Define additional virtual "cameras" which can be rendered to a gauge, for aircraft which use cameras in real life (e.g. A380/A350 taxi and tail camera)

Would it be possible to have some kind of system that lets us define
additional virtual “cameras” in the sim and render them to an HTML image (kind
of like synthetic vision on the Garmins does, but with more detail) ? This
would be necessary to create cameras in the sim avionics, which many aircraft,
including the A380, A350, SR22, etc. make use of.

It’s a nice idea, but the performance hit would be ridiculous as it would
involve rendering everything twice. In VR where everything is already rendered
twice, frame rates would probably be in the single digits.

It’s handled fairly well in P3D and XP11 already with almost no noticeable
frame impact. The virtual cameras themselves won’t be used unless an addon
explicitly makes use of them (and will probably have an option to disable
them), and the cameras themselves are fairly low quality, both in terms of
resolution and refresh rate. We don’t need something perfect - even something
similar to the existing synthetic vision on the sim’s Garmins would work.

Yes please… times two

Hello, At the moment this is not in our roadmap.

Could you add it to the roadmap?

Hello. This topic has been addressed during the SDK Q&A; on twitch: It’s not in the roadmap yet because
of engine capabilities and performance reasons. So the answer is no, at least
in the short/medium term. Regards, Sylvain

Just a suggestion for devsupport - would it be possible to have a tag to
represent something that isn’t in the short/medium term roadmap, but isn’t
completely ruled out? Currently the tag is “won’t do”, which gives the
impression that this is 100% off the table. Thank you!

I second Iceman for the request, this would actually be very positive for the
game, it would enable lot of possibilities for devs. Other games manage this
with no serious perfomance issues, see DCS targeting pod or P3D/xplane as
other suggested already. Please add this to the roapmap and give it some
priority when possible.

I already posted a similar Idea a while ago: Which still fall into the
general category of “Render to texture” that could cover camera views
projected over textures. Is currently flagged as “Schedule Evaluation”, even
if the last post still says is not on the roadmap, but perhaps it might be
added some day. In the meantime, we must work with that we have (since users
demands active panels/docking systems and the like), which will mean doing it
anyway, but in a way less efficient manner, with lots of visibility checks
and/or lots of Simconnect calls.

Definitely a +1 on this request. Without them even making something as a U-2
is impossible (it’s got not only the camera in the belly but also optics like
the driftsight and the sextant, which I don’t see a way to recreate without
such ‘virtual cameras’)

When competitors that have existed for years were able to get this done 5
years ago, I do not see any reason why MSFS would not be able to have this
functionality at all. Bumping this again.

Maybe “at some point” it will be on their “roadmap”. This is a huge part of
airliner flying, military flying and GA flying (some Garmin units allows for a
nose camera to be installed on a tail dragger). If they’re able to do multi-
screens, VR and synthetic vision, I don’t see why they can’t do this.

As far as I see, having a realistic and in-depth sim is not their first
priority. They are focused on more revenue generating things first. Which is
honestly so disappointing considering the potential.

****Then virtual “cameras” which can be rendered to a gauge and able to

show Youtube video, twitch stream, TikTok etc, should sell like Hot cakes to
the targeted market …****

I am surprised that you “do not see any reason” since we explained multiple
times already why we were not planning to offer this feature for now. It also
sounds a bit biaised to claim that “competitors did it 5 years ago” since, as
far as I know, they do not offer the same rendering quality as MSFS (but maybe
you disagree on this point). Best regards, Eric / Asobo

Apart what other simulators are offering, isn’t the MSFS graphic engine
derived from Forza games ? All these games surely some kind of Render To
Texture methods, for example in Rear view mirrors, so there must be something
in the engine supporting that.

The relationship between our engine and Forza’s engine is a myth - I have no
idea if the person who wrote this was just speculating or if he should change
his sources (maybe both). The rear view mirror example is interesting: in most
(if not all) racing games, the rear view mirror shows a (sometimes very)
degraded view of what the main view could display (potential optimizations are
a limited draw distance, toned down FXs, lower LODs…). One thing to keep in
mind is that these games also have control on what assets they are
loading/rendering, which is not the case for MSFS. The bottom line is: of
course our engine is capable of RTT but there are other aspects that need to
be taken into account (which mainly affect performance) before thinking about
opening this to add-on developers. Best regards, Eric / Asobo

I thought it was common knowledge, considering this interview with Asobo:
content-support-and-updates-on-microsoft-flight-simulator-for-10-years/> "“In
short, the visual rendering is calculated on the player’s Windows 10, but all
the 3D Textures and Data used come from the FTech Engine in a mix with Azure.”

Hello Eric, I appreciate the response. I’d like to reply to second part of
your response as it shows a bigger issue in how Asobo sees MSFS. Yes,
rendering quality and end result for graphics are far superior compared to
other sims. This is a fact. I’m calling “other” as even though its same
market, MSFS and the way its going is not a competitor to them. Anyways, the
issue I see here is the lack of commitment from Asobo. As far as I see, you do
not want this to be “go-to” simulator. Things like these are important because
it’s it enables more in-depth simulation. Everybody , accepts that
graphically MSFS is far superior. However this is not what people are
discussing here. They are discussing it for realism, more in-depth simulation
etc. this is where Asobo is falling behind. A lot. I’m sorry but I understand
there are contractual obligations, revenue generating features and partners in
concern but when will Asobo take things seriously or provide support for more
in-depth simulation? From what we see you guys are developing the sim, doing
great things but its 4 steps forward and 3 steps back. For instance WXR issue.
Asobo said they fixed it and provided API yet it’s no where near what its
needed. To summarize, I think there are bigger issues here. And these issues
start from the fact that you guys look at things from graphical and perception
point of view, not realism or actual simulation aspect of it. Which I find it
interesting, name of the game is “Flight Simulator” yet Asobo does not accept
feature requests from 3rd party developers that are related to improvement of
simulation aspect of it.