Most programmers are so self confident and arrogant they think they don't need QA...

Sorry David but this is a very idiot assessment.I see arrogance in your post not in the devs work.

What's that politically corrected statement "Too many chiefs not enough native americans". Too many programmers absolutely zero quality assurance. I've seen developer banners, but i've never seen anyone sport QA Lead.

That's assuming the programmer does nothing for the project but write code.Usually the smaller the budget small market products (such as FS Addons), the programmer is going to have multiple roles(whether he/she wants it or not). Instead of just being the programmer, he/she has to be involved in unit and Beta testing, QA, documentation, and customer support. When there are big budgets big market products those roles get split off into dedicated persons/groups.Te reason you don't see a QA lead listed for most FS addons is because most of the dev group takes on the QA role in addition to theirother responsibilities. The small FS addon market does not appear to justify dedicated QA persons as full team members to the project.Regards.Ernie.

OK, if I can add a my 2 cents to this great thread..I've had an issue with an addon I bought just the other day.Now, it turns out that the problem existed with another tweak I added previously, and not one that I could reasonably expect the developer to have used during their testing. I found that a cooperative approach worked; I got lots of suggestions (some of which I knew in advance were inevitable and undesirable, but necessary) amd it turns out that said tweak was apparently not needed on my configuration. Ranting and raving, while sometimes initially satisfying is pointless. You WILL get so much further when you just accept that the problem is likely as much your setup as it may be with their software.Also had a problem a year or two ago where it turned out that simconnect didn't play nicely with another addon post SP2; FSX just froze. It seemed at the time (and this was over a new year break, the time I least expected the level of support I got), it was down to my documents location being outside of the default location. Kudos to their support and willingness to work through the problem till it was resolved. The only reviewer that would find problems with an addon on my setup would be the reviewer that uses my setup.So - Reality - there are so many different configurations with so much different hardware that you just cannot expect every bit of software to work as intended. I (amicably) challenge anyone to show me third party software that has worked out of the box on every machine it has ever been installed on. No amount of testing, beta testing and UAC is going to iron out every bug IMO.(I can attest to this in one of my previous jobs - we had some software we supported that would always fail to install on one particular type of branded PC. No logic, no explanation, no solution. Eventually rewriting the installer fixed the problem. But we tested on so many other Windows configurations (and this was when our user base consisted of Windows 3.x, 95, 98, ME & XP; standalone and networked with the variant flavours of those OS'es!))On the other hand, I've had difficult experiences with s/w developers who were convinced that a file "keygen.exe", identified during their setup routine was nothing more than a file used to hack the software that I had purchased/licenced from them; despite the fact that exe file was a program used to generate keys for software from my aforesaid role. The subsequent "support" and "service" was an unpleasant, contrived experience, and I no longer wish to purchase anything from that software vendor. And said vendor is certainly not unique; I've also had painfully depressing, recurrent discussions over broken DRM with other s/w vendors (and I am not talking specific to Flight Sim here).I don't pretend to understand the pressures, constraints and difficulties developers face when trying to bring a product to market, and as fbass eloquently explained, I am sure some egos are very defensive, and that is understandable. Equally, there can be an expectation that "my purchased software just works, and I should just demand that". Both are not entirely best sides of the fence..We have a fantastic community here, both developers and users; sure there can be a "them and us" mentality on both sides. Bottom line - there are always going to compatibility issues, there are always going to be difficult users and difficult developers. If you wanted a game or application that doesn't have compatibility problems you'd have bought a games console or Mac, and you wouldn't be here :)

Yeah that's not good enough... especially if you are trying to build something complex as flight automation which I would say only two companies actually bother to do. You can't ask the users to test the code when they barely see 10% of it functioning.

OK, if I can add a my 2 cents to this great thread..I've had an issue with an addon I bought just the other day.Now, it turns out that the problem existed with another tweak I added previously, and not one that I could reasonably expect the developer to have used during their testing. I found that a cooperative approach worked; I got lots of suggestions (some of which I knew in advance were inevitable and undesirable, but necessary) amd it turns out that said tweak was apparently not needed on my configuration. Ranting and raving, while sometimes initially satisfying is pointless. You WILL get so much further when you just accept that the problem is likely as much your setup as it may be with their software.

And if you don't mind Leo, I will add that this problem was related to one of my products.It had nothing to do with our product, but everything to do with a recent tweak madness that it seems so many lately run to embrace.Developers are up against a lot of variables which are not controllable on our end, but some folks are quick to run to another forum, beat their chest about the audacities and short comings of the devs, only in the end to find out it has nothing to do with the product. Thankfully, Leo approached the problem kindly, asked for suggestions and clearly explained his problem as well as the hardware he was using. The truth is, he actually questioned whether a recent set of tweaks he added could have affected the product and the light bulb went on.We are not always so lucky or as graced as Leo's situation. Many come in with little more than a grunt and the old line of "I spent my good money" Fix it! No system specs, no mention of hardware, other add-ons, no confirmation on suggestions we make, no time to read the FAQ's that were developed to assist users, which in the end cost us a lot of time (which is money) and in some cases we actually lose money based on the time we have to invest in someone that will not engage in helping us resolve something for them. Then they go on forums like this one and complain about how the Dev's products are bug ridden and support useless.The truth is.... YOU can help developers put out better products, quickly resolve issues / updates if you approach your problem in a logical, informative and courteous manner and use the venues established buy the vendor to assist you in resolving your issue. You can also help by knowing your hardware, knowing how to maintain it, knowing your add-ons, realizing things you may have changed before a problem existed and taking the time to read the manuals, read the FAQ's and clearly define your problem and system specs instead of wanting spoon fed.FSX is a product that expects a savy user. And some vendors products expect even more. Its the nature of the beast and if you want to play on the field beyond default, developers expect that you must also do your part and become knowledgeable with your expectations.No product can work 100% across the board on all the hardware | software systems available. Not even windows does. But you can increase your odds by applying the suggestions outlined above and add some tactfulness to your request. Truth is, if someone buys a product from me, comes in to my forum or any other one and treats me or others with disrespect, is unwilling to provide adequate information and would rather stir the pot than get a resolution, it does neither one of us any good and it makes more sense to issue a refund then to lose time and money on a fruitless exercise.Jim

but everything to do with a recent tweak madness that it seems so many lately run to embrace.

So, if I understand correctly, there is 'certain' tweak (or tweaks) that don't go well with your products. am I correct? if this is the case, then is it safe to assume that *IF* the particular tweak you are refering to is among the ones recommended by Lockheed Martin your products will not work with Prepar3D? I guess its a good idea to know *what* particular tweak you are refering to! I don't think I want to recommend something that 'affects' how a 3rd party add-on works, I want to believe that any recomendations on my part make things 'better', so, please if you believe something I've recommended is affecting the way your products work, simply let me know, I can investigate it further or eliminate the recomendation from my automated tuning tool.

Bojote: honestly your tweaks just make my system worse... i've tried them all...I get huge stutters.. explain that.

Bojote: honestly your tweaks just make my system worse... i've tried them all...I get huge stutters.. explain that.

And honestly, it makes my system work great! Can YOU explain that... (Oh look, we're still on the topic of things not working just peachy on ALL computers... haha)Cheers,James L.

And honestly, it makes my system work great! Can YOU explain that... James L.

Mine too! - but I don't think we'll be 'there' until we get 5 gig processors, however - right now I'm really happy - and much of it is thanks to friend *******. :(

Mine too! - but I don't think we'll be 'there' until we get 5 gig processors, however - right now I'm really happy - and much of it is thanks to friend *******. :(

Too true, it still ain't perfect, but it's good enough for me! ******* basically made FSX enjoyable for once... haha :(

So, if I understand correctly, there is 'certain' tweak (or tweaks) that don't go well with your products. am I correct? if this is the case, then is it safe to assume that *IF* the particular tweak you are refering to is among the ones recommended by Lockheed Martin your products will not work with Prepar3D? I guess its a good idea to know *what* particular tweak you are refering to! I don't think I want to recommend something that 'affects' how a 3rd party add-on works, I want to believe that any recomendations on my part make things 'better', so, please if you believe something I've recommended is affecting the way your products work, simply let me know, I can investigate it further or eliminate the recomendation from my automated tuning tool.

*******,I can honestly say that your tweaking tool has made my FSX flyable again. I had given up on it because of fast system / low performance problems. But I can see why developers are having difficulties developing for a program (FSX) while we are still under its hood changing characteristics. However, since it will mean that more people are going to enjoy FSX again it should also provide FSX add-on developers with a larger customer base.

*******,. However, since it will mean that more people are going to enjoy FSX again it should also provide FSX add-on developers with a larger customer base.

Not at all... And I post this at risk because it appears the thread is now being hijacked into something else which is a bit of a shame.The issues we are seeing with far more frequency and tenacity are not defined by one tweak line, it usually ends up being a user filling their config file with multiple tweaks that have a negative impact and many times adding in the shader hack that has been posted. The result becomes so convoluted, backtracking the problem is impossible because the items that cause the most problems were never sanctioned by Aces or Lockheed and therefore are not considered tested for the masses to use. We get everything from users complaining of blurry ground textures, autogen and scenery spiking, to corrupt aircraft visuals and nearly every time now we find out it is a result of a popular online automated config tweak program. The direct tweak lines or cause usually ends up being something different each time. The point is, there is no way one person can define the use of these tweaks for every system in cyberspace and place it online for everyone to use. The idea of this is not reasonable if you truly understand the FSX engine. The part we do not appreciate, is in the end users who run to us because the aircraft | scenery | etc, they are flying has issues instead of running back to the author to fix the suggestions and entries made by the program. This costs us real money and time. Quite frankly, I have been watching the forums with this tweak frenzy and what I see is people get a little relief and then something changes and they are back for more. I do know that under the right circumstances some of the posted information can have value if the user knows what he/she is doing and can correctly evaluate the result, not only today, but next week or next month when they install a new plane or scenery package. The issue is users can not evaluate the result. The best tweak for FSX is a user who buys the right hardware, sets the system up correctly and does not overextend FSX settings, then compound overextending settings with a scenery that is far over the top for design. I seriously doubt Lockheed is suggesting people use this automated tweak system. That would be reckless and they are anything but that. They will end up in the same boat with support that we are in if they do so. Some users will claim its the best thing next to sliced bread, others will be in the Lockheed and other forums asking for support for issues that have nothing to do with the developers at which point they will finally figure out what it took MSFS developers years to learn, the best tweak is getting the right hardware and a simplistic approach to tuning. This thread is going the wrong direction now and I do not intend to entertain any more discussion on the tweak subject. It is a real problem with no true level of global conformity. And it is not our responsibility to report and support a beta program designed for tweaking parameters that vary so drastically from machine to machine.

The issues we are seeing with far more frequency and tenacity are not defined by one tweak line ...

and the true 'tweek' for FSX will be a 6GHz or higher CPU ... such 'super fast' hardware the game was designed to run.--

Gosh, Lookee here, this 'discussion has gone on right thru Xmas and now touches on the new year.(Takes out pointie party hat, adjusts mouth around squealy blow thingy and balances drink in other hand...)What a fascinating thread. I for one have been given an oversight into the depths of the difficulties of programming an add-on for FSX.The one comment I wish to make is that this type of thread would probably not have occurred in the same direction when in the past freeware dominated this "hobby". I guess FSX up'd the ante' in this respect.I won't refresh the reader of some of the bruised ego's, but it is clear to me this "hobby" has well and truely shifted into the payware camp and as such reliable and competent programming is a must - as is an in-depth review. The core arguments have strayed into territory I cannot hope to compete with, but that is because I am not trying to make an income from FSX. By now I would hope that most buyers out there who purchase add on products would know off the bat which company is known for a good rendition or add on, and who is good at supporting, and who is abysmal. In that light, hats off to those who still produce excellent freeware for FSX.As a buyer, what I am looking for in a review is an acknowledgement that some things are not quite right in the initial release with some bugs perhaps, but that the developers are working on a patch. I for one, acknowledge some things could be as a result of my system setup - but for me if I believe this might be so, I will refrain from posts to the forum until I have been thru my own analysis. Developers should also note, that as long as their "creation" is for sale they are going to get some email exchange from those who have just purchased it and it doesn't work out they way they thought it should, would, as advertised etc etc. Anyway, Happy new year to everyone(blows thingy in mouth, drinks from glass and goes back to staring at "Exception - an error as occurred" on screen)

All we can reasonably ask of a payware developer is that its add-ons should run on a clean flight Simulator installation with no other 3rd-party add-ons. It follows that it should run as described on such an installation with no bugs and certainly no CTDs. If it doesn't then we have every right to complain. By bugs I mean features that are modelled but don't work. I exclude features that the developer hasmn#t modelled - thesea dd-ons cost a few 10s of dollars and it's unreasonable to effect total fidelity.