FS2004 Patches and Updates

[Bearracing 3]

>>>>Bear,that statement would only be true if there were no obvious bugs in FS2002. But in fact there are quite a few. Just one example: when flying past clouds, if you look sideways you may occasionally see a 'thin cloud', which happens because the flat texture hasn't been correctly rotated. However, if there is any on-screen text this problem gets far worse and is very obvious. Strange but true! Most likely one of the programmers made a simple mistake that had quite a bizarre effect.If the MS people had lived up to the comments they made to you, then this bug - and several other obvious visual bugs - should have been fixed with a patch. By the very nature of the on-screen text/thin clouds bug, it should have been easily diagnosed and corrected. But they did nothing.<<<<<Chris, with all due respect, this is exactly what I was eluding to. To you this may be a bug, but the occasional appearance of a cloud as a thin line was not a bug rather than a characteristic of how the 2D clouds appeared on your system releated to its performance capabilities. Now with FS2004, they (MS) have updated the way clouds are displayed, which is simply an improvement or upgrade, but I don't think they would consider it a "bug" fix any more than I do.>>>>I believe that, provided the bug is fairly obvious and could be fairly easily fixed, then any software company that takes a pride in their work would indeed fix the problem and issue a patch. Remember how TRI supported Fly! Although I regard FS2002 as a great simulator, I am disappointed that Microsoft were unwilling to properly support it. I hope things improve in the future.Best regards,Chris<<<<<<<I'm disappointed you feel this way Chris though I've noted similar statements from others, in other forums or threads, about the MSFS team before (statements indicating MS doesn't take pride in their work or is unwilling to support it), but nothing could be further from the truth. I personally know a number of the individuals on the MSFS design team and they're some of the most dedicated group of guys you could ever know and they take great pride in their work, as well they should. The last version of Flight Simulator, that had serious "bugs", was FS2000 and the MSFS team attempted to patch it out, but the patches could do little but bandaid the real basic problems, so it was only with FS2002 that the performance issues were finally corrected (which took the better part of a year after the release of FS2000 to fix properly). Because so much of the programmer's time was being spent improving the performance characteristics of FS2002 vs FS2000, several of the new features had limited time alloted for development, leading a lot of people to complain about, for example, "..why doesn't the new ATC allow me to choose my approach, or why doesn't the FS ATC allow me to change my flightplan in flight, etc.". The weather or clouds in FS2002 were exactly the same weather-clouds in FS2000, as the new stuff wasn't ready at the time of FS2004's release. The development of the new weather/clouds has progressed sufficiently that it could be included with FS2004 and in the mean time they've had time to improve on the ATC and AI aircraft so that those features are more complete and work more real world like. The work continues at improving all of these features for the release of FS2006.It all boils down to lot of people assuming that because it says "Microsoft" on the package then they must have unlimited manpower and resources, but that's simply not true. For example, its taken nearly 3 1/2 years to get the new weather developed up to a level where they can finally release it (FS2004) and that's been because they've only had a couple of people available to work on it part-time because of all the other items needing development work.Believe me, if for some unknown reason a major flaw or bug (a real bug and not just some pet peeve of someone) should showup after the release of FS2004, then the MSFS team WILL drop everything and within days of FS2004's release, we will have a patch. If you expect a "patch" because you don't like the way the clouds look or you think the AI aircraft land funny, or whatever, then I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're just going to have to wait until the fall of 2005 for the release of FS2006!Bear!

[LAdamson 240]

>People argue that $50 doesn't justify patches for minor>issues. I argue that $50x1 or 2 million does--and it did all>the way up to FS2000. Then something changed--Microsoft>decided for whatever reason, minor issues didn't justify a>patch. Surprisingly, that seemed to coincide with the loss>of two civilian sim players--the Fly! series and Flight>Unlimited series...>John----------------- because technically it's still a "game"!I've never felt a patch was truely needed for FS2002, and still don't. Looks like we have about 180 degree different vision on this subject. But that's okay............. :)L.Adamson

[Guest]

I always had the impression that patching FS would be some kind of "confession" that their product wasn't "the best"; an admission not often forthcoming from the M$ empire...

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I'm glad we can disagree, and same holds true of the thought I expressed with Jeroen... I hope most agree with us that FS2004 is as almost perfect as a sim can get. I've found no show stoppers with the gold. Someone used my comment on multiplayer as a chance to take a swipe at Microsoft. Microsoft has more than made amends by inviting so many of us to be part of FS2004's release. It's those who take the opinion I (and others) have expressed and use it as foundation for a bashfest, either directed at Microsoft or the poster, that tend to make these threads go south.What I do know is that Microsoft does listen, but as soon as FS2004's released, there will be people who ask for patches. I just think we need to be careful--as you and Jeroen and some of the other vets usually are, to listen to their concerns with good humor. We know what defines a troll. As a group, we need to not always equate someone's suggesting a patch as trolling or inexperience in the field.You are right about cost comparisons--a $50 piece of software may not justify any post-release attention. But it used to, and I wonder why things changed?

[Guest Ashleigh Davidson]

Whom I speak with is no concern of yours and I don't need your permission to do so.Tell me, why is it that if somebody has something to say, that is not to your liking, you have to turn into a cranky old man ?Like it or not, I'm entitled to an opinion whether it's suits you or not. Please don't try bully me Mr. Adamson, you'll find I don't respond too well.Did you ever stop once to think, it may well be that not everybody runs as super spec system as yours ?

[Guest WorkingStiff]

>Whom I speak with is no concern of yours and I don't need>your permission to do so.>>Tell me, why is it that if somebody has something to say, that>is not to your liking, you have to turn into a cranky old man>?>>>Like it or not, I'm entitled to an opinion whether it's suits>you or not. Please don't try bully me Mr. Adamson, you'll find>I don't respond too well.>>Did you ever stop once to think, it may well be that not>everybody runs as super spec system as yours ?>>Let me catch my breath after laughing so hard at the empty threats.If "not everybody runs as super spec system" why are you demanding access to Microsoft's Terraserva (sic) data? Terraserver data, would of necessity, require a higher-end computer.

[Guest]

As usual, Geofa... well said! You, Bear, and L.Adamson can always be counted on as voices of wisdom amis a chaos of anti-MS babble. Refreshing indeed!Doug3.06Ghz P4 533FSB512 MB RAMBUS RAMSony CPD-G410R 19" CRTRadeon 9700 Pro (Not O/C)SB Audigy 2120 GB ATA Ultra DriveMS Sidewinder Force FB2 ProWinXP Pro SP1DX 9.0a

[Guest Ashleigh Davidson]

Demands....show me ?

[Guest]

>People argue that $50 doesn't justify patches for minor>issues. I argue that $50x1 or 2 million does--and it did all>the way up to FS2000. Then something changed--Microsoft>decided for whatever reason, minor issues didn't justify a>patch. Surprisingly, that seemed to coincide with the loss>of two civilian sim players--the Fly! series and Flight>Unlimited series...>NOTHING warrants patching a minor issue.At most you can include a fix for a minor issue into a patch for something major if you have it ready for release anyway, but on its own it should never be released as a patch.MAYBE Microsoft might have taken some time to create an UPDATE to include the issues found after testing was closed, but that would not have been a patch.If you're in the field you know (or should know) the difference between a regular update and a patch and how nervewrecking the period between release of the patch and release of the release update including that patch is.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Did you ever stop once to think, it may well be that not everybody runs as super spec system as yours ?"I believe he did--he knows me and my involvement with testing. If a P3/800 is super spec...uhhhh....well....I'm happy with FS2004's performance, and I've had to invest minimally to get my system up to snuff. I added more memory. My new vid card was needed because the old one started making funny noises a few weeks back--mostly after meals, so it took me a while to catch on. After drinking gallons of Pepto Bismol, I realized my vid card was makin' the noises.When you consider my specs, and when I see your comments toward one of the more respected members of our hobby, I have to back off my comments regarding a patch.... There are no show stoppers in FS2004, no stability issues, and if anything comes out, it will likely be cosmetic or the same ol' arguments regarding flight models. I think a courtesy patch for cosmetic issues is good business, others think not. But unless something crops up between now and general release, FS2004 will be able to last "as is" until FS2006....

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"If you're in the field you know (or should know) the difference between a regular update and a patch and how nervewrecking the period between release of the patch and release of the release update including that patch is."LOL!!! I'm laughing because it's almost as if you were privy to what happened to us last week (I know you weren't, but it's funny as heck to me). Our next regular update is scheduled for next month. But, one of our users found what I'd call a one in a million issue. But the "uppity-ups" who don't know a PC from PolyCarbonate decided that the user made enough of a stink, that we had to release a patch--postponing our scheduled update work for several days.So yes, I do know.... Also take note of my comment to L.A.... You know I respect your opinion--I hope people realize I may disagree, but nothing discussed warrants swipes at those on either side of the fence or Microsoft..... Hope my response to you didn't seem that way, since yours is an opinion I do respect...-John

[Guest RSmith]

LOL, wow ! How a thread can go bad........Prime example of recent complaints about "tone" of some good topics & debate..... I thought the initial question was valid, and obviously, encouraged a diverse group of responses...I never questioned, nor questioned in the past (regardless of heat I took), the effort MS places in any version of FS. It is obviously a very involved, complicated, technically challenging program. I'm glad they offer new versions as often as MS does, even @ $60 / pop.I'll remain of the opinion. that small patches could offered mid-stream, just to keep the audiance happy. However, based on the tones in this thread, I see "Pandora" bigger than ever...... maybe MS is right after all.......... stay low, stay quiet......Cheers,RonPS: One thing that REALLY bugs me - is when we call FS a "Game". Compared to the simulators I used for a "real license", MSFS is not a game - it's a true simulator...... another topic,.....

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi cwright ""But in fact there are quite a few. Just one example: when flying past clouds, if you look sideways you may occasionally see a 'thin cloud', which happens because the flat texture hasn't been correctly rotated. However, if there is any on-screen text this problem gets far worse and is very obvious. Strange but true! Most likely one of the programmers made a simple mistake that had quite a bizarre effect.""No, it was implemeted like this to improve frame rate, there is BIG difference between bugs or deliberate implemented version type. Fs2002 the priority #1 was the performance.There is alot of guys are confusing deliberate implemented version and bugs.You can't have a patch to improve the atc, weather, or modeling the 3d clouds, this require total new coding and can broke the actual code in each single word added and screw up the product etc.If you look to the others side, TRI was introducing the most buggy engine software programming from both version that`s require ton`s of patch for their non function feature like it was supposly to works out of the box or HYPES. But they have NEVER introduce NEW feature like weather engine, new ATC system etc from their PATCH. There is difference between patch and new feature. If you look like big company like Microsoft and EA sports, example from Medal of Honnor or BattleField, go see their patch what they arePatch for Medal of Honnor: 1. Stand-alone game server that runs without CD2. Fix for the dial-up networking problem when playing single-player3. Fix for in-game server browser always auto-refreshing4. Fixed lag when a bomb was planted and the entire planting team was killed5. The multiplayer dial-up connection fix ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[LAdamson 240]

>Like it or not, I'm entitled to an opinion whether it's suits>you or not. Please don't try bully me Mr. Adamson, you'll find>I don't respond too well.>>Did you ever stop once to think, it may well be that not>everybody runs as super spec system as yours ?>Two items..................Over the years, my skin has become awful "thick" around here & elsewhere. You won't phase me. If your opinion is hearsay, and nothing more, then I'll respond.And secondly-------------my system is now mid-grade. Athlon 1900XPL.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>>PS: One thing that REALLY bugs me - is when we call FS a>"Game". Compared to the simulators I used for a "real>license", MSFS is not a game - it's a true simulator...... >FWIW --------------------- it bugs me to death also; and I called it a "game" today to make a point, because that's the bottom line on how it's marketed. But in reality, it contains many worthwhile real life data-bases, supports some of the most true to life flight dynamics possible in a home simulation, is excellent for IFR currency, and is overall............lot's of fun!L.Adamson