Open up communications with Reality-XP

I think the goal for the NXi is 1ms loop time. I would imagine it’s slower than that currently. The RXP units currently run well under 200us. So while I’m sure there is some flexibility added with JS (I admit to being ignorant as to exactly how much flexibility, if any), I don’t see any performance improvement. In fact, it is a step back in performance.

I seem to recall that they confirmed it will not be 1:1.

If you are talking about yourself, I wasn’t referring to you, rest assured. But I have seen plenty of toxic people on both sides of the aisle, I will admit.

First off, and most importantly, this topic is not about the RXP Garmin units themselves. This topic is about the developers opening up communications with @CptLucky8, who has spent the last year and a half sharing his knowledge freely on these forums. From my point of view, @CptLucky8 should have been way up there on the consultants list for SDK decisions, but that’s just me.
Secondly, everyone took note of those features. Seems like the only people who let them “slip as if unimportant and without anyone taking note” are the devs themselves, who not only have not implemented them, they haven’t even said they are considering looking into implementing them.

I’m sorry, but I disagree. The only boundaries being pushed here as far as I can tell are scenery generation and graphics. And while AI scenery generation has not been attempted on this scale before (as far as I know), the graphics are kinda outdated for a game. Maybe even for a sim. I think X-Plane might have the edge in terms of graphics engine. Everything else (and I really do mean everything else) is a step back from existing flight simulators.

Isn’t that the approach employed by the devs? As far as I know, they want to make addon development available to as many people as possible, so they can work happily together and make the best simulator in the universe. That’s not me saying that.

Another thing I have to disagree with. While there certainly are new features that are improvements (despite my previous statements, JS/HTML, for example, is an improvement and a good thing to add to the simulator), for some rules no valid explanation was ever given. For example, no explanation was ever given for why third party developers cannot override the flight model. No explanation was ever given for why third party developers cannot inject weather into the sim. And no, saying that Microsobo want to have control over those features is not an explanation, and it’s certainly not one that implies everything fails without it.

1 Like

I apologize for that.

I further elaborated on the matter and why is the halving of the framerate the case.
Yes, I didn’t address or elaborate on how to avoid that and create a proper working design with additional popped up elements, etc.
But because you were guess-whatting me on the subject:

I then…

I then absolutely demolished and dissolved your narrative into quarks by showing and writing about how the new JS/HTML instruments and gauges can not only be popped out and placed on multiple other displays of all types and sizes without affecting framerates, but as per your inquiry quoted up there even be distributed and rendered on multiple other devices in a fully OS and device architecture agnostic way - be it Windows, Debian or UNIX/Linux platform of either the x86 or ARM based hardware architecture.
So, I summed that part up by basically saying how it…

And never coming even close to…

So please refrain from using your statements as my own - I will shred all of it to pieces.

I understand that, every serious design strives to accomplish that. There is no reason to be solely focused on the solution that might have been among the best for a very long time - such as the trainer based one - because in no way was that the only solution worth trusting, there are more that fully pass the various FSTD study levels of EASA and FAA certification compliance and are used in approved training from PPL/SEP, MEP, ATPL integrated or modular, to type ratings, checks, etc.
The fact that YOU need and want the trainer doesn’t mean it is the best or the most reliable.

I am not trying to - I am in the authority position - I am one of the renowned simulator designers with multiple novel technology patents in the civil airline and military aviation industry.
Hoping not to regret saying the above…but I think that my humble opinion counts and means something.

Yes I have. It is related to the way the MIT vs GPLv3 licensing functions. The reasons and the clarification listed in their blog post is very clear.
The fact that the guys simply do not have the resources/manpower to accommodate for the development under the GPLv3 model, hence currently unable to present their aircraft in the Marketplace doesn’t have anything to do with what we are talking about here.
The airplane will still exist and shine, will still continue being developed, the external runtime they require will still be successfully accomplished with the full support from Asobo/Microsoft, etc.

As you can see, there is no reason for pessimism, and everything is okay…rejoice man we’re going to space nothing will stoip us ! :smiley:
Tangents can be productive and useful.
Just avoid too much arctangents like the ones I pointed out to you and clarified up there in this post.

Yes, it is. But it won’t go like it used to go - part I’d particularly highlight is “let’s open everything”.
You (people in general) just can’t do stuff that way. Times have changed, it is 2021 and the systems are insanely more complex, lots of moving parts, lots of responsibility. It is different.
That’s what I meant (forgive me for sounding differently).

Maybe the simulator runs on a revolutionary stack supported by a supercomputer within an exascale ecosystem - that didn’t exist until recently and as I said opens up new boundaries shooting for space - while also setting strict rules and professional working policies, some of those not supposed to be given the explanation for.

So basically everything you did post here the last day was in fact to try and proclaim you to be the authority and to exert your opinion into a thread about Reality XP?

You do realize you have in at no point added anything of value to this thread … Seems like in other threads where you seem to want attention for your self…

Also I note you paid no attention to “ALL” of the information… Especially the part about moving this to another discussion thread so that you can have at this…

Make your own threads and stand on your soapbox.

I tried my best to add something of value.
And so you are angry…

Other threads…attention…? Can’t be it went that far already, can it ? :grinning:

Yes I have. I have also read the whole thread before posting.
I have related what I had on heart. Not sure what would I have more to add to the topic.

Well if that’s what you think of it…cuz you are angry… :grin:
My goal was to try and raise awareness on why some things are the way they are, and by doing that remove the negative outlook towards the state of things, towards the Teams in charge, etc.
Really. Honestly, no fingers :crossed_fingers:

Hey ! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:
You haven’t stopped throwing fists at me all this time.
Quite a stubborn fella you are… Good. Continue.
Anyway !

Have a nice day and fair well :raised_hand_with_fingers_splayed:t2::slightly_smiling_face:

I’d also like to point out - especially to avoid you making it otherwise - that I respect Jean’s work, I respect him as a colleague and a seasoned professional. The stuff he talks about shows me he absolutely CRUSHES.
There’s that.

This alone is enough in my opinion to stop giving any consideration to the rest of your prose, or I should say the same consideration you are showing to others.

Anyhow, I'm in a good mood right now, but...

…you almost made me wondering if I was reading the latest Naruto or Dragon Ball Z ?!

Kidding appart though…

Which tells me you might have not fully grasp the content or the argumentative directions of this topic. Let me try in the most simple way I can find at this hour of the day:

This is a voting topic so that people can express their agreement to the OP idea to “Open up communications with Reality-XP”, which when reading the topic is more about “opening up collaboration between Microsoft, Asobo and Reality XP”.

This idea is based on the pretense that Reality XP is a renown vendor with a proven track record of 20 years of innovation and award winning products, specializing in avionics simulation, offering a range of products on 3 major simulators and 14 different versions, and pushing the limits of these simulators beyond what most vendors are offering in terms of gauges and systems.

Reality XP is also a partner with a number of Professional Simulator vendors and System Integrators, which are using their Garmin simulation solutions both as COTS for X-Plane and Prepar3D, and embedded as a OEM component for simulator manufacturers I won’t name here for now.

It seems evident to the topic author such expertise in the field must be of a certain value for a simulator vendor like Microsoft, and opening a form of collaboration beyond the products themselves and leveraging the Reality XP savoir-faire and knowledge for FS2020 shall be no less than good.

Hope this makes things clearer to everyone that this topic is not about Garmin products, it is not about loading DLLs, it is not even about any licensing question. It is only about:

All the rest like discussing Garmin products of other simulators, technology choices for the SDK, how bad it is to load DLL or what not about security, or other libelous and slandering comments, are bringing nothing constructive to answering the questions this topic is posing. And rest assured I wouldn’t expect any less from MSFT than being concerned about licensing questions! We do too… and our Professional customers and partners as well…

Now since this is a voting topic, I believe posting in this topic can only be along 2 lines:

  • Either you agree with the above, you vote, and you explain why you do think the OP’s idea is a good one and how according to you, you also believe Reality XP could be an asset in one way or another to both Microsoft and Asobo.

  • Or you disagree with the above, you don’t vote, and you explain why you do think Microsoft and Asobo shouldn’t collaborate with Reality XP at all.


It should read “You (and people in general)”,
I am sure I corrected that moments after posting cuz that was what I had in mind, and not some egoistic ****.

He is ! But I am the focus. That is fine.
I’ll give you the honor of one more round since it is my pleasure hearing from you.

Indeed, myself throwing lots of humor in my postings - the quarks thing (look at how angry he still is :grin:), then going to space, data center engineers wielding the arcane knowledge, etc. Hopefully there are folks who’ll read it and have a good laugh. Or they won’t and I suck. Things change…
You gave me credit ! Thank you !

Anyway, that was enough joking.

This :point_up_2: is the main quote !
There was nothing argumentative in the way I consumed and approached the topic regarding your professional case.

Please allow me:
After the events of the Spring of this year, what was left here is a pocket of sour… substance. The one of confusion, dissatisfaction or plain ignorance on what actually happened, baaaad taste with people pointing fingers at the Team towards the empty, the narratives of envy or monopoly or the lack of vision or know-how.

I didn’t like it. I still don’t like it.

I voted for the call.
This is the way I relate why I voted in support of you. If I highjacked and messed up the topic, sorry.
I’ll sod off in that case. Otherwise good.
The moment I decided to come in the way I felt, I was not expecting roses.
There are lots of things I wrote to try and connect and motivate people - away from this sour pit this topic got stuck within !

Things succeed and grow not of our lower passions and sour atmosphere.
I came and read it all.
Apparently not because I wanna present my PROSE (how nice of you, you are also partly out of place after all what’s happened here and I don’t blame you man, I would be too…or maybe not).
Wake up and move if you are interested in this train. It will go with or without you. It doesn’t care and you know it.

I have nothing more to add, as concluded a few posts ago, and also without insulting anyone or being a plain j*** …<— (mods add this word to the dictionary it goes trough !!).

So long and stay well Jean-Luc,


Such a great idea! I’ve come across cptlucky and he was so helpful, generally respectful and just a great contributor to any topic. Breaks my heart to see such a well respected developer (with highly rated products in all of the other sims) getting ignored, and tbh, that ■■■■■■ me off. (Looking at Jörg here) Contact RXP already and show the veteran devs, that enriched your franchise in the past and present, some respect, they deserve that, and msfs2020 needs them!



Not happening.

All Microsoft games are encrypted within an ecosystem that is separated from the outside world.

Forza is the same. Not only can you not mod, or cheat… but you have to allow MS access to a lot of your privacy for it to work.

I use DWP and OOShutUpWindows, routinely, locking down 90 percent of MS snooping. But to run any game from the Windows Marketplace, I have to reset it to all but… default.

Ergo, all my MS games are on their own boot drive and I do NOTHING personal on it… not even email.

DLLs cannot (i e. Are not allowed !) to operate inside MSFS. For reasons known only to MS.

FSUIPC for example works, but only with limited functionality.

Stuff like the Majestic Dash 8, where the entire “engine” operates outside the sim (hence the amazing fps performance in P3D) will never work in MSFS in the way it does in P3D.

Garmin Trainer needs access from the operating system… as such it will never work.

It’s the same story for hardcore weather engines.

We will only ever see “Lite” versions of these products, restricted very much by the capabilities of the sim.

After all, it’s hardly fair if PC users can transform the sim, whilst Xbox users are stuck with the default sim, that couldn’t possibly utilise Active Sky in its current (independent form) or FSIUPC… or a Garmin Trainer.

RXP GPS solutions are not at all dependant on DLLs to run. Please read the thread with care, as this point has been made several times already. What RXP GPS units need is functionality which I believe is supported in WASM, but not implemented in the SDK.

1 Like

Well I was actually being sarcastic.

It’s obvious that MSFS was developed mainly for the Xbox.

It is seen as a Killer App, and explains why they have no intention of allowing the PC version, to be substantially better.

Hell, Turtle Beach are releasing an Xbox themed Yoke in December… just 375 GBP.

Rudder Pedals to follow… all adorned with Xbox buttons and logo.

Didn’t say it did.

They rely on the Garmin trainer.

I’ve read every post thank you.

Garmin has to work outside the sim… and that info needs to be exchanged with a gauge that’s working IN the sim. This is the problem. Look how many apps use dlls in P3D to achieve the required communication. Everything from FSIUPC to PMDG to dynamic scenery.

…AND there are licensing issues.

If you read MY post properly, I was simply alluding to the fact that MSFS is resisting EVERY innovation that made P3D etc., sooooooh much better at the “flightsimming” part.

Great “scenery simulator”, but I still run P3D for better weather, skies with actual variety, believable ATC (with Radar Contact), and proper aircraft…and I predict, I ALWAYS will - MSFS aint changing in this respect.

I believe it is already explained why it is not, but just to make it clearer:

I can assure you this is beyond the Garmin. I mean the mere fact of questioning only RXP for Garmin is enough evidence it is not about the Garmin because this is the kind of discussion and accusations you keep private at any rate.

“Notwithstanding you aren’t questioning any legal obligations of any other vendor portraying any other Aircraft or Avionics IP, whether they are approved or not on the market place…”

II was not talking about Garmin in particular here, but any other product with any other brand whatsoever:

  • no one questions whether Bredock has any Boeing agreement
  • no one questions whether MScenery has any Fairchild Republic agreement for the A-10
  • no one questions whether Orbx has any agreement for the data source they are using
  • no one questions whether PMS has any Garmin agreement
  • no one questions whether XYZ vendor has any agreement for the liveries, the gauges, the aircraft.
  • no one questions whether XYZ vendor has any agreement to depict ABC airport in the game.
  • no one questions… you see the pattern?


So would you mind explaining either why you do think the OP’s idea is a good one, or, why you do think they shouldn’t collaborate at all?


That’s just wrong. The PC version has way better graphics with a powerful enough system, VR and acces to loads of mods and customization Xbox players could just dream of.

Don’t take things too seriously.

Ironically, on this platform you’re destined for disappointment.

Pleas stay on topic. This post is about the devs opening up communications with RXP so that we can all benefit from @CptLucky8’s decades of experience with flight simulation.


the communication channel seems to evolve in the same way as the sim…perhaps a link between both

i’m asking how an rxp unit is working in VR ? is touch is working in VR ? (like pan the screen for example ?)…i know, rxp unit will not be on MSFS and VR seems to be abandonned by FS team but i’m curious about that (perhaps under XP ?)

So Rxp should burst the aircraft ?
but Rxp will not boost the sim, it could allow it to not being degraded by low performance of a “0.5:1” JS solution.