>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!Agreed!

>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.Hi, Chris, I'm amazed! So you are saying that Microsoft intentionally slowed down the cloud update task if there was any on-screen text? If they did that then I agree, it's not a bug. But it's even more bizarre than a bug. I can't believe on-screen text could have a significant impact on frame rates. I deliberately choose this presumed bug because of the link between clouds and on-screen text, an effect confirmed by very many users including, I believe, yourself. If the link to the text did not exist then it could be put down to poor performance rather than specifically to a bug. Just to clarify, could you confirm that Microsoft intentionally changed the performance of the cloud updates if there was any on-screen text? Also, I only mentioned what appears to be a bug. I have not mentioned the question of adding new features. That's a completely different issue. But it's worth mentioning that TRI did add new features in some of the patches. They weren't big changes but they were welcome improvements none the less. Best regards, Chris Wright

>That might be a bug but it is NOT a bug that is serious enough to warrant a patch.Your attitude is typical of what Bear describes, people clammoring for emergency updates (which patches are) to fix some minor thing or pet peeve Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the cloud bug is serious, nor have I ever clamoured for Microsoft to fix it. I chose that one out of the list because the link between the clouds and on-screen text certainly suggested a bug (i.e. an effect not intended by the programmer). Chris Willis states that in fact the link between text and clouds is intentional, in which case it isn't a bug. I've asked Chris to confirm this. But there are other defects, some visual, others associated with ATC and multi play. I prefer to talk about *defects* rather than bugs. If a feature is poor or badly implemented it's a defect if not an actual bug. I have spent many years working as an electronics engineer for the world's largest semiconductor equipment manufacturer. In our own relatively small factory probably two software engineers worked full-time correcting software defects. Many of the defects were minor (after all, the machines had been working successfully in the field for years, so the problems were almost by definition fairly minor - most of the time!) Each set of fixes required retrofit kits to be sent out to the field, complete with full documentation. Needless to say, this is incredibly expensive, far more so than developing a patch and publishing it on the Internet. So why did the company do it? The answer is simple: quality. If you believe in quality then you want your product to be as close to perfection as is possible. It's as simple as that. If we encountered a defect in our product there was just one simple thing we had to do: FIX IT! That's probably one reason why my company is the world's biggest in its field. A commitment to quality will always pay for itself in the end.>Releasing a patch for every which minor issue is extremely irresponsible. Obviously a patch would fix a number of defects. Issuing a patch to fix just one minor issue would indeed be irresponsible. Unless, of course, the company involved had an unusually high commitment to quality and service to the customer.>You quite obviously haven't the slightest clue about software development processes or you'd understand that. See my comments above. >You're just another whiner if you keep on lile that... I always refrain from calling people names because it is childish and insulting. I always try to stay with reasoned arguments. I'd appreciate it if you could do the same. Best regards, Chris

>>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!>>Agreed! Thirding the motion! I appreciate all that you guys do for us here. Your level and realistic approach to flightsimming are refreshing and invigorating. Thank you for sharing and keep it up! We need you guys here.TonyPS, I did not think FS2002 needed a patch either. Sure there were a few little things, but considering the scope of the program, they were no big deal to me. Definetly no show stoppers.By the way, has it occured to anyone that if MS started patching it might lead to compatibiltiy problems with 3rd party add-ons? I know it would not in all cases, but if the base target keeps moving, how do you hit it?

> But it's even more bizarre than a bug. I can't believe>on-screen text could have a significant impact on frame>rates.>That's because you don't know how text vs graphics is handled in a DirectX application. I do know and it's indeed slower, for the very simple reason that the text is not drawn using the highly optimised graphics routines but rather using the same Windows API routines also used when you use Word or any other non-DirectX application.There's precious little the FS team can do about that, except spend a huge amount of time creating their own text-drawing routines. Time which would otherwise have been free for other things, which people would then complain about for not being included...> I deliberately choose this presumed bug because of the link>between clouds and on-screen text, an effect confirmed by very>many users including, I believe, yourself. If the link to the>text did not exist then it could be put down to poor>performance rather than specifically to a bug.>It's still not a bug, no matter what you believe.It's a design choice, consciously made to keep aircraft animation fluid for as long as possible no matter what other things appear on screen.> But it's worth mentioning that TRI did add new features in>some of the patches. They weren't big changes but they were>welcome improvements none the less.>Which is not a smart thing to do, unless those new features were ready for release in a regular update anyway.Patches should be reserved for emergency fixed only, putting anything else in them only increases the possibility of more errors cropping up as patches by their very nature can't be tested as exhaustively as regular releases.

>> But it's even more bizarre than a bug. I can't believe>>on-screen text could have a significant impact on frame>>rates.>That's because you don't know how text vs graphics is handled in a DirectX application. I do know and it's indeed slower..... Ouch! You certainly know how to put me in my place.... Actually, I did know that, but I stand by my original statement. Text may not be optimal in terms of performance but it doesn't mean it will have a perceptible affect on the framerate. After years of using FS (starting with FS95) I have never noticed the slightest difference in performance with or without text. I used FRAPS to measure the frame rate and took an average reading of twenty entries in the text log. Unfortunately FRAPS was still putting up on-screen text, so it's not totally scientific, but at least FRAPS is a separate application to FS. At the very least the test shows the difference between two digits and several lines of text. The two averages were 50.65 and 50.5, showing that frame rate is indeed slower with FS on-screen text. That's about a third of a percent. This was with minimal scenery (basically just sea) so with average scenery it would be just one tenth of one percent. This tends to confirm my first observation, that I see no perceptible change with or without text. With this in mind it does seem bizarre that Microsoft chose to give us ugly, flat clouds in exchange for a completely imperceptible increase in frame rates.>> But it's worth mentioning that TRI did add new features in>>some of the patches. They weren't big changes but they were>>welcome improvements none the less.>>>Which is not a smart thing to do, unless those new features were ready for >release in a regular update anyway.>Patches should be reserved for emergency fixed only, putting anything else >in them only increases the possibility of more errors cropping up as patches by their very nature can't be tested as exhaustively as regular releases.They were part of patches primarily aimed at fixing bugs etc. But I'd say it was *very* smart. Although not strictly necessary, it was very good for good customer relations. I wasn't too sure about Fly2 but I bought it anyway. If it hadn't been for the superb customer support (often going far beyond the strict requirements) I might not have bought Fly2. I may be old fashioned, but I think companies that go beyond the strict requirements of bean counting will be more successful - it's just such a shame that didn't apply to TRI, but Fly! failed for other reasons probably beyond the control of TRI. Think of IL-2. At least one patch included new aircraft! And CFS3 has *very* serious competition from IL-2..... Best regards, Chris

Unbelievably good thread, all.This is a potential "troll" topic that produced a serious discussion and real disagreement. I'm just amazed that it could run some 30 posts at a high level of discourse (with maybe a mild hiccup). A tribute to the sort of "button-down" AVSIM nerdy style... :-kewlI wonder if you IT guys might say something about the character of "patches" and how they are seen by the development team. From the outside looking in, one can guess that there is a real threat to "perceived" competence. No organization wants to acknowledge mistakes, or even the appearance of mistakes, unless necessary. And this organizational imperative might be especially strong if the development team must deal with an outsider "management" team whose emphasis is on PR and profits rather than code. Further, both Jeroen and John have suggested that turning to minor patches simply takes time (and attention) away from a cycle of update and redevelopment.I'm interested in learning more about how "patching" looks from the insider perspective. Any takers?Best,Mike MacKuen

Patch? Why would Microsoft release a patch? They couldn't get anymore money from it:P