I think that there is a difference between using the default MSFS multiplayer client/system or using another client like vPilot on Vatsim. I think that the MSFS default system does not need .vmr files to generate aircraft but vPilot does and this may be why it “works” for some but not others.
Yes, I would also like to see this feature added or better said polished!
This is very well needed if they plan to make MSFS esport compatible and “spectate-able?” by others who may not have purchased the same aircraft
I regularly fly with one friend in a Group session. If I fly with a freeware addon aircraft, I can just share it with him and he can thus see my planemodel in the online session. However, if I fly with a payware aircraft, I cannot just share it with him, ofcourse (or maybe it can, but that would not be the honest way of acting).
Therefore it would be great, if payware creators would create a kind of not flyable model of the payware aircraft, that can be shared with the Group flying partner(s)
More easy even would be, if Asobo could create a kind of automatic process for those ocasions.
I could imagine, a not flyable version of the payware plane could be extracted from the payware version and sent to a temporary directory of the Group flying partner(s). In that way, the partner would be able to see the model and texture I am flying with, without the need to buy one himself too.
Ofcourse the last scenario would in first glance not feel bad for the payware creator. However, I noticed by myself, I really buy quit less because my flying partner would not be able to enjoy it too.
And although this is the same for addon scenery ofcourse, I cán understand that making a Group partner copy of that, would go too far.
Maybe for payware scenery, a system of temporarily hiring a scenery from a central scenery server would be an idea.
Supplying MS/Asobo with a “generic” model of their payware, that can only be used by AI,MP, or Live traffic would be one way. It doesn’t need to be a high fidelity version, just enough to show what your friend is flying.
A shell of a plane, as it were. Much like the static aircraft you see at some airports, ones that don’t even exist in the sim yet.
2 Likes
That’s incorrect in my actual experience. If I have, let’s say the Vertigo with a lot of liveries, and you have the Vertigo with just the liveries that come with it, and I’m wearing a livery you don’t have, you’ll still see me in a Vertigo, just in a seemingly random livery that happens to be in your addon library.
The best one yet has to be the JU52 released recently. For anyone that doesn’t own it, it shows up as a 787 doing a massive wheelie. And this was actually developed by Asobo. The model matching really needs to be worked on.
It seem difficult to get any definitive documentation on how the MSFS “Model Matching” is MEANT to work .. maybe its deign is sound, but it is just broken.
In any case, non Asobo devs of planes NEED to know this info, so they can make planes that obey a ROBUST model matching system.
Absolutely. I mean I get that for now, we can’t see aircraft other people are using unless we own them, but matching a JU 52 to a 787, or the best one yet, apparently the new P-38 Lightning from Flying Iron shows up as an A330. I mean an A330 is probably 6 times the size of the P-38 lol
The fact that the relatively small and slow Junkers shows up as an A330 just highlights this need.
A peer to peer version of the lower resolution LODs (say 3-6) needs to be temporarily uploaded to a server when a user loads with an aircraft, and streamed to anyone else in range. File sizes will be small enough, and could drop back a LOD if bandwidth isn’t high enough.
This may require all painted liveries (as opposed to modelled liveries like on the default aircraft) to be distributed with a lower resolution texture with a maximum texture size.
I’d rather see the correct aircraft (and if possible livery) at a low resolution, than an A330 posing as a JU-52!
1 Like
It could be even more efficient.
The low res planes could be saved on a users PC, and collected as needed, but then saved, so they only need to be collected from the sever once, across any number of sessions.
IF the player has the plane installed, it can use that, otherwise display the Low Res version from its permanent collection.
IF a player joins MP with a plane that the server does not have, then that planes, low res version is sent to the server’s collection.
The point is, the server does not need to send information about non-installed planes to players every session, just the ONCE, and then a copy is maintained on the users computer for future use.
There are a multitude of ways this system COULD be designed, and it would be nice to have just one implemented.
etc etc etc
1 Like
Not just the JU-52. The even smaller P-38 Lightning shows up as an A330 as well. It’s quite laughable really. On the ground, they’re doing wheelies to simulatate a tail dragger attitude (which is odd with the P-38 considering it’s not a tail dragger).
Indeed, even an expansion of the substitute models to include at least one taildragger would help.
Overall though there is a need to be able to represent multiplayer aircraft in a more realistic way than turning everything into a Bonanza.
The possible technial methods of implementation have been discussed at length (and well) above, so I’m not going to rehash them. I will say that generally I fly with MP turned off completely, simply because I’m flying to relax. But lately I’ve been experimenting with MP turned on and have been enjoying it quite a bit.
Last night I spawned into a parking spot in Honolulu in a P-38, took off and flew around the beachfront, Pearl Harbor, Diamond Head and points north along Oahu with another P-38, got buzzed by someone in an F-15 Eagle, and then saw a JU52 flying down to Molokai, so I climbed and “intercepted” them before heading back to Honolulu to land. Since I have all of those aircraft myself in my own collection, it was great to see those flolks’ planes properly represented.
Tonight, I spawned into San Francisico, watched a guy in an F-14 Tomcat attempt (and fail!) to fly under the Golden Gate, saw a 787 land, flew around with a bunch of Cessnas and then landed parallel with an A320. But while I was flying over the Bay, I saw an aircraft ID’d as a UH60. Since there aren’t even generic rotorcraft in the sim, and since I don’t have that aircraft, there was no model at all, just an ID placard in space. THAT was an immersion-killer for sure.
So, tl,dr: I voted yes for this idea. There has to be a workable way to implement something basic into the sim.
I find it really jarring when I see a Mooney or A330 (in tail-dragger mode) in multiplayer which turns out to actually be a n F14 or JU-52.
My request to Microsoft is: where a plane is available in the marketplace, make a model available to ALL players which will provide at least a basic representation of what the player is actually flying. It can be a single livery and not great detail but let me see something close enough so I can glance and know without squinting at player labels.
Failing that - build in a config option to set our own matching tables up to enable (say) installing a mod in community and say that this model is to be displayed whenever a player has a JU-52.
Aside from improved immersion, don’t forget the advertising/publicity opportunity for developers to let people see what they are missing by not purchasing their planes…
3 Likes
Moved to #self-service:wishlist
Thinking about this, it should be the other way round. Asobo can not take the model that belongs to the original developer, so they would have to recreaty every plane model that is sold in marketplace… Will just not happen and makes no sense.
So, what could work is, when the plane developers would create a low poly AI-Variant for their own models and give them for free to everyone for modelmatching. But also then, more work that does not generate income = will not happen.
So the third variant comes up: We need AI models that are framerate friendly and modelmatching for Multiplayer, then everyone can setup their own Modelmatching or share it on flightsim.to and stuff…
1 Like
I really hope Asobo comes up with some solution for this. If people can see each other’s planes properly while actually flying it’s likely to make them consider buying them more often, so I think there is an incentive on the part of the developers to have their plane represented in the sim.
Asobo actually has the solution on this in the works as they are working on live traffic.
Jörg said at least two times in the last months that Martials Team is working on meshes and liveries for live traffic which by now has 80% of all active aircraft models of the planet recreated. The only thing slowing down this progress is getting the licenses from airlines and manufacturers of the aircraft.
As live traffic is using the same functionalities as multiplayer we gonna see better model matching there too as long as the devs of the aircraft stick to icao standards in the config.
Still there will be some gaps like on fighter jets or vintage aircraft but these gaps could be filled too by the community at least. 
Actual streaming of model files and liveries won’t be a thing I’m afraid, also because of licensing. The files whould have to be distributed through microsofts servers on which especially GPL licenses are not allowed (as used on free liveries or whole aircraft). As there is no way to tell the differences by just the files I don’t see a proper way to create some “online only” solution here. Only on payware which already is featured in the marked place this would be applicable.
I’ll take the chance to give you my two cents too as it makes sense and also Asobo is working on creating ai models for every common aircraft which is active for life traffic. That’s something which was confirmed in an interview in Februrary and now again in the latest Q&A.
There is also some general benefit in doing so as they promised to recreate the world “as real as it gets”. It’s prestige and demonstrating technology. Also it’s getting even more people into this sim which by now are not that satisfied of course
You can read the rather old Interview which is about many topics over here:
Keep also in mind they worked on the Reno DLC for two years by now, so we won’t know what’s coming next 