livery, then the aircraft seen by the user will most likely be a generic aircraft.

Root Cause
When a multiplayer aircraft fails the Livery Title check, then MSFS checks the ICAO designator within the aircraft.cfg to determine whether to display the base aircraft. However, MSFS also includes a check against the ICAO standard which is a four-letter code as prescribed by ICAO DOC 8643. Many 3rd party aircraft do not utilize this standard, nor do some of the MSFS standard, deluxe, and premium aircraft. (Likely, this is so that their custom aircraft ICAO name appears in the multiplayer nameplates instead of the generic ICAO codes.) Also, some of the generic codes are NOT available for use (such as GLID for gliders), which means that the ICAO check will fail every time, and gliders for which a livery isn’t available locally will always be seen as Bonanzas.

Proposed Resolution
There are two proposed fixes, with the first being recommended:

  1. RECOMMENDED FIX: Remove the requirement within MSFS to check the ICAO against the official ICAO standard. Instead, allow all ICAO designations, whether real or customized. This will let the “Use the aircraft ICAO recognized by the simulation” check to work effectively. No other changes nor maintenance would be required by Asobo nor by aircraft developers. By reevaluating this requirement and making this straightforward change, Asobo can take a significant step towards alleviating this ongoing issue.
  2. Another fix would be to require all developers to utilize the correct ICAO for their aircraft. However, this would require all existing aircraft (3rd party AND MSFS standard, deluxe, and premium aircraft) to be reviewed, updated, and re-released. Also, it would be recommended for Asobo to change the nameplate to reflect the ICAO model attribute and not the ICAO designation attribute so that generic names are not displayed in nameplates. Finally, the ICAO database is updated monthly, so Asobo would need to update their database to match any updates to the official ICAO codes. Note that this fix would take a tremendous amount of time and effort to implement and maintain, both for Asobo and for 3rd party aircraft developers.
2

I like resolution 2; for the sake of realism and uniformity, I wish that every aircraft in the sim, marketplace or not, would show the actual ICAO designator. It wouldn’t take too much effort on Asobo’s part to at least ensure that every marketplace aircraft uses its actual ICAO designator as opposed to whatever nonsense the developer wanted us to see on nameplates. 3rd party aircraft that aren’t on the marketplace would be harder to manage, but I suppose costlessly implementing your proposed solution 1 in company with solution 2 would solve that problem.

2 Likes
3

FYI - Here’s the official ICAO database. A large number of marketplace aircraft, including some MSFS and Asobo aircraft, do not follow this standard; therefore, a high percentage of generic aircraft shown in the game could be removed if this requirement was removed.

https://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/Search.aspx

4

While waiting for a sim update or flightsim.to offering to help with this, is there anything the individual can do to fix the ICAO codes in the aircraft they are using on a given day? And would you be updating ICAO in something like aircraft.cfg just for the aircraft, or also in a livery file? I realize this is only going to help others see you correctly, not vice versa.

5

Not even all devs stick to the manufacturer constraint. I get the Blacksquare mod under B while I expect the Cessna 208 and KingAir to appear under Textron. And this goes on, so I doubt that we will see ICAO conformity across the board…

6

I doubt it too, I’m just saying how I wish it would work.

7

The important on get correct is “icao_type_designator” and it should be in quotes.

ie

icao_type_designator = “C172”

Also, not sepcifically sepecified in the SDK, but probbaly all TEXT parameters should be quoted.
(only numbers need not be quotes)

ie

icao_type_designator = “C172”

but

icao_engine_count = 1

A text in file search of all aircraft.cfg files for icao_type_designator
reveals a multitude of quoted & non-quoted parameters, and “made up” designators

Getting ALL developers to correct this might be unrealistic to expect, but it should be relatively simple for a reasonably talented programmer to create a tool to do this formatting correctly for all aircraft.cfg files, using the current ICAO database.

Any volunteers ? :wink:

2 Likes
8

Since most of my flying is group-multiplayer, I’m putting any 3rd party aircraft purchases on hold until there is progress on this issue. I don’t want others to see me as an airbus or tail-dragging Beechcraft.

1 Like
9

YES – (If you are running MSFS on a PC)

You can manually edit those incorrect ICAO codes.

** (BACKUP FIRST !!)**

If you use something like Notepad++ do in Infile text search for

icao_type_designator

Then you can, from that search result window, open any of the aircraft.cfg files and edit any parameters that seem suspicious, or are not in quotes.

Of course, and automated tool , would be far quicker & more less prone to error.

1 Like
10

The problem with this approach is that it required the remote end to make this modification too so that you will see it correctly. I is unlikely that most players will make this change and it is also impossible for xbox users to make this change anyway so this is not a solution that will work across the board.

If you stand back from this and actually think what we need here, it is just to match two strings together so you see something described as the same looking like the same.

So if it’s described as a Wilga on everyones systems then hopefully everyone will see a wilga if they have a plane with the same describing word. If its described as a witch then you will see a witch if you have something called that.

What I struggle to understand is why you would put restrictions in a matching process when you are not actually limiting what is allowed in the icao_type_designator (the nameplate).

1 Like
11

Lots of things I don’t understand about the “Design” of MSFS – or maybe its a case of the Devs not understanding the FSX code, when they ported it over … ?

1 Like
12

I agree, my compulsive obsessive self wants option 2. Make it right! Gosh Darn it!

(and then my woke self argues with itself and says “There is no right, grasshopper”)

Problem is, as noted, the ICAO database is incomplete, and, as noted, MSFS checking rules are overly obsessive as well. I have twin engine jet liveries that are labeled EJA for airline (NetJets). I’d be happy if they can’t find an exact match on model, that one of those liveries get chosen for Live Traffic EJA flights that I see (Gosh I love that Live Traffic this was fixed!). And yet, very often, too often, I get A320’s for EJA twin engine jets when the private jet would be appropriate. Why? Because the ICAO database has only the differentiators of number of engines and engine type (piston, turbo or jet) to go by and MSFS is ignoring the fact I have EJA airline liveries. The ICAO aircraft type database not comprehensive enough set of a descriptors to allow the proper choosing of what model is appropriate, and, while I really like the idea of using a globally recognized database to go by, it’s just not comprehensive enough in its descriptors for it to be used all or nothing for model matching.

So, yes, the icao type designator and model are good to use, too, but, please allow other data to be deciding factors, as well.

There’s lots of data available in MSFS to allow for better model matching, please expand the querying capability and improve this.

Perhaps this is where AI like ChatGPT could help?

Then,… force developers to get the aircraft.cfg right! :wink:

Gosh I hate all the mistakes I see in them. So then I change them, and now they’re different from everyone else’s which makes the job harder for model matching. Is there a way to alleviate this problem that makes everyone happy?

Where the heck is the ‘performance=’ field in the aircraft.cfg used? Why is it there?

What?? You lookin’ at me? :wink:

(Yeah, it’s not always easy dealing with all the conversations going on in my head all the time :roll_eyes: )

13

Hmm, question: Is my EJA airline livery problem due to the fact that MSFS may not recognize EJA as an airline, even though ICAO does? Is there a file I can edit that would fix this and open up better model matching for me?

14

At this point of development in the game, with so many 3rd party aircraft already released, the simplest solution to seeing all the generic aircraft in Multiplayer would be to allow the ICAO designations be whatever the aircraft developers desire (especially since the ICAO database is so generic in nature, does not include all of the aircraft, etc). Then, ANY LIVERY against that ICAO would at least show up as the aircraft (if you own it) and not the generic Bonanza, etc. Did you know that around 35% of the aircraft in the Standard edition of MSFS don’t follow the ICAO standard?

1 Like
15

A model matching app for multiplayer is in the works and will be released soon. This will help alleviate some of the concerns with generic aircraft showing up, and it would be GREATLY enhanced if Asobo eliminated the ICAO comparison check to the ICAO database.

3 Likes
16

Can you at least tell us the App Name & the Developer ?

1 Like
17

Totally agree with this post!

18

It’s actually myself and another (main) developer. We’re in Alpha testing now and we’re now just going through documentation development.

4 Likes
19

Video teaser has dropped.

20

Apparently, AI/MP aircraft also become invisible with just the contrails visible when you zoom in. Didn’t they resolve this with one of the older updates?

Well, it’s back :neutral_face: