Check out the latest Development Update here:
Please use this thread for feedback and discussion. Thank you!
Really glad to see an interim update for the EMB-110 before the upcoming 2.0 update.
I still love this plane.
3 Likes
Xbox X here. in general SU12 in-flight stability has been fine for me.
My only complaint is about the network / connection / bandwidth / authentication server issues. I believe Microsoft / Asobo have âheardâ the reports, but it would be nice to hear something back besides the dreaded 2-word âfeedback-loggedâ then silence. Iâm a bit disappointed that the issue isnât mentioned in the development update - either as an issue to be addressed, or as something being worked on.
Glad to see WASM for Xbox on the list, and SU12 seems stable for me.
4 Likes
The new MP process looks great. I wonder why the WASM content is an add-on from the MS store. Hopefully all turns out well come SU12.
1 Like
Hope they make a push for DirectX12 superiority over the next few updates.
4 Likes
Canât say I have any feedback for this small update, was only 20MB, as most of what has changed doesnât apply to my type of flying.
Indeed. My first thought when I see a very small set of release notes is that they are nearing the final beta build and holding off on further fixes in order to fully test before the formal release.
Wow, no helicopter from Mscenery this week? Instead we finally got the Mini-500!
I had to take a second look⊠
12 Likes
Yeah, either smaller stuff that they can just go ahead and push through. But itâs not enough to make a difference for me.
By far the most significant change this week, especially for xboxers, is the new marketplace testing process. If this works as well as it could then this should dramatically reduce the wait time for the products we want from the good developers, and also hopefully increase the quality of those products on xbox.
Not so long ago developers were unable to test their products on xbox, now they are required to test their own products on xbox. Iâm sure for the quality developers this will really help them to step their game up on the platform.
11 Likes
I like the new Marketplace proposal for most developers. And I like that there is a loophole that if a developer has too many emergency submissions, they will have a âcooling offâ period. However, there is a loophole. Microsoft and Asobo donât want the bug reports. So they are out of the loop on what is going on. A developer that submits a shoddy product, they are responsible for taking care of their own bug reports. This new proposal just encourages them to not fix a single thing. If they fix too many things, their future submissions will be on the âcooling offâ period.
The proposal is good that it aids in getting good products onto the marketplace quicker. But it emphasizes that shoddy developers donât want to fix anything or be subject to being penalized by the store.
EDIT: Perhaps a proposal. If a product falls below a 3.0 rating, the product is removed until the developer makes fixes and resubmits. When it is resubmitted after being removed, the old rating is removed, but anyone who previously purchased the product can submit a new rating. That way the developer can at least work to getting the product to a somewhat reasonable state. The only metric Microsoft has right now is number of emergency fixes. The community is pretty fair. The only products that are in the marketplace that fall under a 3.0 are the products that everyone generally complains about, and which the developers show no interest in resolving. This at least ensures that the developer has to submit something that meets a certain threshold of acceptablity as a product.
15 Likes
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember that ratings can be changed at any time?
But besides: I wish I could also write/read actual comments, to make a better judgement of the score. E.g. some people might be dissatisfied by âlow resolution texturesâ, but MMMV (âmy mileage may varyâ).
Btw, a 3.0 score is not âbadâ: itâs âaverageâ That is I might still buy a â3.0 airplaneâ if the aircraft type is one Iâd absolutely want to have (again, a comment section would greatly help in this decision making - but there already is a separate thread for this ;))
1 Like
Although I agree with you. A comment section needs to be moderated again, etc. Itâs far easier and more comprehensive to lookup some reviews on youtube.
1 Like
Iâm not sure about the new Marketplace system. What guarantees are in place to prevent some shoddy developer just ticking Yes on all the boxes? How does MS verify that the flight model does indeed not have any major issues? That LODs are ok? I expect a lot more rubbish to hit the Marketplace now.
Itâs like the FAA giving Boeing the powers to self-certify their Max âŠ
2 Likes
But then how do you unclog the pipeline? On one hand there are people constantly unhappy about delayed updates, on the other side you have a barrage of seemingly bad quality product. You can claim that ms should only pick the products from reputable developers, but then that creates a barrier for entry for new developers who may have a good product to sell. And what constitutes as good to you may not be as good in some others openion, so gatekeeping wonât help the wider community.
I think marketplace team will still validate if the addon itself works or not, but if the addon works as intended or not, the onus of testing that is on the developers.
Now good developers test their products thoroughly anyway, this change will need them to test on Xbox as well. And while you are right about shoddy developers releasing more junk, if it brings the actual good content to marketplace at a faster rate as well, then thats a lose-win situation. Possibly better than what we have now.
What would help more is to have a more detailed review section, ie, split scores for different aspects of a addon, for example, visuals, functionality, system depth, additional features, value for money etc.
1 Like
Youâre probably right, but a lot of what is there already is junk and thereâs a long history of products not working properly on xbox, not least because developers were unable to test it themselves on that platform. If more junk turns up then itâs not much of a change.
On the other hand the quality developers are now much more empowered to give users and especially xboxers much better support and provide more products, much faster update cycles, and drive quality up. It will be obvious to those who really care who those quality developers are and any that donât take the opportunity clearly are not in that class.
Itâs super easy to filter on ratings in the marketplace so you donât even need to wade through the junk. Nearly everything I have is 4+, half of those I have at 3+ were bad purchases so my advice is stick the filter on 4+ if you only want good stuff. Iâve never bought anything under 3.3.
I agree that the new model is absolutely great for good developers, and helps unhclog and keep the marketplace getting products and updates faster. It is great in that aspect.
Itâs just that it also makes it so that an initially bad product gets penalized for too many updates. The only metric for putting a developer on âcooling offâ period is how many fixes they issue. It would almost be better to drop the cooling off period then. At least a bad product that a developer wants to fix can be fixed. This model tells developers donât issue fixes or there will be a penalty for it. There are some great products now that started out a little rough at release. For example, GSX when it first released, people had a lot of problem with, but now it is a great product. I donât want the penalty for too many fixes stopping a rough product from being a great product. And that is what bothers me about the new model. The sole metric for a developer being penalized is how many fixes they issue. It discourages developers from issuing fixes. That keeps Microsoft resource usage low, but it makes it bad for consumers of an initially rough product. I was just trying to suggest a different metric for the cooling off period, but perhaps dropping that completely would be better. A marketplace model that discourages issuing fixes for a product is not a good thing for consumers.
The new MP process sounds good, but what does that mean for ourâŠfriends of questionable quality?
âVerify content price matches expected value.â
Not gonna say any names.
Nonetheless, Iâm excited to see where this goes, especially with WASM on the horizon.
6 Likes
I think youâre overreading this. It says quite clearly they are only monitoring major issues, those at or near the level of delisting. In other words the kind of thing that shows the developer completely failed to do their testing. Developers will only be penalised if this keeps happening. I am sure this will not impact any good developer that is just being responsive and providing regular improvements and updates with normal bugfixes.
Microsoft will monitor for major issues found with content after release, including those that require emergency updates and/or delisting the products in question. Any partner who has such issues surface on a recurring basis will be subject to a cooling-off period.
For anyone following WASM on Xbox, there is now an add-on that I assume will be needed. It is published and can be installed now, but it wonât do anything until WASM for Xbox is released (hopefully with SU12, but not guaranteed)âŠ
⊠but itâs a bit hard to find.
You have to go out of MSFS to the Xbox Store app, search âMicrosoftâ and then specify âAdd-onsâ at the top of the page. âMicrosoft Flight Simulator: Add-on Supportâ is the name of the add-on, but you canât even see the name unless you open it, so it looks like the regular MSFS installer, easy to miss it.
Then when it is installed, it shows up when you select MSFS and choose âManage game and add-onsâ. It is 10 MB.
3 Likes