Open up communications with Reality-XP

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


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?

I think you might be testing the boundaries of acceptable information requests. You’re acting as if you have a right to ask about private commercial arrangements.

1 Like

I do, in fact, have the right to ask about such things. It is not against the forum rules. You are confusing the right to ask with the right to receive an answer.

1 Like

Heh, I’m really quite a laid back person, honestly! But this kind of request is truly a bit beyond the pale, and I’m honestly a touch lost as to what would make someone think they would be entitled to demand this kind of information.

But, truly, nonetheless it’s been fun chatting! I’m sure Jean-Luc can keep everyone apprised on how communication proceeds should he desire, but I think that’s definitely the signal that I should wrap up my back and forth here.

That NXi won’t build itself :wink:

-Matt | Working Title


It’s a fairly obvious question, given the topic of this thread. We would all like to see @CptLucky8 contribute to this community. We would all like to see his products coming to the sim. Asking about the status of this is no different than people asking about the status of your G1000, or about how AIG’s talks and development are going, or the many, many people (often angrily) asking Asobo for the status of various bugs, so i’m not sure why this is any different.

No one is demanding an answer here. You don’t have to respond (to this message or any other message), but treating a request for information as some sort of angry demand, as outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour despite it being common place on these forums, is to me what is beyond the pale.

It was more the entitled air of asking what the hold up was. But hey, text is a difficult medium, and I’m happy to be wrong in my translation of the tone here.

Definitely want to be transparent but it obviously would be incredibly inappropriate to discuss two-way NDA’d contractual scenarios like this, which I know you already realize. Nonetheless, I can say with certainty no product that violates EULAs or other license agreements would be allowed on the Marketplace. There is nothing stopping anyone from selling such products on other platforms which don’t have this restriction.

If there’s anything to report, we’ll let the community know. Thanks everyone for your feedback!

-Matt | Working Title


Are you talking about rxp products when avancing licence agreement violation ? (As topic is rxp relative ?). It is a surprising and very serious accusation if any.

It’s not really an accusation, just that the trainer EULA expressly prohibits reverse engineering and/or merging the product with any other product. So both RXP and MS would need a special license from Garmin to distribute such a product on the Marketplace that waives these terms.

I’ve heard (but not seen) that RXP has such a license. Bur just speaking in general, that if not, that would be a barrier to any kind of Marketplace inclusion.

@CptLucky8 can probably shed more light on the Garmin license that they have procured.

-Matt | Working Title


Thx you for your reply Matt.

ok so this question has to be clarified as soon as possible between MS and RXP for things to evolved (or not).
I read they have other product(s) more “traditionnal” without these kind of licence issue but blocked from accessing the market. Is this licence issue with the product using garmin (that not exist for MSFS in fact) that is blocking these other products ?

Sorry for taking your time with all these questions. As customer and user of lot of these products (not only rxp) for a long times ago, i am just a little bit worried to not seeing them coming, it is a big change in our way of using the sim and i have to be a little bit reassured, or a least understand why. I have nothing against anyone, perhaps just have to accept the product has changed (and it is a good point for large number of points).

Any news about progress in collaboration and/or planned implementation of some ideas exchanged ?

Sitting on the side, hoping to see RXP’s products in MSFS, I am amazed that there is such a hold up, over a disputed existence of a “License”.

I would suggest that RXP formally send a copy of this License to Microsoft legal, so that MS can “legally” determine that such a license exists, and then MSFS Management can be refereed to Microsoft Legal , and thing should be able to progress.

If this is truly a “legal” issue, get it sorted once and for all at a “Legal” level.

Perhaps Garmin do not auth to divulg this licence.
Anyways, Garmin unit based are one thing but i ask also for some news about perhaps new features for users or devs resulting from discussions between RXP and FS Devs Team (if any finally !)

Far to many “Maybes” and “ASSUMPTIIONS” surrounding this issue. !!!
Time to get to the FACTS and the LEGALITIES – and get it resolved in a timely manner.

@CptLucky8 Is Garmin restricting you on informing MS Legal, the details this License. ?

lol Maybe you cannot tell us !!!

he can tell us, but have to kill us just after :joy:

I don’t understand what there is to be amazed about. Microsoft has a license with Garmin to use their product and likeness in the simulator. As such, Microsoft could not possibly officially distribute any software that runs counter to Garmin EULA or uses the product or likeness without permission. Doing so is both illegal and would unnecessarily put Microsoft’s own Garmin license at risk. Solving this mystery seems relatively straightforward, though; we haven’t heard any word on that front.

RXP asked for the following features (status in parenthesis):

  • Hi bandwidth, low latency IPC for external executable to sim communication (Not Planned)
  • Interposing and overwriting stock SimVars (Overwriting GPS simvars was already planned for the future. No other present plans)
  • Overriding the autopilot state management and simvar usage (Was already planned for the future and presently being tested on the upcoming G1000 NXi)
  • JS/WASM interop (Was already in discussion, not yet planned)

I let Jean-Luc know that when or if I had any news on those features being released, I would let him know.

-Matt | Working Title


Hope to see all the enhancement avalaible in the future (not too far) for all devs.
Concerning Garmin, as MS and RXP have licence (taht’s what both said and i have no reason to doubt), i think it is now to Garmin to decide if the “mix” of both licence is or not a problem.

Thx you for your reply and informations Matt, i appreciate you take the time to follow them to us :grinning:
(now i back to lean how to create scenery cause i miss Lake Hood too much (and i don’t know why MS has removed it since patch #2 !)

Hi Matt,

I am a “simmer” not a Gamer… One of the things that is well “poop” about MSFS is how bad it is at running multiple simultaneous screens. When we “pop” out a window to take it onto another screen (so my GTN750 Hardware from RSG) the FPS drops and that is just what it is…

I have used RXP in FSX and in P3D. I use it to stay Proficient with my Home Sim for flying… The RXP by using the Trainer is delivering me the identical experience and interface. This is the GARMIN unit to me. Now if it runs in it’s own process and threads that means better performance. And in a MultiPC Sim setup I am able to offload resources which again is another big big bonus…

There are many other Avionics solutions out there that will want to do similar things and control the sim. While making sure that they process out side of it… TDS has done a Garmin Trainer in a similar method as RXP would do it… I have it… The warts are evident and bad… And no the PMS50 version of the 750 is not even close…

At my flying club we have a Redbird “Motion” Sim… The worst thing about that product (and its not cheap) is that the GNS is not actually a Garmin Trainer and so things don’t work like they do in the real plane… So yeah when you are prepping for your IPC it is a pain in the but when the buttons don’t work the same.

Reality XP has been doing this for years. There is a lot of people still on Lockheed P3D that don’t really qualify for the license… but they have no choice because the tools we want can’t be brought to MSFS without a little work. Maybe more understanding or “Nihito” time needs to be spent with regards to this portion of the flight simulation community…

And for those that bring up the Database thing … This does not matter… If you think it matters don’t buy the product… Thousands of us need the Trainer version not the “mocked up” version.

Thanks for you time Matt… see you in the discord :slight_smile:
Oh and if you would like to have watch of how the trainer can work with MSFS now and see why it has issues then as a MSFS customer I would be willing to share my time to provide you with the information.



Not only for fidelity but RXP on P3D or XP11 has insignifiante impact on perf (even if i had 4 GTN on screen, 2 on VC and 2 on popup That’s a performance !. We cannot say the same for glass gauge in MSFS until now. Doing the a 1:1 will take more than 10-15% of a frame rendering time, it is not acceptable.