A brand new MS Flight Simulator is coming...

[Victory103]

I never knew how much the ships add to the immersion when flying overwater or coastal approaches. As a former rotorhead, glad to have a step forward with helos in MSFS. Running AIG and FSLTL, but still frustrated by the AI engine most flights.

[Kulbit]

Hello, this question has been buzzing in my head for some time
Have you considered that MAIW Traffic will could support injection via FSHud since there is public SDK API (which is also used by FSLTL) that any of traffic add-ons makers can use ?
I'm simply thinking that it could be a temporary way to insert MAIW traffic, avoiding part of the problems deriving from MSFS traffic management. In this way we would start to populate our sim with military traffic with a decent level of functionality, and keeping up the countless hours of dedication of the developers, perhaps encouraged to continue the hard work, without waiting for Asobo's decisions regarding AI traffic Indeed better than nothing at the moment.

[Firebird]

I admit that I had not heard of it, so I went to find out info on it.

The first thing I saw is that it is payware. Therefore the answer is that we would not be using it, or any other system, if it means that anybody has to pay out for it.
Now the public SDK API that you mentioned. I am assuming that this part of the MSFS SDK, as I couldn't see any mention of it on the FSHud website. If this is the case then we still hit the same problem. That Asobo still have not nailed down the AI system. Which means that the SDK and any Documentation can't be considered as the final answer.

Having been involved in some of the testing aspects of cutting over FSX aircraft to MSFS I can testify to the fact that the skills involved and time required for each aircraft is more than it would be for an FS9/FSX/P3D model.
It is just not feasible to ask people to spend time on projects that may not work as they thought when they started.
Also take into consideration that the few that have been getting their hands dirty are also the ones that will have to pass on the knowledge/procedures/experience to new creators.

We had two packs ready for release and then SU11 happened and the packages did not work as intended. SU12 is released in March. We don't know whether the problems from SU11 will have been fixed, whether there will be more breakages or whether they have actually cast the final structure.
I haven't touched the fact that the last two SDKs have altered the way that objects have to be compiled.

We badly want to move into the MSFS ballgame. It is frustrating but we have to wait until the concrete is poured and set.

[Kulbit]

Firebird thanks for the answer.
My question was born after i saw this video maybe you'll find some interest on it

[Firebird]

Appreciate the video.
The bottom line is that we will investigate anything that looks like it would enhance the users enjoyment of AI.
The one golden rule that we stand by is that we won't look into is anything that involves cost for our users.

[Kulbit]

Hi mates,

any good news after the latest MSFS update ?

[gavinc]

Hi mates,

any good news after the latest MSFS update ?

Give them a bit of time - The update was only released on Tuesday.

[John Young]

I think expectations are way too high for MSFS, particularly just a few days after the release of SU12. Things have changed from where we left off, when SU11 broke the AI, 4 months ago.

At the point we stopped developing, the Selfridge ANG package, featuring my converted A-10C’s and a new KC-135R model, was about ready for release. The bigger Lakenheath package was still with Greg awaiting flight plans for the F-35A’s and the creation of a new test package with updated scenery from Ian (supplied) to enable the new additions. The F-35A’s will probably need additional aircraft painted up and programmed now, to reflect real-world deliveries since last November.

I installed SU12 this morning and re-tested the Selfridge package. Previously the aircraft would depart and fly the circuit, but with no resemblance to the flight plan specified aircraft serials and timings. This morning after 10 or so attempts with different scheduled departure times, I couldn’t get the aircraft to depart at all. The sim also crashed at the loading screen twice and I had to force a re-start and re-launch each time. It may be a simple reason for the AI not moving (the sim was not paused), but I am loathe to spend more time trying to problem solve it when there are so many other reasons why spending more time on this is not likely to prove fruitful for me. Here’s 10 of them:

1. I’ve now turned 74 and don’t have the same level of energy for this. I don’t really want the intensive pressure, problem solving, testing tedium and frustration, that developing for MSFS entails.

2. Having spent over a thousand hours learning how to convert FSX AI aircraft for MSFS and producing a package, I’m loath to spend a lot more time doing the same, when Asobo could break the AI function again, if they haven’t done so already.

3. Greg has now departed from MAIW and I’m not clear who will take over his role for the Lakenheath package.

4. On the wider issue, I’m not clear what the future of MAIW is in any case, in terms of management resources, funding and active membership. I’m not comfortable spending a lot of time on this unless I have significantly more confidence that our community can stay intact and grow. At the moment there isn’t enough visible demand to warrant the effort involved.

5. While we could upload to another site, I am really off-put by the recent debacle of Flightsim.to, the most popular site for MSFS freeware offerings. I’m not prepared to upload there.

6. Conversion from FSX to MSFS is a complex process and only two people are currently equipped to do that – myself and Pete. Pete has an incredibly busy work life and I fully understand why he has been willing to support but not produce actual conversion packages.

7. AI aircraft require scenery and while it is possible to amend default AFCADs to enable AI, as I did for Selfridge, custom scenery that we can work with is in short supply. Ian has been happy to provide scenery for Lakenheath, but his focus is now on pay-ware offerings. I can understand that given the work involved.

8. We found with Selfridge that trying to convert exiting aircraft with 1024 x 1024 - pixel textures is not satisfactorily. Paint kits really need to be in 2048 x 2048 - pixel format and I’m not sure that many MAIW aircraft, apart from my own, meet that criterion.

9. Conversion of exiting aircraft obviously involves repetition of what’s already been done, subject wise. While the visible results in MSFS with PBR textures can be quite stunning, the enjoyment is not quite the same as a whole new project. Building new aircraft from scratch with Blender is a bridge too far for me and I suspect many others too. I could build first using the Gmax FSX Gamepack, but adding the conversion process after that adds a large block of time that I would rather use doing other things.

10. I really don’t want to be the sole developer of MSFS packages at MAIW – I don’t enjoy the frustration of testing and the crazy file structure of using the MSFS “Simple Aircraft” as the starting point is just so confusing at times. Others may be interested in taking up the challenge and we have a very detailed manual to help do that, but it will require a lot of support effort.

I’m sticking with FSX and P3D at the moment and even there, I’m not working at my historic pace.

Sorry to disappoint, but that’s where I am with this.

John

[TimC340]

John, that's totally understood.

It doesn't take a lot of reading over at FSDeveloper to realise that the level of knowledge needed to work effectively in MSFS is several levels above what we've needed for FSX and P3D. While there are several enthusiastic amateurs making their own local airfields, the aircraft and major sceneries are becoming more and more the preserve of the big scenery houses. There are exceptions, of course, and fligtsim.to was the place to find the best of them, but trust in that site has been severely dented and will take time to recover.

The enthusiast military market for flight simulation has moved to DCS World and some of the first-person-shooter milsim games that allow aircraft. Games like Arma 3 and Squad, which have YouTube content creators with followings in the millions (check out OperatorDrewski, who is very entertaining!). These games don't allow the recreation of peacetime military scenarios that we've become used to with MAIW and its antecedents, but they very much appeal to the modern game player. MSFS, with its focus on civilian flying rather than the wider aviation environment, comes a poor second to these games when it comes to operating military aircraft in the way they were intended, yet can't really accommodate our style.

A recent discussion over at FSDev suggested that Asobo/Microsoft are working towards deprecating the bgl method of traffic insertion, and that SU12 is another step on that path. They've allowed FSLTL, Just Flight and AIG to develop new methods of injecting AI traffic, and for the moment it would appear that piggybacking one of these may be the only reliable way of injecting user-created traffic. WRT the earlier discussion we had about this, I realise that MAIW's experience with WoA (from which AIG evolved, I believe) there is a reluctance to rely on third parties, but this may be the only way ahead unless we can find a tame developer who will duplicate their methodology for military aviation. I think that's unlikely, as if you're going to do all that work you may as well get paid for it!

Is it possible that we may have to look towards X-Plane to continue our line of work? Or will continuing development of P3D allow us to retain our methodologies whilst enjoying better renditions of the real world? Either way, any improvement in fidelity will demand much more work to exploit it and make the effort worthwhile.

[gavinc]

Having finally got my system up to the point where it can run MSFS I can fully understand the frustration developers are feeling.

I love MSFS for flying low and slow (especially over places I know well - I recently flew over Guildford and could easily identify my old house and the places we walked the dogs) but I can't see doing the sort of MAIW things for it that we did for the earlier sims.

Gavin

[TimC340]

As I've often said, MSFS is an expensive way of getting the full Google Earth experience! It is getting better and better at that, and some of the flyable aircraft are approaching the level of complexity and fidelity that was becoming the reality in P3D before all the developers rushed over to MSFS. It is becoming a truly excellent flying simulator when it's working well, and the sim pilots - especially those using stuff like VATSIM - are getting a decent experience. The recent civvy AI products, while not great, are at least making an effort to inject some variety of traffic into the mix, but the 'spotter'-type player that MAIW targets is very poorly served by MSFS. I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

[PB68]

I have to say that I whole heartedly concur with all of the comments above.
There is just so much uncertainty not just with MSFS, but everything currently ( MAIW included ) and it is very difficult to visualize a clear route forward.

It became very difficult indeed to make any progress at all with developing converted AI aircraft, after SU11 and SU12 effectively broke the Offline MSFS Ai System. This is currently the state in which we are at.

As John has already mentioned, together we have poured countless number of hours into the conversion process and both of us are deeply disappointed that nothing has managed to come to fruition.

The Lakenheath Package ( featuring F-35A's and F-15E's ) that we had ready or at least nearly ready, in my view would have still required further work for it to be completed. The Lakenheath scenery provided very kindly by Ian McCartney, required a few minor changes, which are now impossible to implement as he has moved on. John Mentioned some of the other issues regarding this package release earlier on in his post.

The Retro Lakenheath Package ( featuring F-15C'S, F-15D's and F-15E's ) that was very advanced in development by myself, has suffered from a very similar fate. The scenery of Lakenheath although a different version than that of the F-35A and F-15E version, ideally still required minor changes to it, but these might not have to be essential. The JYAI F-15s themselves were the most developed to date, featuring customised working afterburners, customised wingtip vapour, customised touch down tyre smoke, slime/panel lights and a host of working animations all of which being xml controlled. All of the Paints for this package are completed and the Traffic file worked up until SU11 and SU12.

You may have noticed that I posted a few images the other day and this shows that I do continue to ' tinker ' with MSFS where time
permits. Another achievement has been getting ' Retro ' Airbases into MSFS where the ICAO code for that base has since been reallocated. Bentwaters EGVJ, Woodbridge EGVG and Alconbury EGWZ all now appear on the MSFS UI Map and replace the default airfields that MSFS currently uses for those ICAO codes.
When it is working ( cough, cough ) AI traffic in the form of the JYAI A-10A's fly between these locations and elsewhere of course.
In short, Retro is very much possible in MSFS, but will require work to do so.


In summary, it really does look like what we had before regarding the implementation of AI into the Sim ( .bgl Traffic Files ), might have to change. This is because it might no longer be compatible and an area of " Legacy " obligation, that MS and Asobo want to support.

I am already in talks with another developer as to what the possibilities are, but I think TimC340 touched on this earlier in his post.
I will keep you posted when more information becomes available.


Regards,

Pete.