Open up communications with Reality-XP

A little bit more technical reason, why the RXP products, as currently constituted, cannot be implemented in MSFS at this time. Although Matt has already answerd this, maybe it’s still not clear to you?

The RXP gauge sets require the related Garmin Trainer programs to be running outside of MSFS, and then he writes further code which displays the output of the trainer in the cockpit of the aircraft and sends data/commands back and forth between the two programs.

Back in the day, he learned a long time ago, how to hack into the various FS products, which he had to do in order to get the graphics performance necessary to display the gauge output within the cockpit. In MSFS, this programming would have to be replaced with a C++/WASM programming layer, which is a standard that MS/Asobo has chosen for programs that interact with MSFS. In other words, now there’s a layer he’s going to have to communicate through that he didn’t have before. Hopefully he’d be able to get the performance required using these tools. Unfortunately, I do know that the WASM standard as implemented for MSFS currently has some, let’s say, inadequacies, that are annoying a lot of developers. I don’t understand them, but I know there are issues.

But, more importantly, no, MS will not allow other programs like the Garmin Trainers interact with MSFS. So, I think that pretty much kills it right there for being sold on the Marketplace in its current form. Which is a paraphrase of what Matt said above. And it’s not about legal issues. It’s about system security. Any time you allow a program from the outside to interact with your program, you’ve opened up a security risk. Pure and simple. This is not happening on Xbox, period. I don’t know how many times Matt has to repeat this.

But, folks, let’s take a step back. Business relationships, no matter how well intentioned, take a lotttt of time and work to come to fruition. Matt and Jean-Luc are communicating, MS/Asobo are aware of Jean-Luc, the process has begun for Jean-Luc to sell an idea(s) to MS/Asobo, and for MS/Asobo and Jean-Luc to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement. It’s not going to be done by tomorrow, if ever. But, it’s certainly not going to be discussed here any further. At least, not until it’s done. And the result of that will likely be a press release.

This thread has completely fulfilled its purpose, and, now it’s up to the parties involved to decide whether they want to work together and produce something.

Hopefully I haven’t written too many inaccuracies in my interpretation of the state of affairs here. Sorry it took so many words.


That’s the whole point Geoff. Essentially, the panel object described above is a 3D model. And the gauges to be sold would be 3D model gauges. Is there a limit on the number of models that make up a plane? If there is, there doesn’t have to be. My bet is there isn’t, but, I haven’t studied.

And, yes, it would depend on coordination between the plane modeler and the layout of the spaces these models go in. Either, the author sells the panel model, which would provide the source for the panel model, or they define the shape of the opening and coordinates that would be available for models to slip in.


I would think of the second one. Like today with the SDK (from my understanding) there is the scenery editor, where you can place any 3D Object in the world, attached to the world. We would “just” need such an editor for the aircraft model (interior and exterior) to attach 3D Objects to an aircraft, as you maybe want also to attach antennas/radomes on the aircraft (like the current Just Flight Piper: Having a dual GPS530/430 setup in the cockpit, but the corresponding GPS antennas are missing).
Looking at Flyinside, they got it manged in P3D in VR Mode (and I guess also in the FSX) to place pop up windows (which also can be 2D Panels) anywhere any direction in the Cockpit:
So just like that: placing 3D Objects which are being able to render gauges.
Now if we look at instruments like the Aspen or the G5 or any other Glass-InRepleacement-Stuff: they have acutally quite some depth on the panel and could be already easily be placed over existing panels, in front of existing instrumentes. Even with a GI275 the display plane would just need to be a bit in front of the old instrument, et voila, panel upgrade without any involvement from the aircraft model vendor. Now if the vendor also delivers a “clean” radiostack: again the JF Arrow as an example: you can select between differen GPS/Comm models, so their basic cockpit model must already have a clean stack, where they put their stuff on. So just make that state accessable. Effort for the aircraft vendor so far: propably a lower two digit hour count. Effect for Cockpit customization: I guess nearly 90% of most interesting modifcations could be already coverd with that.
Now if the panel would be setup as previously the 2D panels where done: There is a cockpit panel with standard instrument cutous, and the vendor places his own 3D Gauges configurable inside. If you want to modify: change configuration. That would be a ~99% percent solution.
I am really more into thinking to have the cockpit model nearly as is, and just add dynamically 3D Objects like during runtime.

Quiet, yes: As an example: an hour on a PA44 with Flight Instructor is around 800€. Back then, I spend at RXP ~120€, $50 for P3D and 20€ for a PA44 Model. Once. So with a fraction of the cost of an flight hour, I could spend hours getting familiar with the wheel of fortune and especially in combination with an STEC autopilot and did not waste any time on that stuff later on the aircraft.
Now that is what I call as business case. And that is, what I want to call a “Simulator” for.

If you make a complete 1:1 replica: definetely. And that is whay I don’t see it coming from Asobo. As I don’t see a good GNS430 from them. But you could start with just the E5 functionality, and go one from there.
And community can be strrong, as the FlybyWire A320. Or just as @N6722C : he already modified the transponder display, now he just would need to create a 3D Model or find somebody on or github doeing that.
Would that approach break the vendors intention of the consistent interior model? Most likely. Will it hurt? That should be a decision of the customer/user. Personally: It hurts me more, to have a nice, integrated looking stone-age Audio Select Panel and a Transponder that is not usable anymore in Germany, than even having a not integrated-looking, but full working 2D Panel of a GTX330. And in real live the devices are also NTSC: Never the same color.

I don’t need it on the store. And there should be no need to be on the store. RXP wasn’t on the P3D oder FSX store.

Then make a safe interface. Maybe add REST/websockets, to have ethernet and be already able to connect Tablets and devices. But there is already one: Simconnect, where your external application can manipulate stuff, like frequenceys lights and stuff. But not VOR/HSI deflection and autopilot stuff. And I think that was the main issue in this topic. If it would be just the display issue within the Sim: I would totaly be happy if the trainer runs outside in a separate window, as I always have the RXP GNS on my second screen. Especially this GNS: I don’t need them displayed in the Virtual Cockpit, as controlling them is quiet hard compared having them permanent as 2D panel on a second screen. But I need them to manipulate the VOR/HSI and controlling the autopilot in NAV mode.
Being able to control the COMs externaly, but not the VOR/HSI/AP is not a security topic, from my point of view.

Nevertheless, the MSFS is great, nice graphics with good performance. But I want from the Simulator to do that, what I could do before in previsous Sims, maybe more and in a better way than it needed to be take place in the past.


Why is this still not a thing? Asobo is really working hard to pre-sell Xplane 12 something fierce with this attitude.

1 Like

Or working hard to finish G1000 and start a GTN :wink:

1 Like

Clearly what RXP needs to do is just make a lousy garbage plane like Bredock3D’s hideous 737 MAX then they’ll be able to get in the marketplace as a fully fledged Marketplace Developer like Bredock3D.

Backdoor your way in with shovelware! The Casuals will seemingly buy ANYTHING, so it’s Win/Win!

1 Like

The problem is that the market seems closed to any product coming from RXP.

1 Like

I think its pretty safe to say this is exactly the case.

So true. Its ridiculous really.

1 Like

PMS50 already has an incredible GTN mod. It would be a waste of time for MS to fund another one.

Besides, the RXP GTN is something completely different. It runs the real GTN trainer outside of the sim. That’s a completely different grade of product.

If MSFS can include controls with the G1000 pop-out, I will still be very happy with that capability.

I think Asobo - RealityXP collaboration is a vendor issue. RealityXP provides a software interface only using Garmin Trainer and Data. Then, RealityXP is used by other vendors for their hardware. Too many in chain. If one breaks everything breaks.

I think, If Microsoft/Asobo work directly with Garmin to integrate MSFS 2020 with Garmin trainer apps and that would be great. Yoke and Throttle quadrants already work with Trainer Apps. RealityXP and other vendors can then enhance upon it to provide additional capabilities.

That’s not true. Not only does RXP provide other things besides the GPS units, they have released a mod for FS2020, and can provide invaluable help to the developers. To view this as only about the Garmin GPS units is a very narrow view on the matter.

Not sure what you mean by that, but you can make that statement about both WT and PMS. So I don’t think that’s true.

So, in other words, you think that RXP going bankrupt is preferential to everyone working together?

I think there is some sort of miscommunication going on here… What exactly do you mean by “Trainer Apps”?

No any chance for that, the trainer do not work on Xbox which is the most important plateform for MS.
and i doubt they have the skill to do that in the same good way as RXP. They just lack 20 years of experiences :wink:
But it is true they prefer an integrate solution rather than by a 3rd party dev. Perhaps WT will do a GTN after the G1000, using FS api, so not a true 1:1 but something near that looks like. i can be enough for the majority of the MSFS audience. Which can explains why they are blocking GTN trainer base solutions like from RXP or recently the one from TDS.

But this thread is more than GTN/GNS, it is all about RXP can provide to the sim with their experience.

Ok. Looks like it is easy to get carried away. Let me explain.

I stopped short of getting RealSimGear hardware for MSFS2020 as it depends on RealityXP and which I know is not working with MSFS2020.

Definitely I don’t wish bankruptcy for any company but for a company to survive must have multiple plans and strategies. But looking at the big picture and from an end user perspective, the RealityXP products that I want to use GTN 750/650 are dependent on Garmin Trainer (GTN) app and also not working with MSFS2020.

What I see is that RealityXP may not be priority for Asobo or Microsoft. Either keep on waiting at mercy of Asobo or add additional fronts. GTN Trainer app is free and in demo mode I was able to play with it well.

If Garmin GTN trainer supports MSFS2020 (like Garmin Pilot), RealityXP can pick up area that may not be Garmin’s focus like sim experience enhancements, supporting end users, developers and hardware vendors (like RealSimGear) for great sim experience.

Also Garmin Pilot uses Flight Events to work with MSFS 2020. Not sure what information that community plugin provides and if it can be used by RealityXP. I am sure they may have thought about it but just thinking aloud.

BTW, I have already UP voted on this topic. But everytime I come and see that it is not moving forward. Sad state.

1 Like

Really? It seems Matt and FlyingsCool have both laid out technical reasons why it’s difficult to integrate RXP as it stands, and it seems Jean Luc and MS/Asobo have opened up communications which was the intended ‘wish’ of this thread, so I’m curious to know what you think “STINKS” other than you haven’t got what you want yet.

Thanks for clearing that up.

This topic was created to achieve more than just bringing the RXP GPS units to FS2020. The main goal was for Microsobo to make use of @CptLucky8’s longstanding experience in developing for flight simulation (experience which he seems eager to freely give), all in order so they may create a better flight simulator than anything else on the market. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to have happened. All we know is that months ago there was some sort of meeting, and that was it.

Either way, we remain hopeful, but as they days and months go by with no progress on the matter, the situation looks ever more bleak. I really do have to wonder why would a company that is attempting to build off of FSX in order to produce a better simulator would not even want to hear from a developer that offers information freely, is highly experienced in simulator development, and at every step has shown nothing but support for this process…

1 Like

I’m sure there were technical reasons why it was difficult to integrate PMDG’s DC-6 to FS2020, but that didn’t seem to stop Asobo from providing support for PMDG so they could bring their planes over. Why is the same not being done (as far as we know) with RXP? @CptLucky8 has also mentioned what he needs in order to port his products over, and the list seems to me, an ignorant, quite short and sensible.

Furthermore, I don’t see how any such technical difficulties are precluding RXP from getting a response to their market application? RXP already has an addon for FS2020. Maybe they would like to sell other addons on the marketplace.

So, I guess the question is: Why is everyone able to apply to the marketplace without getting questioned about their licensing with other external companies and why is everyone receiving support for their products… everyone except RXP?

1 Like

I really don’t think forums are the proper way for 2 commercial entities to do business.

1 Like

Absolutely, especially with well-meaning but excitable zealots goading from the sidelines and slinging partisan accusations of nefariousness against one of the parties

1 Like

Were those technical difficulties anything approaching running external trainer programmes to interact with MSFS in ways that are not permitted to any other developer? Apples to oranges.

Are you privy to all communications between all developers and MS concerning marketplace applications? How do you know others are not being asked about their 3rd party licensing agreements? If you’re suggesting all other developers are receiving support for their products from MS/Asobo I think you’re intentionally ignoring a lot of developer angst about getting responses from them.

1 Like

No one said they should do it in public, on the forum.

1 Like