Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
marcom

Beta testing procedure

Recommended Posts

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


Vin Scimone

Precision Manuals Development Group

www.precisionmanuals.com

PMDG_NGX_Dev_Team_FB.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


Enrique Vaamonde

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


Mark Foti

Author of aviaworx - https://www.aviaworx.com

logo_avsim.png

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
Guest rellehenk

just try disengaging A/T and see you can reach a lower N1 ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I think the reason behind this is a MSFS limitation. If I recall correctly, a long time ago the A/T actually commanded idle N1. The problem then was that the sinkrate was too high and unrealistic.Therefore the A/T logic was changed to command a different idle during descent to get a realistic sinkrate.Regarding windmilling speeds, even at 340 kts you'll be below idle. At least on the 767 this is the case.Regards,Mark


Mark Foti

Author of aviaworx - https://www.aviaworx.com

logo_avsim.png

Share this post


Link to post

*Auto land one only 1 channel. Well we also have all the manuals and much more than just the AOM-FPPM-CBTS etc, we have real NG pilots WHO stated that indeed the aircraft WILL LAND IN A SINGLE CHANNEL with FLARE to! I KNOW what the books say and so do the pilots! But facts are facts the ONLY reason the AOMS CBTS state that it WILL NOT because it is not certified (no cross checking) but it CAN! So yeah this is what us beta testers are doing and MUCH MORE than just reading AOMs alone...[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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...