Open up communications with Reality-XP

I really really wish I could tell you, because I’m saying you will be able to.

You want to drive the pitch and roll PIDs directly? No problem. Stick it in pitch and roll hold and write to the pitch hold ref and roll hold ref simvars.

Meanwhile, you can advertise that you’re in any mode you want by writing to any AP mode simvar.

-Matt | Working Title

@Matt, I think we, as 3rd party devs, would very much appreciate keeping this in the forums. That way we can ALL see what’s going on.

9 Likes

Beat me to it … as you say, so “That way we can ALL see what’s going on” – the reasons why, and the chance to contribute and express our needs as developers.

Sure, but this topic is about opening up comms with RXP, which thankfully, we now have!

For third party dev to sim team back and forth, if you have access to the third party dev forum, that’s more the place for these generic topics, or the very soon upcoming answer hub (which will not have limited access), where you’ll be able to ask questions and get dev and community answers. And I’m always happy to answer inquiries on the WT Discord.

But long back and forth API details with enormous missives here are not going to be hugely productive nor is it really a scalable answer to the feedback issue. I can’t physically answer these massive questions and also code the things people are asking for both.

-Matt | Working Title

I would argue that this is about opening coms with RXP. We would all like to know how that is progressing, what kind of issues you are working on together, and how is his knowledge being put to use in delivering a better simulator for everyone.

Also, none of those things have been made clear in this topic, btw. What has been discussed? Are Seb, Martial, Jorg aware of this? Have they sat down for a chat with @CptLucky8?

At the end of the day, RXP is not under the first party dev umbrella, and trainer based external program solutions are not presently approved for the marketplace, so as such RXP is not a third party partner. If RXP was producing content using a different paradigm, this would of course be a different story. So it would not be appropriate for me or for anyone to make any promises as to bringing Jean-Luc on as some type of collaborator. Also, I obviously cannot comment here directly on any internal discussions.

Jean-Luc and a few of the WT folks had a lengthy meeting in which we we were told much about the backstory of RXP and of the old simulator dev experience, as well as a great deal on a good number of the topics you have seen Jean-Luc write about here many times. I don’t know that I would classify it as a back and forth, per se, but it was very informative and I thank Jean-Luc for that.

Jean-Luc has provided us with some technical details of his desired solutions, and as you can see, we have already been thinking about some of the autopilot and simvar overriding topics. He has also expressed a desire for a high-speed IPC, in order to move large amounts of data into the sim (read pixel data) which would include atomic read/write functions.

As I promised him, we will discuss it within the FS team (Seb, Martial, Jorg, ourselves) and decide where and if those features fit into the roadmap and overall vision of the sim, and get back when there’s something to report there. Thankfully, Jean-Luc was also clear that there are plenty of folks continuing to enter the RXP ecosystem on other simulators, and that his overriding concern instead is less RXP than it is a quality experience for the end user; like most things, we greatly agree there.

-Matt | Working Title

7 Likes

@Matt, you have a job in diplomacy somewhere in your future…

2 Likes

:grimacing: I can never tell if that’s a compliment or not… :laughing:

-Matt | Working Title

2 Likes

“Straight Talk Developer Blog.” Just sayin’. :sunglasses:

1 Like

@Bishop398 , Appreciate the feedback!

And thanks for listening :smiley:

1 Like

So if the collaboration with devs with this goal (“quality experience for the end user”) doesn’t success, is it because you (globally) don’t share this goal ? (because addons like this do it, more than some aircraft at with market access that are no more than a new 3D shape over an existing flight model for example).
(Sorry, my lack of knownlegde of english make my simple sentences/words missing of nuances and so diplomacy !)

1 Like

I keep hearing “No Pilot left behind”

How about “No Developer left behind” ??

2 Likes

@N6722C I’m genuinely curious who you feel is being left behind here.

One of the big overriding goals of bringing WT on board, and my big pitch to Jorg was democratizing FS development. I want people to be able to make great stuff with the ease and ingenuity they can apply to something like Minecraft, and fundamentally that means (to me, anyway) adopting development stacks and paradigms that are totally different than the old world of a zillion hacks and programs. I, quite literally, grew up in that FS world, and by and large it isn’t a thing people love, it’s a reality people tolerate, myself included.

And so my goal is 100% absolutely to enable developers to work better, faster, and with a modern experience from inside the sim first and foremost. And yes, does that mean some of the traditional FS developers may have to change some processes, or retarget the focus of their products, etc? I think it probably does. But it’s also an extremely healthy exercise that permits the platform to evolve such that the super great and awesome modern development experience is possible and not mired in old approaches that yes, worked, but despite the sim and not because of it.

@Nirgal2776 This all ties into your question, and I’d just like to preface this with saying this is just my personal opinion here. I believe the best user experience is one where a user simply has to open the sim, and that’s it: everything magically works because it is running in the sim. I’d first like to make it easy enough and fast enough to develop that we see the same one-to-one fidelity come to the sim that you currently are forced to get from bridges and trainers, and weather injectors, and dealing with external navdata, and all that stuff I used to deal with as a simmer. To me, the land of a zillion external programs is the land of last resort.

Jean-Luc is very obviously a hugely talented and smart mind, and you only need to read his posts or speak with him to know that. I’m absolutely positive he could deliver something amazing under that paradigm if he so chose to, and nothing would thrill me more than enabling that and working directly together to make that happen. Because there are also other big talents coming to the plate who are operating that way, and I think the biggest shame would be to see anyone who has Jean-Luc’s level of talent missing the boat.

-Matt | Working Title

7 Likes

Whilst I agree with that, and i would like to see the exact same thing, i don’t believe it’s right to not allow people to use such programs if they want to. After all, I assume we all wish that everyone can enjoy this hobby in any way they wish. Some people like flying jumbo jets under bridges. Some people like spending 30 minutes simulating a cold and dark start in the same jumbo jet. Some people like to have a seamless experience of starting the sim and having everything in there. And others like having the Garmin Trainer feed 100% accurate and realistic data into their cockpits. I believe there’s a place for everyone in this hobby, and that we shouldn’t restrict people’s freedom just because we don’t think that what they’re doing is fun or good. It comes back to what you said a bit earlier:

I don’t think anyone loved the multitude of addons we used, that’s true. But they did love the result, and still are. And while I would also like to see all those hacky programs go away, I still want to have what they brought to the sim. I believe the end user experience should be what’s driving this, not the methods by which it is achieved. I believe it’s more important to give users the option of having that Garmin Trainer experience than it is to stop the various practices by which that experience was realised.

The good thing is we can have our cake and eat it too. We can still get a Garmin Trainer integrated into the cockpit without hacking into the game. I believe that’s what @CptLucky8 ultimately wants. And I believe that the API that would be put in place to allow this would benefit other developers as well.

I think that we all here agree about the end goal. We just seem to have different opinions on how that end goal is achieved. For my part, I want to see the creativity of third party developers being promoted, because it is that creativity and dedication that has kept this hobby alive for such a long time after Microsoft left it.

1 Like

I’m actually with you there, the methods by which is achieved actually don’t really matter a ton, because I think the fundamental issue isn’t the methods, it’s the trainer approach.

Firstly, the trainer license is extremely explicit about disallowing merging the program with any other program. So, it is not possible to ship these trainers within a package, and unless you have a license from Garmin to distribute (which I don’t believe anyone does, not can I imagine Garmin allowing it) you can’t even put the trainer in your package. This solution can’t ever be on the marketplace simply for legal reasons.

But secondarily, there’s an important market forces angle here. RXP isn’t the only developer in this space, and we can’t have a conversation about how great everything is for all developers by talking about RXP in isolation. Is it fair to those developers who want to build a great experience in the sim, which requires some serious work, and is an ideal user experience situation, to just always be undercut by trainer programs where one merely has to build a bridge and piggyback on the hard work of Garmin? How does one foster a healthy Garmin sim ecosystem while also admitting that one effectively has to compete with Garmin themselves?

So, yes, my personal focus will always be enabling the in-sim one-to-one replica experience first, which is free and clear of all of those issues and quite objectively a better user experience. And I would be so incredibly stoked to partner with Jean-Luc and say “let’s build a new 430/530 that runs inside the sim addon system together, and we’ll build whatever new APIs you need to make it completely accurate.” Wouldn’t it be so incredibly amazing to make it so awesome and accurate that the trainer was effectively obsolete? And who better to help do that together with?

But that doesn’t mean I’m going to not bring these other issues to the table in earnest and see what the rest of the team thinks, because I’m just one FS team lead amongst the small collection of us.

-Matt | Working Title

5 Likes

That’s fine, not every addon needs to be on the market. But I don’t think that precludes RXP from being allowed into the market place. Maybe trainer based GPS units is not all that he plans on distributing.

The reason why this thread is focused on RXP is not that I or anyone else wants to talk about RXP in isolation, but because @CptLucky8 has a lot of knowledge that he is willing to share in order to make the sim better for everyone.

Well… is it fair for developers who want to build a great experience in the sim to always be undercut by WT having access to the sim code and being made first party devs? Is there anyone right now that can compete with you in delivering a G1000? Is it fair that things are that way? I don’t know. I’d rather have each user decided that individually. After all, you did want to democratize sim development.

The problem here is that even if a Garmin Trainer based solution never makes it to FS2020, chances are that you will never have the equivalent of that built inside the sim. You may have a simile of it, but you won’t have it exactly the same. For some that doesn’t matter. For others, that is crucially important. Garmin spent a lot of time working on those interfaces, how they look and how they function. For anyone wishing to learn how to use one in real life, or for someone that might have the real thing in their real airplane, nothing short of that will do. So as far as I can tell, a Garmin Trainer based solution is the objectively better user experience, because it is the real thing, and that determining if a copy is good enough to give you want you want is ultimately a subjective decision.

Either way, we can argue about this ad nauseum. Point is: i’d rather have each user decide what kind of addons they want in their sim. If that means that some of them won’t make it into the marketplace, that’s entirely fine and understandable.

i’m totally agree with you.
And that’s how rxp gps (but rxp is lot of other product than gps units, don’t forget !) on previous release or concurrent product works.
It works IN sim. The trainer management is transparent to the user, it is a blackbox he doesn’t have to care. It is an avionic like the others, often settable into the aircraft configurator (like those of A2A or Milviz), with nothing to do externally, except the primary installation.

Concerning Garmin, i remember to have seen on rxp website they have Garmin agreement (and have some collaboration), so there is not problem from this side. And there is not any chance to have the same fidelity with a product made with sdk.something close, something that look like (with garmin auth for copying graphical element ?), but not at the same level.

But i start to understand that some users like me with a high level of exigence on some points (but be sure SFS is satisfaying me in most part of its aspects) are not the primary actual target of this product (and i can understand that).
It is a great product and a good sim. And with just some points, it will become a great sim. We have to be patient, FSX P3D or XP have take times to be at their level, but passion and patience are difficult to accord ;). And i’m just a little bit worry about the possibility for historical dev (not only RXP) to enhance these points with a product that seems to be focused (and closing) on his market (full of aircrafts and scenery, which are only a part of the addons’ universe that made the success of older versions as simulators).
But it is the point of view of a simple customer, out of the business with no real sight on what’s happen behind, except this forum.

1 Like

I think this is absolutely a fair point. At the end of the day, that decision comes down to Jorg deciding that something like the G1000 is part of the platform, and that a great version of that should be available to all aircraft designers, as it is so ubiquitous. I wouldn’t say our access to the sim code is an enormous advantage here: we’re still building what we plan on building totally within the sandbox. And if APIs get added that enable us, that means they enable everyone. And, it’s hard to argue that a faithful recreation that does all the things the original does is a bad deal for simmers, too. After all, the core reason to enable developers is because it’s good for simmers, not just developers for their own sake. If it turns out our instruments suck, then I’m sure there will be a plenty vibrant market for enhanced versions, either in paid or mod form.

But not only that, there are a ton of other instrument stacks out there, and nobody is saying WT has to build them all. There’s plenty of space for other folks to come in and help build out the platform, should the team decide that some other stacks should also be elevated to the platform level for the good of other aircraft designers and simmers.

On this, you and I strongly, strongly disagree, and if that statement still holds true in a year or two, I haven’t done my job. I’ve been saying this since before we joined the team: I don’t think folks understand what is already possible and what little is left to enable true 1:1. It’s a list I can probably count on just one hand.

-Matt | Working Title

3 Likes

Well, that’s our point too. If APIs get added that enable RXP, they enable everyone else too :slight_smile:

That is true. I do agree that a standalone, native solution is better. I don’t think there’s any argument there. The argument is if such a solution is possible, and if it is, how long is it going to take? Is it reasonable to wait 5-6 years until someone finally manages to implement it in native code when we could have that today, but not native? Maybe for Asobo it is. But not for quite a few users. as the TDS GTN750 shows. Despite the fact that it has no integration into the cockpit and is just a layer between the sim and the trainer (the RXP units are far more complex than this, as i’m sure you know), it is generating a lot of attention. Seems like quite a few people care more about how true to life the gauge is than about how it is implemented.
Also, if it does turn out that your instruments suck (a hypothetical, not a prediction, before anyone is offended), then there will be no vibrant market to pick up the demand. Looks like the only other available options will be other units made in native code, just like yours. And if you can’t deliver, then who can? There will be no trainer based versions, and therefore there will be no enhanced versions.

Well, I certainly hope i’m wrong about that. Time will tell.

Hello @CptLucky8, @Bishop398, @Jummivana

How are things going on this topic. At the very least, has @CptLucky8 application to the marketplace been processed yet? If not, what is the reason for this hold up?