You might want to also indicate the next statement following Eric’s. (I’m French speaking so I can also relate what they mean vs how they say it):
“Instead of allowing you to override, this is not where we want to go for now. We are confident with the quality of our flight model today”. (at 53:40)
They are developing the idea they rather prefer 3rd party having a question or something they can’t do, asking them instead so that they can, I imagine, better their own flight model simulation.
I’ve not issue whatsoever with the general idea to helping them better the core simulation (and not just the flight model), but:
-
Helping them better their flight model is not a reason not to also provide overriding solution for those who’d prefer implementing their model in a certain way Asobo can’t help them with (for example using an externally validated flight model component to drive an aircraft in the sim)
-
Otherwise I’m willing to discuss with them about any issue I can have with flight models, but if experience tells me anything about the lack thereof of communication between Microsoft/Asobo and Reality XP, I’d rather have an override system and doing it myself otherwise I’d wait another 12 months to get any answer back if I were to send my flight model question today.
NB: I’m not saying in any way there aren’t other ways to “trick” the existing flight model system to make it do something it is not meant for (and I’m not trying in saying so to place a joke because some could even say it is easy a proposition, there is so much the default flight model is not meant for). Their communication is making clear to me though these tricks could break in a future update because this is not what they are wanting (for now).
PS: For those wondering whether my post is a bias opinion about the flight model, please read my comments about this here:
TL;DR: I find their approach innovative but I’m wondering: in making their normalization algorithm "bending’ their 1000 element model to match the FSX historical flight model behaviour, didn’t they just cut out what could have made their new engine a key differentiator from the past and from competing simulators?
@CristiNeagu
I’ve forgotten to add: SimConnect does offer some (only too few in my opinion but at least some) variables you can write. Among these are the LAT/LON/ALT (tuple) which you can then use to make the vehicle moving in any place in 3D. This is probably one avenue you could use today to make the aircraft moving in a way which is bypassing the core own flight model translation. I’m not sure you can write the PBH yet (Pitch/Bank/Heading) but if this is possible, you’d get some basic overriding capabilities. Of course, overriding flight model also means having enough sample points to make it worth (atmosphere, moist, wind, ground friction, ground type, etc…) otherwise I believe it would be quite hard. Overriding the flight model is something complex because it is rooted into the lowest layers of the simulation, with a strong coupling to the simulation environment.