I would agree as you can see the paucity of big-company addons.
1 Like
You can use both. While most of my time is in MSFS 2024 I do use XP 12 also.
3 Likes
Riiiiggghhhtttt…? I’m aware lol. You have to admit it’s nice to build time in one and not have to flip flop, but addons for two sims, deal with the nuances of two sims, etc…
1 Like
I personally don’t find it a nuisance. I’m currently flying the Just Flight Turbo Arrow in MSFS 2024. Next flight will be in the Hot Start Challenger 650 or the Just Flight Arrow with the SimCoders Reality Expansion Pack in XP 12. For tomorrow I have a flight planned in MSFS 2024 in the Black Square Piston Duke.
2 Likes
If the product is simple enough, the backwards compatibility might work (though I have yet to see any DLC that does that perfectly). But even if it works, it will not be very efficient and will lack any of the new features of the simulator.
As I wrote, I have no idea what a native FS2024 product is. All the source bitmaps, models, sounds, and 99% of the code are the same; it is only when you start to implement them that there are differences (and some very big differences) between the two simulators. Starting ‘from scratch’ if you have a FS2020 model is unthinkable. How many ways can you code a Thrust Assymetry Compensation system that will kick in when you lose an engine at V1 in C++?
Mathijs Kok
PMDG
3 Likes
Is quite simple:
- A product that uses exclusively MSFS 2024 3D Materials, exported using MSFS 2024 SDK and compiled also in the MSFS 2024 project. This includes new animations modes for propeller blades, engines blades, tyres compression with deformation, etc.
- All model behaviours using compiled mode and using only the new EX1 code.
- Full Implementation of L:1 LVARs.
- Full implementation of MODULAR Aircraft mode, without the well know hack of expanding your Bounding sphere to the size of the moon to bypass the new Vertices limitations and avoid the new LOD requirements.
- WASM modules compiled MSFS 2024 native, with all the new calls and functionalities.
- Full Career mode implementation.
- Full Pre-flight implementation.
- Full implementation of new textures PBR values to take advantage of the way MSFS 2024 reflections work. detail scratches, dirt, mud, splatter bugs, and others.
- Full implementation of the new CFD components, which allows to calculate CFD surfaces in much more detail, better flight dynamics, etc.
- Depending of the plane, full implementation of new wear and tear systems, which requires to configure new hydraulic system, new fuel system and many others. Note some companies have their own wear and tear simulations already (A2A for example) and they might opt to keep using theirs as IMO is more advanced, is this happens, pre-flight elements might be different or missing entirely.
- Full implementation of the new Pilot / copilot and Pax systems.
- Full implementation of the new livery system, presets, etc.
- Depending of the project, implementation of the new Windshields wiper masks.
- Implementation of the new avionics available in MSFS 2024.
This list is just a summary, there are many more elements, and the real workload behind all this is MASSIVE, specially if you wish to convert a MSFS 2020 airplane into fully native 2024, for a firm like PMDG, Aerosoft and Inibuilds this might not seen much or might appear very trivial (and that’s okey), but for a 3rd party developer firm like mine, where it is a 1 man army for everything, this is quite a lot of work.
Considering 90% of 3rd party aircraft developers fall on my category, you can appreciate why I am exchanged my ideas and views with Asobo to help us to be more productive, and they are listening to such ideas.
Lots of latest releases I seen have a mix and match of the above, with combined things from MSFS 2020, but because the aircraft compiles in MSFS 2024 and the pre-flight components are put in place, the project gets identified as 2024 native, when in fact it is not. So I do understand the confusion.
For the record all my current products are still working in MSFS 2020 compatibility mode inside MSFS 2024, they work perfectly in MSFS 2024, but they lack exterior pre-flight capabilities and career mode capability since they need to be converted to MSFS 2024 standards. However they do work just fine since Asobo did a great job with SU1 to iron out any backward compatibility mode issues for MSFS AIRCRAFT 2020 projects.
I hope this helps to clarify the position to the general public, and also helps them to identify real products that are fully native into new platform standards, in other words, stop falling for the trap of some releases, where it is just assets from MSFS 2020 with a fake LOD bounding sphere as large as an airport, few pre-flight elements, few config lines to add new pilots types, career and calling it a day.
A truly 100% native 2024 product, is way beyond that.
Best,
Raul
CEO FSReborn
23 Likes
And from the consumer perspective of a long-time flight simmer with IRL piloting experience, albeit a long time ago, a lot of that long list of stuff is way beyond what I want or need to be happy with 2024. The newer customers who want Career mode to work or are looking to tour the world’s vast riches in a dune buggy, well they need some or most of that stuff to work to be happy. And while I do enjoy fight seeing from the air, both low and high altitude, I do think the whole Digital-Twin aspiration may have over burdened the new game in the short term. Are we all feeling some of that, both as consumers and developers, that the 2024 cup ranneth us over? Anyway we journey on; for my part, I use what works and ignore the rest. When it gets fixed, I will try some of the new toys, till then just free flight.
3 Likes
Nice list! It definitely defines a modern FS2024 aircraft: same source material (that’s 80% of the work), very different outcome. Keep in mind, though, that some of the things on the list are not yet possible because the SDK does not cover them yet. We love to make our product work in career mode, but that’s just impossible. There are several other parts that we are just not interested in and do not fit our ideas.
Now, all these things are not trivial or even easy for PMDG, it took the whole team many months to get it working as it does now. Very frustrating months. For a one-man team, that is a very heavy lift indeed and I applaud every dev who manages to handle all that.
6 Likes
I can fully agree with that. But… a lot of what Raul lists is just needed to get acceptable performance. I find that some products recently released just do not work well on Xbox because of issues Raul points out. The new platform rewards correct procedures and punishes bad procedures in development.
That affects every customer.
4 Likes
That is also a relative term defined by the modeler’s goals with the finished product.
A simple example is that you don’t need to model every loose thread on the passenger upholstery or the copilot cursing you if you do something stupid.
Details that may be essential in one model might be totally irrelevant in another.
Also, there is the point of diminishing returns. Do I really care if circuit-breaker number 210a, (that disconnects power from a lavatory’s waste-water pump), is fully modeled? For me, I’d rather the devs spend time on more important stuff.
It’s really the modeler’s call and I respect that.
1 Like
Great post Raul. Very informative.
Is there a quick and easy way to tell as an end user whether an aircraft is fully 2024 native or using 2020 compatibility mode? (Perhaps from the Developers Menu?)
1 Like
Over the years I have developed flight dynamics for FS9-FSX-2020 and now 2024. One of the trends I have been fighting is the reducing number of tools now disabled in the SDK. There are many tools in the SDK with no explanation of their usage as the “English” fails here in communication their utility and purpose. A current project I am working on was begun in 2020 sim just to attempt to get a head start on the 2024 release. Lack of the sim’s stability of base implementation currently has things stalled. The changes for instance made in SU1 were quite significant.
I am a 50 year aviator and have flown many aircraft from about 1000 lbs to almost 1000000 lbs takeoff weight. From my niche perspective all the bells and whistles are irrelevant if the plane does not fly well in relation to the original. I have flown some expensive offerings which were fairly successful in 2020 and nearly unflyabe in 2024.
Asobo is making slow progress and developers will get their feet under them but it’s a bigger hurdle than was promised.
2 Likes
Id rather have a module that uses every aspect of the default simulator, flaws and all, then have a developer use thier own proprietary code and have it be drastically different IMO.
Like I’d rather a plane just use FS24s default FMC that works with the tablet EFB then have a custom one that doesnt work with it. Even if the custom one is more accurate. I’d rather have that “send flightplan to FMC” function work then have that one page be accurate. Just for example.
I dont really know how to explain it other then I want it to be just like the default Asobo aircraft. Not better. Not worse. It should have the World Travel and Pacifica liveries, it should be usable in career, you should see the passengers inside, it should work with the EFB, it should have the walk around features, and the new propeller animations.
Those things matter to me more then a more accurate critical AOA or APU simulation. Both would be nice of course but thats too much to expect from every product.
This is how I feel about the developers who insist on using third-party navdata from Navigraph - I have yet to have anyone demonstrate how this is beneficial to the end-user. The only explanations I’ve gotten are that the formatting is different so it works with the way those developers have previously designed their systems.
So essentially, because they don’t want to invest the time and effort into updating their systems to leverage the default navdata (which, as far as I can tell, is as up-to-date as that from Navigraph), the users must suffer and pay for access to (essentially the same) data from a third party to get the complete experience.
< / rant >
10 Likes
Agreed. I tried navigraph and I hated it. The sim connect app is annoying. And its not much better then the default flight planner in FS24 now anyway.
And I hate having to save an external .fpl file and putting it in the right folder then hoping it works with the airplane I’m trying to fly. No.
Im want to just open the EFB, set my flight path, send it to my airplane, and go. And have it work. All in sim.
1 Like
I have found the implementation of the SimBrief EFB app has been pretty seamless - create the flight plan there, press Import Route, it goes to the EFB Planner app which can then be used like Navigraph to modify the route as necessary with maps and charts available, and then can be sent to ATC/Avionics with one click.
2 Likes
This is what I do too.
Navigraph is one of the only subscription services I don’t mind paying $90 or whatever it is a year for. What comes with the sim just isn’t good enough for my purposes.
2 Likes
I agree with a lot of those sentiments. I don’t think we’re getting too far off topic, but as it pertains to Navigraph, I remember why I first bought a subscription. It was a consequence of another purchase, the FSDT O’Hare addon for MSFS2020.
The in-sim O’Hare for the standard version was pretty bad. Wrong runways, out of date, etc… I bought FSDT O’Hare, but then realized the in sim data for STARs and approaches would not load since the in-sim navdata did not match the 3rd party add-on scenery. Soo… I got a Navdata subscription and started using it. I think for MSFS2020 there’s still some benefit for Navigraph in the flight planning area.
However, if I ever switch over to MSFS2024, the integrated EFB and “better” stock navdata will probably allow me to finally cancel my navdata subscription.
The EFB does still need to be updated in a few places, like with aircraft performance data, but that’s supposed to be coming. I almost wish that in-sim EFB support was required for third party aircraft. It does get frustrating sometimes with custom EFB’s when there’s a native one built it.
I do get some of it. The devs may have a lot of customizations to the plane they need to manage somewhere, and usually it’s in a custom EFB, but the fragmentation of the overall user experience is a downer.
2 Likes
Yeah, for now the Planner app seems like an apt Navigraph replacement, but not a SimBrief replacement given the lack of perfromance data which, as you said, should be improving over time. I really like the way Carenado implemented their custom EFB as an app that lives in the Asobo EFB, though it seems like they’re going to have a different app per aircraft which can get overwhelming quickly. I would hope they can consolidate that into a generic Carenado app that starts with an aircraft selection screen, or even better, detects what you’re using and only access that portion of the app.
3 Likes