But it certainly means the whole “that is up to Microsoft” line we have heard for years is not true. The developers are free to update their aircraft as they see fit without a “go ahead” from Microsoft. It’s just that they don’t want to fix their own products for free…
7 Likes
It’s a mystery about where the line of responsibilities are drawn. It’s by design in my opinion so it kind of gate keeps the workload if we keep wondering who is responsible for fixing 1st party or joint ventures 
1 Like
Well, obviously every LL/FF is a Microsoft product and they are therefore responsible for them. But we all know who the developers are and who are responsible for fixing any bugs/issues. It wouldn’t hurt the reputation/standing of the aircraft developer to fix issues even if they are not specifically told to do so by Microsoft. Leaving an aircraft with known bugs/issues is not a good look no matter how you try to present it.
5 Likes
Which is exactly why it is up to Microsoft to properly compensate them for their work. Sounds like they’re reliant on “passion” to pay the bills for some of these developers, which unfortunately means until we get more Mike Johnsons in the world, these products will be delivered at/updated to a relatively minimum functional spec and then left alone.
3 Likes
While I do hear this, do these developers that make these LL/FF/ES aircraft get SO little for their effort from MS in the first place?
If so, why do it? Why make them?
It not, then are they roughly compensated as well as they would be for their own branded sales? Because, if so, they continue to update those projects for free.
It is still confusing this entire thing.
Yeah unless you or I become first party partner devs, I don’t think we’ll ever have an answer to this. But Jorg’s repeated use of the word “passion” does sort of flag for me in the sense that “they’re not doing it for the money [because truthfully they’re not making much off of these projects].” A bit like when people try to hire performers or artists for low pay “for the exposure".
3 Likes
Yeah, the whole thing remains completely whack.
I’d love to know how many of these big airliners Ini sells vs. how many of these LL/FF they have sold.
One would think, at this price point, that there would be a significant number of LL/FF sales, which by the numbers would make up a reasonable profit.
Of course, we have zero insight for how the compensation structure works. Does MS pay a flat fee, and that is it? Is there a commission structure?
It seems like it might be a flat fee, which must be kind of modest, but it still feels like these LL/FF aircraft need more updates than they get. Some of them have stupid easy fixes that would take little to no time.
It’s just so dumb, I’ve completely sworn off all these aircraft, because I’m tired of this run around.
I read this thread top-to-bottom, heard the complaints, watched the Friendship come out, read that thread top-to-bottom and heard the same frustrated people making complaints of a similar nature.
I wish someone would figure out how to fix this mess, so everyone would feel better about it. It all seems so unnecessary.
7 Likes
Sure, we don’t know the details about those contracts. BUT … I think it’s safe to assume that they are contracted to deliver an aircraft that should “work”. Let’s define “the aircraft works” as no obvious bugs / defects. If the aircraft turns out to have those and they are somewhat critical, the developer should fix them - without extra money. Just like I would expect them to do when I buy that aircraft from them instead of buying as a commissioned product from Microsoft. Post sale support.
“Passion” is a word I would use if they would go beyond fixing defects and provide new features, variants, or fixing minor bugs. Not fixing major bugs is just destroying their own reputation.
1.5 years after the release of MSFS 2024 and the Skyvan is still unflyable in 2024. I understand it’s not a high priority item for them but I’d be ashamed to be the developer of that aircraft.
4 Likes
This, in and of itself, is subjective. What is obvious to someone who is type-rated on an aircraft is not obvious to someone who is flying with a controller from third person POV and never sees the cockpit.
In this example I definitely can’t say I agree that a developer should be expected to come back to a project years later to make it work for a totally different piece of software than what it was intended for, and one that didn’t even exist when the original project was made. That seems a bit farfetched without an additional contract for new work.
Sure, it is. Like most of the topics discussed on this forum.
But I hope we can agree that not being able to take off in an aircraft is an obvious bug.
Years later? The Skyvan was released 2024-05-28, six months before 2024 was released. If it was MSFS 2026 released this November, fine.
I’m unfamiliar with any first party product that has this bug when it is used in the simulator for which it was originally made.
Fair enough, though still for a completely different piece of software than it was contracted to work with.
At the end of the day, bug fixes should be the norm and not left to debate. I honestly don’t care who’s responsible or who gets paid what, that is not my concern at all. It shouldn’t be the consumers concern. Our concern is to make sure we get a product that works without any bugs and issues. The fact that we are seemingly left hoping the aircraft developers has enough “passion” to fix their own aircraft is not great. We need better quality assurance for all FF/LL, they should have a minimum standard that all comply with and then we can talk about “passion” as a bonus feature.
16 Likes
My take on all of this is what I heard from what Jorg said, my perception of what his words meant:
He said he wants developers who (will maintain their products because they ← my words) are passionate about their products. There are definitely some developers who fit this category. There’s some excellent products out there, and several developers who continue to improve their products… passionately!
It sounded to me from his tone he’s ended his association with a/maybe several developers because they didn’t meet this expectation of showing such passion.
I’m going to assume what he’s also saying using these words is that there’s nothing in their contracts that forces a developer to keep a project up to date. IOW, their products were delivered, accepted by Microsoft, and they are “done” in the eyes of some developers.
From what we’ve heard from a few developers, it’s not “worth it to them” to keep their planes up to date; they fulfilled the letter of their contracts, and they’re moving on to profitable work, again, my words. Their words were “well it’s owned by Microsoft, so it’s up to them to fix it”. IOW, One interpretation of that could be: If Microsoft wants more work on them, they’ll have to pay for it. (Of course the corollary to this is that they don’t care about the quality of their products enough to make them work. It’s likely true that those developers don’t love their products, it’s strictly business to them. The “proof” of this being there are several developers who do love their products and continue to develop them. Question is, are those developers who continue to support their products continuing to get paid, or is it a labor of love and they care about their reputation?) (Then again, what may also be going on behind the scenes is the developers who are “the issue”, are they upset with the support they got in making their products work and they said, well, we won’t repeat those words, but, essentially, “Here you go, they’re all yours now”.)
And I’ll end this with a comment that it certainly seems to me that Jorg is nothing but generous with the funds he spends on the sim and in dealing with all the vendors. But I have no evidence to back this up from discussions with vendors, only from what I can see and his support, for instance, for Working Title as a good example.
Finally, there’s not much chance in the end we’ll really know. It’s not like Jorg can actually talk about the terms of any contracts.
All that being said… yeah, I’m with @TheSupercalle, none of this matters. Microsoft, get them all fixed, or remove them, and keep working at finding quality developers. You have found many, and, thank you very, very much for bringing FS back. I appreciate all the work that’s been done. And realize the work is never ending.
4 Likes
I have just had reassurance from the Community Managers/mods that Jorg intends to slowly update all aircraft. If you see the comment in the last dev stream feedback.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with your line of thinking and I tend to think the same.
But unless one of the parties opens up, all that is just speculation.
My 2c:
- If the contracts do not contain provisions regarding bug fixes and such, then it is on Microsoft
- If the above is actually true and the contract concludes with acceptance of the product by Microsoft, and Microsoft fails to detect even the most glaring bugs, then again it is on Microsoft
- If a bug, when reported by the community, gets closed with a comment ‘intended design’ (missing critical gauges, see-through metal parts of the airframe), then it is on Microsoft
- If Microsoft, whose core objective is to create profit for its shareholders, relies on “passion” of the 3rd party developers to fix the products they made for Microsoft, then it is outright stup… not wise
I am not unilaterally with the 3rd party devs even if it may seem so from the above. I am aware that there are some who care and others who don’t. I am making my purchase decisions accordingly.
5 Likes
That’s exactly how I interpreted his comments. And I’m sure he just wants the best without any (public) drama. It was interesting to hear that they ended some partnerships and/or moved aircraft to other devs to keep them supported / updated and I really appreciate that.
3 Likes
Perfectly said. You said it better than I.
I am the developer of the Skyvan - I wrote the FM and systems for it. I left the industry over a year ago now, so I’m not ashamed of the module and I hope they push a fix for you soon.
1 Like
Fair enough. Keep in mind that I said that I would be ashamed and that I didn’t say that you should be ashamed.
A bit of background regarding my statement: I’m still supporting a product (that released over 10 years ago) even after shutting down my own business several years ago. Fixing bugs for no additional charges. Luckily, hardly any bugs turned up so not much to do. Still, I stand for the quality of my products - to this day.
So, if it was my company that built that product I wouldn’t let it rot in that state. Personal opinion.
4 Likes
That’s awesome! We need more developers like this.
1 Like