Well said WalterI agree 100%.It seems that the same tired old arguments are slung in our faces to rationalize huge bugs in every new release and the amazing thing is that most people believe them.Well here I am again waiting on a patch to fix obvious bigs that should not have made it to release under any circumstances and I`m kind of ###### about it.The least PMDG could do is release the beta patches to us and let us use them and provide feedback.Ron

Yup I agree - we should all (people who bought the plane) be able to test this patch. What's to say the same group of testers aren't going to experience/catch other bugs in the new version?Ryan

How true! I guess I just found another bug. Well, I have to admit I neglected my duties as PIC and left the room while the 737NG was flying on autopilot :-) When I came back the 737 was far past the TOD.When I entered a new, lower altitude VERY strange things happened like a descent rate of about 15600 ft/min and excessive overspeed (VNAV engaged!). I would think that the real 737 would try to avoid such things under all circumstances! PMDG really should "fire" all its beta-testers. Or employ them as bed-testers (as they always seemed to have slept instead of testing the aircraft)...Walterhttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/24198.jpg

Walter"I have to admit I neglected my duties as PIC and left the room while the 737NG was flying on autopilot"Are you daft?;)Just the APU/fuel management bugs alone are keeping me from leaving the flightdeck.Of course this means no coffee for this skipper.;)If PMDG really cares about their users they should make the patches available to us for testing.I am really having trouble believing how some of these bugs got past the testers/PMDG in the first place.It`s troubling to say the least.Ron

Hi guys,Every release of a new aircraft for MSFS seems to follow the same rules: everybody is much impressed with the screen shots, anticipation grows as the company announces beta-testing has begun, everybody scrambles to get it the first day of release and then everybody complains about how much they paid for a program that doesn't even work right.I must say it's almost amusing to follow this drama with each and every release. There are two things I don't understand. Yes, I too think that most software, including this one, seems to come with bugs that should have been discovered by beta-testers, so why don't the developers learn from this? And second, we all know that it always works that way, but we still go out and buy every new aircraft on day one, so why don't we learn from this?To put all this in perspective: my company recently bought a new Windows version of our financial software at the cost of over 30,000 euros. We do our accounting with this software, as well as our salary payments. With an annual turnover of 15 mln euros and pay checks for over 500,000 euros a month, wouldn't it be nice if all this was dependable? Well, believe me, I'm still bug hunting. I'll never forget the day we discovered one of our employees had received a pay check of 15,000 euros, more than ten times what he usually gets, because of a minor error in the software. He thought he'd won the lotery. And the list is a lot, lot longer.Now, back to flight simulation. Just a few years ago I recall that for a moving map and a FMC in MSFS you had to have all kinds of different add-ons spread over a number of computers. Now we're used to getting all that in one package. If you look at the incredible amount of detail that goes into these things and how small this market really is, I think $40 isn't all that much. Everybody agrees that PIC767 is still the benchmark, but from what I understand that was a labour of love rather than a commercially viable product and I would be very much surprised if the entire 737NG team could make a living out of their product. Two weeks ago I spent two hours in a KLM 738 sim and I felt completely at home, doing a complete cold and dark start-up all by myself, finding my way around the FMC, doing a complete flight from EBBR to EHAM as PIC (it really is nice to be able to actually command someone to raise the gear and set the MCP!), all based on knowledge and experience gained from using computer software (well, and my Boeing manuals of course). Isn't it incredible that you can get this learning tool on how to operate a multi-million dollar aircraft for only $40?And finally the bugs. Like I said, there are always bugs. So before all the patches are out, my assessment of a new aircraft is based on the things that DO work. Based on that I really believe this thing is a potential winner. However, my final verdict is of course based on the final product. I would be very disappointed if the things that don't work wouldn't be patched to the quality and detail of the things that already do work. In that sense, it's up to PMDG. For now, I'll just have to wait and see. And test-fly the hell out of this thing :-)Leo Bakker

LeoYou know what is amusing to me?It`s when folks like you decide to compare FS software with mainstream buisness software.I guess next will come the comparisons to realworld jet engines or cars or whatever.Gee Leo do you have any rock solid statistical data on the exact ratios of lines of code to bugs between these two apps?It`s apples and oranges and you know it.When folks like you keep rationalizing the existance of obvious bugs in payware addons you do nothing except to discourage developer`s from trying to do better.In the end it is my 40 dollars that came out of my family`s coffers and I don`t think it`s asking too much that it work properly from the time of purchase.I expect the odd bug or two but as is this app is below grade.RonOh as an afterthought.What do you say to your software developer when you find out about those overpayments?I bet it`s not don`t worry about it take your time getting it sorted.I bet it`s more like get it fixed NOW!!!

ironclaw,Your point is well taken and everyone has a different yardstick for measuring expectations. My "greenband" is larger than yours. I balance the complexity and fidelity of the model with the as delivered condition and find the plane airworthy. Lots of stuff needs to be fixed to complete the product. To add gas to your fire, you should see the state of a full scale, real time $10 million dollar simulator (Nuclear, Fossil and Flight) at the time of customer acceptance. Whew...... lots of bugs and customer specific stuff to fix. Why did you think this one would be any different? Why didn't you wait and buy it after the "shakedown"?I'm frankly amazed at the fidelity of the sims we are seeing today and this one is no exception. I'm satisfied with the initial releasse as none of these "bugs" have precluded my ability to fly over 100 flights successfully. Every flight was completed with the autopilot and FMC with exception of 3. I was tinkering with the FMC and hosed the flight plans and ended up flying VOR to VOR. ichy. :)Have Fun!BobP :)

its the same old story with any commercial add on these days, its unbelievable how these errors got past these so called beta testers, unfortunately thats the way the commerical flight sim industry is, well i am putting off buying any payware stuff from developers until 2 mths after the initial release, cause there will also be 'serious' problems to address, unfortunately the best commercial company i have found out to be consistent with high quality and a good system of buying from their site, its Phoenix Software Solutions, i wish they did a 737...

You're kidding right??? The PSS Airbus had a TON of bugs on release day of the downloaded version!! I know because I bought it the second it was released - remember the terrible framerates, the MCDU bugs, the autopilot begining descents with a 5000+FPM dive? Remember waiting weeks for the patch just like we are now with the NG? It took like 3 or 4 patches to get the Airbus package up to where it is now. How about the Dash-8 - remember the nose gear collapsing at the runway hold short point? Honestly the only payware products I've bought that seem to work almost exactly as advertised are Flight1/Dreamfleet. The Flight1 Meridian is a work of art and it worked almost exactly as it should on the release date, there was only one small patch for allowing the disabling of VC gauges for those with slow systems. Dreamfleet's Cessna 310 is working amazingly well - the only issue is an arguement over rudder effectivness that isn't even a "bug" but pilot preference.Ryan

Their "famous" Dreamfleet 737 initially was MUCH worse than the PMDG 737!!! AND I

Hi Ron,Yes, you're right, comparing mainstream business software and FS software is comparing apples and oranges, but deliberately so. There isn't as much difference in complexity between the two as you might think, but there is a major difference in price tag and need for reliability. What I'm saying is, and the examples are many, that even "real life" software often comes with bugs, even for software that costs millions to develop.I'm not trying to rationalize this, I'm just as annoyed as everyone else. But I am saying I have come to expect it. No, it shouldn't work that way, but it does. And since we all know that it works that way, I am saying that we should learn from it too, by either not buying software on day one or by accepting the fact that the first buyers are part of an extended beta test.However, that's just my view, based on personal experience.Leo Bakker

A few posts ago, Leo Bakker made a post regarding bugs in products...Those who remember, when the first Fly-By-Wire Airbus was invented (A320-100) there was a number of big errors and bugs in the computer which caused many of these aircraft to crash. The result from that was you can only test a product enough to make you think it works ok. After that crash, there was what we would call a patch which fixed a few of these bugs.How did Airbus manage to miss these errors? They put lives at risk when they released the A320.We paid $40 (or

>A few posts ago, Leo Bakker made a post regarding bugs in>products...>>Those who remember, when the first Fly-By-Wire Airbus>was invented (A320-100) there was a number of big errors and>bugs in the computer which caused many of these aircraft to>crash. The result from that was you can only test a product>enough to make you think it works ok. After that crash, there>was what we would call a patch which fixed a few of>these bugs.>>How did Airbus manage to miss these errors? They put lives at>risk when they released the A320.Well, this reminds me of my "2 cents" a few messages above :"This sounds like trying to excuse a crime with another crime!This excuse is rather ridiculous because it sounds as if you want to "educate" customers to become patient sheep, who will "swallow" anything that software-developers will throw at their feet to eat."...only if it concerns a REAL aircraft it really starts to get criminal!What can we learn from that? Maybe it is better NOT to squeeze as much software as possible into a modern airliner, especially if it goes as far as that the pilot can

Reading my post again, I mean't to add this bit on the end - The Airbus developer's beta testers missed out a serious bug which caused a crash (I'm sure more than one Airbus went down in the early days because of the fly-by-wire software). That bug was very hard to find which shows how much beta testing went into it before it was released (but it still did have bugs).The 737NG has some bugs that even after one flight customers are finding which makes me think what did the beta testers do?We are all thinking that same question probably, but maybe they did spot a lot. If the package had been released not beta tested then I'm sure they're would have been many more bugs.I'm tired so I'm probably talking out my #### but hey...

well all i can add then is instead of handpicking only 20 beta testers, they should have taken 100, yes 100 beta testers to comprehensively tested this bird from all around the world, then PMDG would have got a better idea of these problems prior to release.