Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
marcom

Beta testing procedure

Recommended Posts

You are a bit out of place Mark and really do not have the correct idea how it is run so let me clear this up for you in a respectful manner. If you know anything about beta testing, you would also know that sometimes fixing a small item can and does at times cause regression on a previously fixed item. We go to great lengths to re-evaulating as much as possible but given time constraints etc sometimes "little things" get by. This is more true at release times when last minute updates-fixes are being added or refined. No one is perfect in this regard including the ones with billions behind them like Microsoft with security holes etc. One could make the same argument there. 2] There are no **MAJOR** bugs! As I go through every report there is nothing that has been a show stopper by any strech of the imagination. CTDs have been reported by a FEW from the thousands of customers and since each users has a unique setup we are trying to work with them and locate their issues. There is nothing wrong with the lower DU. It works exactly like it was programmed, if you are not happy with that then suggest a way for a future update etc but certainly is not a bug ALT ALERTS. Yes simple but again some things changed in this eara that slipped by. The point is that it will be FIXED, again a MINOR detail. LK if he desires can talk to you about the radios, frankly Mark I think your atitude is a bit out of place, paying customer or not it's in bad taste IMO...[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | WD SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 |

Share this post


Link to post

Well I guess the severity of bugs is very subjective. In my opinion, however, a bug is something that either was never identified during beta testing or the value of fixing it versus the result is small.Either way, it's not something I like to accept easily. But that's just my opinion, the same as you think I'm out of line speaking out my opinion is your opinion.I'm pretty sure PMDG is going to fix the bugs (or at least I hope so), but it would have saved quite a bit of time and effort to either take more time to betatest the sim or use a different approach.PS I am not someone who urged PMDG to release the sim ASAP!Also, I'm not expecting a full flight sim. You can't expect that from any sim operating within MSFS. What I do expect is that features that are implemented, to work correctly.Regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post

Well Mark one who is currently developing should know all about these matters and to turn a quick judgmental eye at us in such a way concerns me about what might be your intensions, certainly such a concern could be mailed directly to Robert or Lefteris insted of on our main forum. Talking about what YOU think should happen and how really displays a certain arrongance (and I mean that in a non judgemental tone). What you are really attacking (in your own way) is everyone on the team including folks who fly the bird for a living and other competant users such as Lee Hetherington.... [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | WD SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 |

Share this post


Link to post

Mark>With the -800/-900 release, many new bugs have been missed (again). >Most of these bugs are very apparent and I noticed them on my FIRST >flight!! (That means 30 minutes of testing)Well, you seem to be a man who can test his aircrafts. As opposed to the beta team it seems by your statement. ;-)>-frequency change on the radioes is unrealistic (changind the >decimal places downwards will change the full units when passing >through Can you please tell the rest of us how the radios in the default planes behave? As you can see after testing this, there are only so many things you can do within the MSFS limitations.>-Alt Alert (something very basic) doesn't work on descentAs have been stated this is a confirmed bug. And was reported by the team before release.>-It seems as though the ENG/SYS switching doesn't work if you only >use 1 DU to display the engine instrumentsNot a bug. If you use 1 DU you have the compact display and thats it. Says INOP on the MFD selectors panel. If you have 2 DUs you have ENG and SYS on the MFD selectors and you can view the Lower DU with right clicking in the Upper DU in the 2D panel. Or view it in the VC.>and quite a bit moreWould be interesting to hear what more you have found as well.>the birdstrike failure doesn't do anythingAre you sure? It really depends on where the bird hits right? ;-) No, seriously this seems to be a/(the) valid point in your post. We will look into this. But to say the whole beta test procedure is out of whack because of this seems to be a bit too hard don't you think?Well, that's it. I managed to write this without getting too upset! :-)Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post

Don't turn my words around, Randy. Please.I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just saying that maybe something could be changed. That's all! I'm sorry if you percieve me as being arrogant - it's difficult to be critical and not come over as totally unhappy. And I'm not that, as otherwise I wouldn't be here!I've said it before and I'll say it again - PMDG did a great job on the sim. To get something like this to run within MSFS is a challenge. But some errors still remain and in my opinion could have been addressed prior to release. That's all.Mark

Share this post


Link to post

Wow it seems I hit a sore wound. Anyway,"Well, you seem to be a man who can test his aircrafts. As opposed to the beta team it seems by your statement. ;-)"Well I did find that bug after 30 minutes of flying, yes."Can you please tell the rest of us how the radios in the default planes behave? As you can see after testing this, there are only so many things you can do within the MSFS limitations."I don't know how they behave, I just know how it works in PMDG and how it works in real life."As have been stated this is a confirmed bug. And was reported by the team before release."Interesting!"Not a bug. If you use 1 DU you have the compact display and thats it. Says INOP on the MFD selectors panel. If you have 2 DUs you have ENG and SYS on the MFD selectors and you can view the Lower DU with right clicking in the Upper DU in the 2D panel. Or view it in the VC."Didn't know that. So aircraft with 1 DU can't display the SYS page?"Would be interesting to hear what more you have found as well."Check my other post."Are you sure? It really depends on where the bird hits right? ;-) No, seriously this seems to be a/(the) valid point in your post. We will look into this."Great"But to say the whole beta test procedure is out of whack because of this seems to be a bit too hard don't you think?"Whack? Hmm, could you please point to the part where I used that word?I just said "not ideal". If you say that equals to "whack", well, can't help out there, sorry."Well, that's it. I managed to write this without getting too upset! :-)"Good! Cause it wasn't my intention to upset anyone. But it seems you can't take criticism objectively!Regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Guest rserpieri

Come on guys,let's not be like this!!!!!Everyone of us loves airplanes and we all have the same target:to have a good,functional and bugs free 737NG.Mark,I understand you are upset since you pay a pretty big amount of money,but still you shouldn't have this attitude!I think these guys at PMDG are very helpful and I'm sure they'll fix all the problems.Now,it's like we are working on details,which I still think are important,because we bought a "very realistic simulation" of the 73 and of course we'll never have a full flight sim on our pc but we can get something that works very good and will give an exact idea of how the real thing flyes......So let's stop this unhelpful discussion and give an hand to PMDG and simulation community.I wrote other bugs I found in the post "Unanswered questions",have a look!Ciao,

Share this post


Link to post

If the fixes implemented for SU2 of the 600/700 are any indication to you Mark, you should not even have to question whether there will be a patch to fix these very MINOR issues. Birdstrikes? C'mon... Sorry, I'll remember to test that next time rather than focusing on the FMC, PDF/ND drawing routines, and the procedures database - you know - that stuff that 99% of the users are going to go to first before deciding to ingest a pelican into #2...

Share this post


Link to post

Folks,I have one last comment on this subject.It seems its ok to say "there is a bug with system x" but its not ok to say "I think your beta testing procedure is not ideal". And I always thought I was being polite. I guess I wasn't. Well, that's all I want to say here so good night and take care everyone.Mark

Share this post


Link to post

Mark I hope that I did not give you the impression that I in any way dislike you on a personal level, I think it apparent that your desire is to have a realistic as possible aircraft simulation so in this respect you and I agree. I don't really doubt your honesty on these subjects. I do take offence at the implied lack of concern from our beta team. That being said we do welcome concerns pertaining to the aircraft and it's modelled systems but I have to draw the line when this goes onto a personal level. It really serves no useful purpose to talk about what "could have should have" but only what IS being done now. We are far from perfect and have rules to work with in the process, I for one try to get the most out of the developers for any given project and to check that these are indeed working as expected, sometimes this works other times it does not. But all of us do try our best. And we continue to look after matters after the initinal release. I will say that problems could be expected and to a certain degree were expected but that is why we the team out very active in the forumes trying to rule out other possible causes before we label things a *bug*. Certainly there are some real bugs here and will be delt with in a timely fashion so I ask you to please continue to report real concerns in a freindly non offensive manner and we will do our part sir. I hope this does not cause any hard feelings but a better understanding for all involved. [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | WD SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 |

Share this post


Link to post
Guest rserpieri

Randy did you see my post about "Unanswered questions"?I reported some other problems in there!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Jean Claude

Hi Mark,My preference goes to release a product near to perfect rather then wait one more month to be sure that nothing being left over. This is by nature (perfection) impossible. So I prefer using and enjoy right away this product and let all user find where dust being left over.Wonderfull job teem !Just my opinionJean-Claude MCYQB

Share this post


Link to post
Guest bigun

Well, I for one am continually amazed at how the PMDG developers and beta testers can keep on putting out products as complex as the 600/700 and then the 800/900 with so FEW bugs! The compexity of these aircraft and systems are incredible. The fact is that they are released with far fewer "bugs" then many of the much less complicated packages out there. Like I've said before, I purchased these products within hours (minutes) :) of being released and none of the "bugs" have kept me from flying and enjoying these packages from day ONE.Great job guys!

Share this post


Link to post

Mark, We are always working to improve our methods. It is part of our business philosophy, and part of providing our customers with the best products we are capable of bringing to the market. After every product release, we review what we did right, and what we did wrong, and we strive to improve. This product release has been no different. All the best,VinPMDGwww.precisionmanuals.comhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/devteam.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

THIS is what the answer/reply to Mark should have been in the first place.I don't think Mark was being either arrogant or offensive...he wasn't saying "your product sucks and so does your beta team", because I don't think anyone can say that and mean it, since the product is, from what I've read here, very stable and of high quality.However, why not take what he said as constructive criticism and ask ourselves if the testing process CAN be improved. Because I am certain that there is always room for improvement, regardless of how good of a job a software developer or tester did. Software is never or will never be bug-free, just like real life.In my personal opinion tho', watching the few bug reports and the impact those have had in the product lead me to think that the Beta team made a fantastic job and I say congratulations to them.a future 737ng customer (own Fly2! 757 and Fly1 777),Enrique

Share this post


Link to post

For one I know Mark as do many of the beta team members so this is not just some random customer talking his mind for the first time and regardless of what some think when one talks about the behind the scenes process you are talking about the people in that process and it was anything but a productive post IMO. Mark as most know is doing his own 767 project which certainly is far from being free from bugs etc but I for one do not feel any need to questions HIS way of beta testing (which is an open beta for whatever reasons). We did our jobs and continue too, do anyone forget that PMDG themselves are beta testers.EDIT: Enrique, So Mark has every right to speak his mind freely and us beta testers do not have that same right to respond in a manner we see fit? The undertone was an opining that suggested that the beta process was someone incompetent at worse for allowing such trivial items to get into the release version. I for one feel justified in my responces if you don't I am sorry but you too have the right to state your thoughts here.[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | WD SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 |

Share this post


Link to post

Hi there, I dont think Mark was attacking the beta testers, may be he was just wondering about the beta process, procedures, etc. I am sure you guys are not at liberty to discuss PMDG internal process. I am sure they want to improve as they go forward. Personaly I think the product is great, and I enjoy it a great deal.By the way I wanted to thank you the beta testers for posting all these shots and answering questions on the forus.Take careJohn

Share this post


Link to post

Hi folks,I decided to reply to this thread again. There are many things left open I'd like to clarify. I thought I had done this but it doesn't seem so.First of all, I never attacked anyone or anything! Why are you saying I did? Where did I attack the beta team? Did I ever say that the bugs that are still resident are due to a bad beta team? No, because I don't think that! While there is always room for improvement, I don't think that the PMDG beta team is bad. Why? Because firstly the bugs that remain aren't showstoppers, but rather annoyances. Secondly, I don't even know how big the beta team is or who is on it. So how could I judge that?I also difn't attack the procedure. All I said was, and I quote myself for the thrid time, that the "procedure is not ideal". Again, this is just my opinion.Regarding our B767 project - that has got nothing to do with what I was trying to achieve here. Our decision to go for an open beta was after careful reviewing of different possibilities and we thought it best for our project. You most probably can't go for an open beta testing for a large product such as the PMDG bird, as too many customers would like to be part of it and you can't organize so many people's requests.Secondly, I never said that I didn't respect your right to respond to my posts. I was just surprised how negative my post was taken, as it was intended as constructive criticism or maybe just as something to think about.Thirdly, I never said that you should not criticise our open beta. Hey, if you think we made a mistake, or you have an idea how we can improve, just shoot! We _are_ open to new ideas, just as the PMDG Development team. Or at least I hope we are.Fourthly, in here I am nothing but a mere PMDG customer. So yes, I was being a customer speaking his mind. I never wanted to mention our 767 project in here as I don't think that's fair.So in conclusion I never wanted to sound arrogant or rude, I was just expressing my thoughts. That's all. And I didn't want to nor do I think that I attacked/offended anyone!Again,Kind regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for clarifying your position Mark. Sometimes it can become a defensive attitude if it is thought a certain post is attacking in it's nature, but like you stated, this was not your intent and I am sorry for being a bit harsh in defense. This is a part of human nature to lash out when an apparent threat is percieved but I am glad we have come to a better understanding and hopefully can learn from speaking to quickly based upon emotions insted of our heads ;-)[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | WD SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 |

Share this post


Link to post
Guest prichards

Get over yourself Randy! You say>>>>>What you are really attacking (in your own way) is everyone on the team including folks who fly the bird for a living and other competant users such as Lee Hetherington....<<<<

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dimosthenis

May I remind a useful tip from CRM procedures?"Always question procedures/actions, not persons"Whether Mark complied to it or not, i leave it to everyone's judgement...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Gilly

Just also curious, don't take this wrong.When I look into a offical 737 manual, let's say the autoflight part some systems are not correct.*Dual Channel auto land with one generator powering the busses, this is not possible in real.*Auto land one only 1 channel.*When AT is only armed, do a LVL CHG descent AT go to retard en must ARM at idle thrust, but is arming at 50% N1.That kind of things, is that part of testing? Or is it that pmdg don't wanna model these thing because of the price for the product. What I can understand.Gilles--------------------GillyNetherlandshttp://www.simdeparture.nlhttp://members.home.nl/gillyfs/Gillesklein.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Guest EISN_CONTROL

"When AT is only armed, do a LVL CHG descent AT go to retard en must ARM at idle thrust, but is arming at 50% N1."Remember that when descending,even with Idle thrust,the Idle % will be higher due to the higher wind speeds flowing through the engines.In short,I believe that an aircraft at high speed will have a higher Idle setting than that of an aircraft on the gound.Someone please correct me if I'm wrong :-hmmmJohn http://homepage.eircom.net/~eamonnmca/images/logo_ba.JPGwww.bavirtual.co.uk Senior Captain Simflight.com Staff Reviewer

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...