More candid insight from Aerosoft's project manager on MSFS, the CRJ, the SDK and the add-on market

No worries. I don’t expect any developer at all to release add-ons exclusively for Xbox.

Well… maybe the new Eurofighter by “informatica AZ” (whoever they may be) would have been better off launching only on Xbox. Less people noticing how bad it is lol. :joy:

The funny thing is that it isn’t even a matter of liking. Mathijs is simply describing an objectively visible situation and he judges by how much money each product makes his company.

It isn’t Aerosoft’s fault, or MSFS’s fault if P3D isn’t a popular product (which also means it won’t be popular among developers). Lockheed Martin did nothing to make it popular. They have basically done the exact opposite at every turn (terrible pricing policies, no marketing, etcetera). Maybe people should complain with them instead of blaming more popular sims and third-party developers who simply want to pay the bills.

2 Likes

Exactly … The embarrassed Pause and Blank Expressions when a question about “LDA Approches” was raised… said more than they could ever express in words !!!
“We will have to go an research that” … sums up some of the problems so well…

Let’s clear up a point that some seem not to understand. The job of a CEO of a studio of 200+ developers isn’t to know every single little aspect of a product.

Due to my job, I interviewed hundreds of people in Wlock’s position. “I’ll have to ask about that” is a very common answer, because micromanaging everything is not their role.

This is why sometimes you see some “blank expressions” and “embarrassed pauses.” Because some questions simply aren’t part of their role.

Neumann, Wlock, and Bossard are already MUCH, MUCH more knowledgeable about the more granular technical aspects of the product than 99% of the CEOs, heads of studios, and executive producers I’ve interviewed in 20+ years of career.

9 Likes

Agreed … and for a “Dog & Pony show”, it is what it is.

So, as well as this Top level Q&A sessions, if the true goal is to be “open and Honest”, maybe consider having some additional “TECHNICAL” Q&A sessions, where different aspects of the sim, can be discussed, in a similar Q&A manner,

Maybe a different lead Dev each time, from different area of the Sim, accompanied by CEO (or other), to help “Moderate” but able to answer the technical details, that are needed by so many 3rd part developers, that do not “ENJOY” the close, day-by-day direct communication with ASOBO that Aerosoft seem to be privy to, to get their questions answered and addressed with such high priority.

Even if the Questions were only coming from “Recognized” 3rd party developers, the !Q&A Video format of being able to ask some technical questions, and by doing so, just make it know that these are questions being asked because of a needs of 3rd party developers, would make things a lot more visible for all,

No questions like “Why can’t we have more elephants in Africa” or “Why can’t I fly to the Moon” … but more those multitude of question that need to be addressed, so that ALL 3rd party developers can get on, and start producing addon products, which has long be recognized as the Life Blood of any Flight Sim.

The questions asked are the most voted in the Q&A area of the forum.

If you want different questions asked and answered, maybe you should post them yourself and rally some support for them.

The AI communty wanted answers. They asked. They rallied support. And they got their questions answered in two livestreams in a row.

1 Like

LOL . . . . . . . . . I already DID … !!!

How do you think this crucial issue ever got addressed and resolved … ???

I am marking that one up as MINE !!! ( with a lot of help from a lot of others …)

1 Like

I may be off base, but reading between the lines, it looks like Aerosoft are looking to significantly up the ante to show what CAN be done, rather than re-hashing what’s already been done.

I think the Twin Otter will come in time, but to me it sounds like they want to make a BIG splash with their first MSFS entry.

2 Likes

Actually no. You didn’t.

You made a post in the bug section, which is all good and fine and it’s great that it got solved.

But if you want your question answered during the Q&As, there’s a dedicated section with its own voting. Now it’s archived, but it’s not exactly invisible since when it’s active it has a different color.

Reading through the interview triggered two reactions in me.

One, it kind of added to my more and more impression that Asobo is well in over their head when it comes to half-way complex aircraft systems (even the GA planes have bugs every PPL student finds in 15min). On top of the abissmal regression testing of releasing fixes of something that worked previously just to break new stuff.

Second, it gives me hope, that they apparently listen and work with Aerosoft and give priority to their requests. So eventually Aerosoft might fix it for and with them and on top will give a real sim worthy airplane to fly. A plane which you can confidently take to Vatsim etc. without crapping out underneath you or scaring the controllers. For that I am more than willing to pay Aerosoft for their great work and good quality, which doesn’t come for free.

1 Like

Maybe I should not say this, but reading between the lines , which is really not that unreasonable from a BUSINESS Point of view is :-

I may be off base, but reading between the lines, it looks like Aerosoft are looking to significantly up the ante to show what CAN be done, rather than re-hashing what’s already been done.

I think the Twin Otter will come in time, but to me it sounds like they want to make a BIG splash with their first MSFS entry…
.
.
** ------------- and to be the FIRST,
so why would they want any other developers getting the information (first, or at the same time as them) that would allow them to do this, at least , until they have had the opportunity to “clean up” with the 1st truly advanced MSFS designed aircraft – designed the way Aerosoft want to design for MSFS, and limited to what Aerosoft feels is important and they need to achieve this… maybe at the expense of what other developers may need for their products.**

Its not Personal , its just Business … and taking advantage of whatever leads you can get, over your competitors.

Once again , its “Business” . Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where everyone is your “Friend” or wants what is best for you … Most are only PRIMARILY concerned with what is best for themselves, and serves the best interest of themselves (and their shareholders).

  • Do I like it … NO.

  • Do I “HATE” Aerosoft… NO … They are in Business to survive, like, most of us.

  • Do I feel sorry for those 3rd part developer who seem to be/are being left our . Most Defiantly.

  • Will I buy the 1st Aerosoft MSFS Plane… Almost certainly, especially if it is GA.
    (I really have little interest in being a BUS DRIVER, and a Flight Computer programmer, but I am also very curious as to what Aerosoft can produce that is going to “Up the Anti”)

  • Do I take all this too seriously … probably yes – but I am working on that !!!

  • If all this blows up, and MSFS closes down, will I be upset or surprised ? yes .. BUT LIFE WILL GO ON

In the meanwhile – Enjoy the MSFS " Roller Coaster" – and if you fell the need to :“Throw UP” (in the forum) , please do NOT do it close to me … I really do not like that smell !!!

5 Likes

Maybe I’m being too critical but I believe their judgement of MSFS is extremely biased due to their commercial contracts with Asobo/MS.

They have a vested interest in the product with a heavy hand on how the SDK will take shape in the future, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they have nothing but praise.

Wether this whole partnership and it’s resulting influence in the SDK development is a good thing or not, only time will tell.

2 Likes

That’s how business works though. You go where the money is. They know that once MSFS fixes its current deficiencies that are currently making it lag behind XP and even FSX, MSFS is the way of the future. They’re hitching their wagon to what they believe is the future of flight sim because that’s where the money will be.

And I don’t think they’re wrong. We don’t have to like it, but that’s the way business works.

1 Like

As you say “It’s Business” :slight_smile:

So many "parallels " === Coincidences ???
ie A “Fleet” of 3rd part developers … :wink:

1 Like

Asobo kind of know they’re in over their heads. They did an incredible job modelling the planet. It has it’s issues and rough spots, but still light years ahead of what anyone else have done.

However, they also have zero experience with flight sim. They quickly realized there was way more to it than just putting planes into their virtual world if they wanted to really create a sim. Who better to turn to for help with their horribly underfeatured SDK than a company that’s been a leader in producing 3rd party flight sim add-ons for the last couple of decades?

Aerosoft are basically putting time and effort as consultants helping Asobo develop the SDK. I’m perfectly fine with them getting a competitive advantage in return.

2 Likes

So am I … but like so many " I want it – I want it NOW" lol

and that just isn’t going to happen, no matter how much I CRY out and FUSS over it.

4 Likes

Yep that is the hard but true reality.

Well, maybe by the time I have matured and "Grown UP’ to face the reality of life, MSFS will also have matured and grown up, and that reality will be better … :see_no_evil: :hear_no_evil: :speak_no_evil:

1 Like

:slight_smile: I am also working hard on maturing and taking it much less seriously. It feels almost like an AA meeting :slight_smile: Not that I have any experience with that (yet). :wink:

Not sure how old you guys are, but I’m a couple of months away from turning 50, and I’m still working hard on that as well… lol

Thanks for the perspective. I’m certainly no expert and don’t know how this really works but I get what your saying. You need some form of “template” I presume for the devs to build from and a Boeing template isn’t going to work for an Airbus.

Any idea how this happened with P3D? I don’t believe there was an Airbus “Template” yet we have one of the most feature-rich, study-level A319/20/21 aircraft on any simulator platform, which I believe was significantly built from custom coding.