[H]ow many bugs have been reported in the past (other aircraft/after release) that have turned out to be PILOT USER ERROR.

At the flight school I was at, they stole the old joke's line when they wrote line check info in the maintenance records:Error in seat to yoke interface.I agree with those against the idea, for exactly the reasons mentioned. While there's something to be said for the idea that the unknowing user has the largest damage potential, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to emulate one as a knowing user.

I am very glad PMDG takes it's time on release of a product, because I worked on the MD-11 at McDonnell Douglas and The hydraulics in the MD-11 are spot on, as I had a gear failure the other day where #3 hyd sys failed and sure enough so did the gear, just like the tests we did at Douglas, I worked on Gear rigging and flight control rigging, I have over 3000 hours in this bird and never get tired of flying it.Keep up the great work and please keep making add ons.Michael Pare.

At the flight school I was at, they stole the old joke's line when they wrote line check info in the maintenance records:Error in seat to yoke interface.

Another for ya :( "Electrical short found between left and right headset earphones."

Ryan you keep the same hours as I do. part vampyre.

Ryan you keep the same hours as I do. part vampyre.

Not getting much daylight - that must SUCK! :(

I don't step in here much, and I know this is a completely different scenerio, but the Digital Combat Simulations A-10C Warthog sim (standalone combat sim) was released for purchase last year as an Open Beta. They still used internal testers before releasing a patch to the next beta (there were 4, with each one being released a few months after the last)... however, by releasing (selling) the open beta the company had the chance to see how the software worked on a very large variety of computers and systems. They had also opened a Beta Forum where people could post in roughly 20 different topics. That forum was only open to those that purchased the software.I had purchased DCS: A-10C at Beta 1, about 2 weeks after it was released. I'm happy I did so as it helped me learn the aircraft systems and the simulator itself. In the meantime, I was able to report bugs which then ended up in a later patch. There was also work done on a "Nevada Terrain" which included Las Vegas, for Red Flag combat training and Operations. Beta 4 saw the loss of that due to an FPS issue everyone was having, and they wanted to do a lot more work on it. The Terrain will be released when finished, and those that pre-purchased (Beta) the simulation will get the terrain pack for free. Those that waited for the final release will have to buy it.I have to agree with Infantry1id and Veldthui inthat, the 20-50 or even 100 testers that are checking to see if this aircraft works the way it should compared to the real world, doesn't take into account the 250k - 500k (or a lot more) people that will be using the aircraft on a daily basis. I'm not saying I wish PMDG would release a Beta type aircraft to purchase as DCS did, however, I definitely would like to know if I can do all the things the aircraft is supposed to do without having 1 FPS and total stutters where I can't really do anything... before paying whatever the cost is for the aircraft. I'm sure it won't be that bad, but I'm hoping you all see my point.

I took part in that Open-Beta testing, and was happy to report minor issues back to the team, and even though it was still Debug version, which was slower than release one, it was great to see that it already worked nice on my spec. The actual release product was performing much faster.I think that it wouldn't work with PMDG though, as performance doesn't seem to be a major concern here. The actual functionality of the product, requires certain knowledge that only few has, making whole exercise worthless, and probably too expensive. People would start asking questions like, how do I start the engine, or can't start APU, or why I can't see cabin... etc...

I think a public beta is a very bad idea...Besides, didn't another developer try that before? I think they were releasing a complex A320, and they required people to pay to be their beta testers. Have yet to see a final, bug-free product released from them.PMDG has proven what works, and shouldn't deviate... Looking forward to the final release!

If it went on a public beta tour, how many would be beta testing compared to thinking they get a chance to fly the plane early and thus not contribute anything whatsoever to the bug killing effort? Stick to the private beta process. Control is far more important. And I honestly do not believe a public beta would gurantee an earlier release date.

If it went on a public beta tour, how many would be beta testing compared to thinking they get a chance to fly the plane early and thus not contribute anything whatsoever to the bug killing effort? Stick to the private beta process. Control is far more important. And I honestly do not believe a public beta would gurantee an earlier release date.

TBH-That would be me, I would probably contribute somewhat, but honestly, I think I would fly the plane more then put in my fair share.

It is understandable the way PMDG is handling their "wide beta". Obviously this is a result of a lot of years of successful development.I also bought into the Airbus public beta disaster. That was the biggest failure I've seen in simulation development and an obvious result of their lack of experience.I believe, at this point, the biggest reason for this "wide beta" is to be sure the software runs on many computer configurations and with many of the other available addons. It doesn't take a huge beta team to run it through those test, since most of us have acquired similar addons and there isn't that many computer configurations available that a localized group could not cover most of them.

After several successful releases (just look at the number of visitors here), wouldn't you think that the developers have got a good system running? I was also involved in the infamous extended team fiasco that could have been a great A320. Not that that should be the guideline, as public betas are not always such disasters, I still believe strongly that the team has more than enough expertise and has selected its wide beta team carefully. I certainly applaud their decision to keep it in house. Andrew