Put more effort in SDK Development

Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Wishlist
1

Hi all,

Recently, many of quality 3rd parity scenery have been release but did you realize that none of a high quality add-on aircraft come out?

In fact, all 3rd parity development are limited by the SDK even our A32NX community program.
Unfortunately, many of 3rd parity developer complaint that the SDK do not support them to create a complicate aircraft even they willing to do so.

Therefore, it time to let ASOBO know that we are willing for those production. We hope them to put more effort in SDK Development in order to create a platform for high quality add-on.

If you also willing to having those high quality add-on, please help to upvote this topic.
Else, maybe even wait until Q3 of 2021, we may not able to find one of the study level aircraft appear in MSFS.

2

I would like to add: please make available the airport database (at least: code, full name, latitude, longitude and country). The old FSX had this and more information available in text based files. I understand that the airport/xml files are in the installation, but these are compiled. Perhaps a decompiler could be put in the SDK.

1 Like
3

Hope that more user can realize the importunacy of the SDK…

Without SDK support, nothing can be done for all of the 3rd parity developer. For example, PMDG already postpone their B737 development in MSFS and move their target release date to Q3 of 2021 because lack of support of the SDK.

If we did not call ASOBO attention, maybe we will not have any study level aircraft for upcoming year or even a few years.

3 Likes
4

Voted. This post needs to be voted 16000 more times. Agree with everything you said Marco!

5

They have a separate SDK team that is working on improvements all the time. They already done good updates, it’s just that those updates don’t get so much attention.

Also, it’s a longer process to create study level aircrafts compared to airports.

Great things will come, we just need some patience :slight_smile:

1 Like
6

I agree that the SDK is definitely in an early stage, and to say the documentation is lacking is an understatement. However, developing a study level airliner takes a lot of time. Usually it takes a few years from the ground up. It totally makes sense that we don’t have any payware study level aircraft yet.

7

Yep I think that 90+ percent of their effort just go into getting the SDK done. I don’t care if they stop fixing bugs and pushing updates. It is time they let the professional developers just finish the sim.

1 Like
8

The general consensus among third party aircraft devs is that the SDK is still too basic for complex aircraft. For example:

  • PMDG has pushed back their release data over a year.
  • Captain Sim has stated that they are waiting to start.
  • The product description for the Long-EZ by IndiaFoxtEcho Visual Simulations even says in bold letters:

“Note that at the moment of the initial release, MSFS does not properly support canard planes - the plane may exhibit a behavior that may differ from the real aircraft in extreme conditions.”

Thus, this post is a request to prioritize the development of the SDK to allow more complex aircraft. This sim is great for VFR, but without complex aircraft, the IFR is lacking. The flight sim community has a long and storied IFR history. So for many of us, this sim will be just a novelty until the SDK is improved. Please help this sim become all that we know it can be!

9

I’m very sad A2A hasn’t been able to release an aircraft.

10

I upvoted this. It is the most important issue for me, because I think it is the number 1 issue that is holding the sim back. It is limiting AI, 3rd party weather, complex airliners, and probably a lot of other things I’m not thinking of. So far, we have seen a lot of nice airports released, but without proper airliners and AI, I see no point in buying them right now. This is coming from someone who is addicted to buying scenery for FS2000-P3Dv4. I’m also not buying scenery anymore for P3D, because I don’t see it being the sim of the future for me. If others are on the same page as me, and I suspect some are, this means that MS/AS may be depressing sales for small businesses (TPD’s), because they haven’t completed the SDK (documentation that they knew they were going to need so it is not like it is a surprise to them).

That being said, it is quite possible that work needs to be done in certain areas before the SDK can be completed. PMDG’s needs, for example, may have dependencies that are related to much bigger tasks than what can be achieved right now. MS/AS may be able to slap something together now, or create a sim with less long term potential, but they may be taking an approach that will give us a better sim in the long run. Once they get the big issues settled, they may plan to build the SDK WITH PMDG and FSL, and if they do, we will have better functionality due to 3rd party collaboration. From past PMDG posts, I got the impression that they had to implement a number of workarounds to get their aircraft into FS9, FSX, and P3D. Imagine the possibilities if the sim already contained the necessary features and they didn’t have to implement a number of workarounds.

This also goes for XBox compatibility. Compatibility may have been prioritized because it may be the cash cow that MSFS needs to be financially viable. The last thing we want it for the XBox version to suck or be delayed, because it could cause MS to pull the plug on the whole thing - Bing data included.

Either way, the delay is terrible, and MS/AS are at fault, but patience on our part may pay off. We may end up with a better sim in the long run due to more collaboration and a more thoughtful approach to financial sustainability and development.

As much as I hate it, this really is a marathon rather than a sprint.

11

Just quote some update from developer. It show the importunacy of the SDK. Hope that all of you can help to upvote this topic.

QualityWings

[Boeing 787] Due to the amount of things that need to be completely reworked as well as several dependencies on the SDK, we currently estimate a release in Q2 2021.

Aerosoft

[Twin Otter] Do not see this as a sign we are close to completion though. This is a full MFS project, with all the trimmings like decals etc. As far as I know nobody has released something like that, in fact as far as I know it’s not even completely possible with the current SDK. (Boeing 787)

[CRJ] But as Hans shown, we still need some love from Asobo to solve problems. But many (many!) issues have been solved in talking to them. The people at Asobo are really amazing and we are sure they will make our release using all the options the new sim has to offer possible.

PMDG:

[Boeing 737NG3:]
These images of the flight deck are intentionally shown without the airplane powered up. This is not done for any purpose of showmanship, but is a decision made intentionally because the powered up flight deck simply isn’t ready for you to see yet. There are aspects of the MSFS SDK/API that aren’t finished, and functions still missing that we need in order to bring everything fully to life. We are fortunate to have a wide open channel with Microsoft and Asobo so once these features are implemented, debugged and ready for prime time, we will share those results with you. I am eager, however- as this new simulation engine allows us to do so much without “hacking” the platform to get the results we want- and the finished product really shows improvement.

A2A Simulations:

[Aerostar 600]
Because Microsoft Flight Simulator and the Accu-Sim v4 tools are still in development, it’s too early for us to know with any certainty how long it will take to complete this first project.
However once the Aerostar 600 is released, it will represent the first airplane created with the new Accu-Sim v4 toolset, so successive aircraft developed will take less time to reach the same level of quality.

DC Designs:

[F-15]
Finally, I have decided that while I wish to continue creating military packages to MSFS, I also want to venture once more into vintage aircraft. With supersonic flight not yet possible with the sim, it makes sense to focus on subsonic aircraft as well, and there’s nothing like a World War Two fighter for sound and atmosphere. Therefore, alongside the Grumman F-14 Tomcats, I will also be working on a Republic P-47 Thunderbolt package, which will contain both the Razorback and Bubble-top variants. These will become the first in a line of WW2 fighters that I hope to release through 2021, all for MSFS. No pictures to share yet as I’m still texturing the model, but I will share them as soon as I can.

Indiafoxtecho:

[SU-31,MB-326, TA-4J, M-346 Master, F-35, Eurofighter and F-14]
Second, we think that the current status of the simulator is not good enough to depict some aircraft, namely our supersonic jet fighters, with the level of realism we’d like.
We have divides the aircraft we’d like to do in three tiers:
TIER 1) Aircraft that can be simulated appropriately with the current code base of Flight Simulator.
In this tier, we can announce that we are developing the following aircraft:- SU-31,MB-326, TA-4J
TIER 2) Aircraft that can be simulated with the current code base of Flight Simulator, but either require some more research.
In this tier we can only announce that we we are developing the M-346 Master. There are other aircraft being worked on.
TIER 3) Aircraft that cannot be simulated in the way we want in Flight Simulator right now - basically our supersonic jets.

5 Likes
12

This should have been the number 1 in the wishlist instead of that “Removing of Press any key to start” :roll_eyes:
Anyways, they said they are working on it. Lets see how fast & how much it progresses !!
If they really have something better planned, we can be a bit patient.

2 Likes
15

With Asobo focusing on primarily sim and world updates, I think updates to the SDK should also be prioritised so that we can see an increase in overall improvements to the sim through support from the community

1 Like
16

SDK documentation is inadequate. For example, the definitions for VASI biasX and biasZ is identical but these are two different parameters. The magnetic or true for runway heading is not specified (it is true) and for ILS (it is magnetic). The documentation hampers efficient development.

1 Like