Sign in to follow this  
Guest Bernie Rottweiler

PSS, you rush through your projects too much!

Recommended Posts

Dear PSS Team,I am not Cassandra nor can I see into the future, BUT:If you continue to release products that are "buggy", nobody will remember the xy patches you released after, but only that the product he/she bought was full of bugs.I u n d e r s t a n d that you are under pressure to release the product - people are beginning to pester and ask continually when it will be released, but perhaps you should then announce your new products differently. Some screenies first, some later, some Tutorials, piece after piece - and stay calm even if the community gets "greedy".Even when ALL problems get fixed later with patches - even when NO ONE of the buyers gets so angry about the initial bugs that he/she is tired of buying your products - the bad publicity in the forums (people reporting "hundreds" of bugs) will keep customers AWAY from your products.I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Bernhard,The 757 project started at the same time as the 777.Prior to the 777 a typical beta team was 10 or less.During the 777 we initially had 12 but ended with 24 testers - taken from the communityCare to count the number of testers on the 757 - many of whom are just as, if not more dedicated than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say what doe the number of testers has nothing to do with this somewhat botched release sequence.Simple mistakes and poor execution, lack of attention to detail, failure to proprly check and recheck release candidate file, etc etc.Joe Lorenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joe,what in the world are you talking about,i have both the b777 and b757 and ive had 2 bugs with them,not what i would consider a "buggy" program,do you realize the amount of differnt computer setups there are out there, and different simulator setups lets cut pss a little slack its damned if you do damned if you dont ill stay with pss for as long as they keep creating aircraft nick baa-ret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually admire PSS' openness - the issues with their s/w are here for ALL to see. Big plus in my book. That plus their committment to, in the end delivering products as advertised is enough for me.But then I make my living as an 'exterminator' :) - ie patching, upgrading, reinstalling, service-packing buggy telecomms/ip equipment from a number of TOP vendors. I expect bug free from NOBODY, and rarely, if ever, get it.regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/mar.../sup_banner.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully Nick,A botched release - my opinion - caused by poor execution. And we were told that PSS would "get it right"- How many times did we have to download the file as "pre-buy customers" How come? - Did the general release happen within 24 hours? Why not?- The fuel planner "broke" right before release? Sorry - huh?- The fuel flow in certain AC was set at 50% of actual and no one noticed? The range was almost doubled and fuel flow halved.- mmo is 0.86 per most real world docs, and it is set to 0.82 causing most cruise conditions to be within knots of redline, no one noticed?- The 753 viewpoint is in the middle of a fuselage wall, and no one caught it?- The installer overwrites FSUIPC with an outdated version - no one caught it.- Tutorial files "left off" the release installer - no one tested or noticed?- Several repaints were missing textures - no one checked?- CDU screen goes blank on numerous clients - THERE is the first issue that was probably just a true unpredictable glitch that could not be anticipated. Everything elee above is just plain poor attention to detail in my opinion. Even if the beta testers were working with different files - how did the wrong ones get included ? - Poor execution.I am flying the AC - ALOT - and enjoying it, but, that does not change my opinion that the release could have been handled much much better, especially in light of the 777 and that release.Joe Lorenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, most of the release bugs were due to uploading some incorrect files to the servers. Employing more beta testers will not catch that kind of configuration control problem.Perhaps in future the final days of beta testing should be on the server downloaded release candidate, just to re-check that all bugs remain fixed prior to release.The pre-release was a bit of a mess, but nowhere near as bad as the 777. The main 757 release was duly held back until the corrected files were ready. The pre-release idea seems to makes things worse. I'd suggest they ditch it.You can hardly say PSS rushed the 757, and from what I've read in the forum most people are extremely happy with it. I'm generally very happy with my 777, and I haven't even run the second patch yet! I'll be buying the 757 as soon as the load editor is added. Reading the forum, most of my reservations have been addressed, apart from the aural warning inhibit issue, which hopefully will be looked at eventually.Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the beta testers would tell you that we believed that the 757 was about 2 weeks away from being a GREAT aircraft. A decision was made to make the model available to those that had chosen to pre-buy. My guess is that this was done as at that time the beta version we had been using was very good, stable and close to completion. During testing I have been working closely with a friend who is an active 757 Captain and when he tested the beta tells me that is how the aircraft handles or that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a fair statement IMHO.We have got a ready product where all major systems worked perfectly - from the day one.Yes, there are some bugs. Or rather questions which we wish to be answered by the staff.I patiently wait when PSS have time to fix them and have time to address my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miquel, It does seem that there are some issue with the release version VNAV descent and you can be assured that if there is errors it will be fixed and it will be accurate. Accuracy will make the difference between good and great for me :0)Steve www.airbusa300sim.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NormanI think that the 757 has an acceptable amount of bugs. Besides the release problems maybe due to lack of sleep, I wasn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>With regards to the MMO 0.86 is an FAA figure while the CAA>have the aircraft at MM0 0.84. In service the aircraft is>normally flown around 0.80 with a number of companies in the>UK have the standard operating procedures limiting there speed>to 0.82. Hitting the MMO creates a mountain of paper work>along with lengthy checks on the aircraft. >>Steve Masson>www.airbusa300sim.co.uk >Steve,Even though some operators SOPs may limit Mach to 0.82, the aircraft Mmo indication will surely still remain at either 0.86 or 0.84 (FAA/CAA), so you won't get an overspeed warning by breaking 0.82? So Mmo in the sim should not be set at 0.82.Nice to hear from a beta tester on the real state of the sim. Previously I could only judge from PSS statements in the forum.What did your friend the 757 Captain say about aural alerts sounding during normal engine start?Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was reported by me during testing.Cyrille de LattreAsus P4P800/PIV 3 Ghz/2 Giga DDRAMATI X800 GT 256 MegWin XP SP2 / FS9.1 PSS Beta tester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kevin, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you I was dragged out by the family :0(I have spoken with Norman and new config files will be uploaded reflecting the correct MMO's which had been in previous beta's. Obviously it's not possible to reflect both FAA and CAA figures so the higher will be the value used. When these new files are available Norman make an announcement.Given that UK operators MMO is .84 you can see why in most cases the aircraft is operated at 0.795- 0.80, as at .082 and given a late descent and over speed could happen quite easily. With regard to the aural alerts, these were highlighted by Cyrille during testing and along with other issue they will be addressed in the future by the PSS team. Take care Steve www.airbusa300sim.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kevin,I had been led to believe you own and have flown the aircraft, based on your statements in this discussion. Hands on experience to me is a requirement for a valid opinion of how an aircraft flies, the determinant factor of its quality.In setting criteria for aircraft acceptance, our mileage may vary naturally. You may think a problem in VNAV descent, violating altitude and speed restrictions, is unimportant, but I don't. I doubt it has to do with customer PC set-up, which makes me wonder about beta-testing. One requirement to qualify an aircraft for operation in RVSM MNPS airspace is visual and aural altitude warnings before reaching target altitudes. Currently it doesn't operate, except the FMC issuing an error message after descending below an MCP set altitude limit, an altitude it should not be reaching in the first place. Just a couple of examples, referred to as Part 1 Deficiencies (failed acceptance) in United States Naval Aviation.>I'll be buying the 757 as soon as the load>editor is added. Reading the forum, most of my reservations>have been addressed, apart from the aural warning inhibit>issue, which hopefully will be looked at eventually.>>Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this