Sine this was posted in a Topic that should have been closed, and where all posts will soon be deleted, it seemed worthwhile putting it into it's own thread. It is one of the most well written, and well reasoned posts I have seen here in a long while.

Scott434, on 24 September 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

rsrandazzo, on 24 September 2011 - 12:55 AM, said: Captains- ... One suggestion that we have seen you guys make over and over is for PMDG to jump on the software industry trend of offering you all live fixes "as we make them" so that those who want the latest and greatest can always have it. (I know with some of the software I use in my day-to-day life, I enjoy getting the interim fixes without having to wait for the service packs- so this request has caught our eye. Once again we can blame....erm....credit.... Ryan for bringing this concept to the teams attention and then pushing back on my initial resistance in order to get you guys something you'll like...)

This "trend" has been the the norm for a very long time for complex multi-feature s/w products. I recall moving to this model late 90's. We "rolled out" features on a regular "milestone" scheduled basis. At each planned milestone, the product was evaluated and released based on the maturity (feature and regression testing state) of the build. Those features that were not "hardened" were not integrated in the scheduled release and had to wait until the next scheduled "rev" milestone. Without using this model, customer's would have to wait years before for a final product hit the market. While it seems that pmdg are somewhat sheltered by being having a lock on premium fsx addons and might enjoy the luxury of not having to cover a full payroll based on the revenue generated by these products (purely speculative), there are great advantages to using the phased incremental rollout model. Other than the obvious (not waiting for 3 years per product), one of these advantages is the exposure of less code to more users in a gradual way. This effectively widens the "beta" spectrum and allows early discovery of larger problems. It potentially shortens the response time to serious bugs since the lines of code delta is smaller and partitioned into distinct functional areas. This also, by definition reduces the total number of bugs per release cycle thereby increasing the customer's perception of quality. I am very sure that the "area under the curve" since the Aug 4 release date would have been much smaller had this approach been adopted. IMHO (and in the grand scheme of things totally irrelevant), the ngx would have benefited greatly using this approach. A practical example of this might have been rolling out the ngx much much earlier with less features along with a scheduled list of added features to be rolled out in time (no dates, just the planned sequence of features). I am quite sure that the majority of customers would have rather had the ngx earlier with less. Example might be the HGS, the crazy (in a positive sense) number of aircraft options, cabin pressure/temperature, brake pads choices, certain obscure fmc extras etc. The point is that the ngx would ultimately evolve into its final wonderful state but in an evolutionary sense with much less "gnashing of teeth"/"churn". In my view, Ryan is completely correct. The NGX should have many many many smaller less impact REGULAR updates and the above mentioned feature roll out. Ideally, a "check for updates" feature would be available from within FSX (from the addons->pmdg menu). If not technically possible due to fsx limitations then as part of a stand alone program such as the livery/textures program. No muss no fuss just regular slow but steady progress. ( A side benefit would be the reduction of the forum "noise" on the topic of release and hopefully more focus on the actual flying of the NGX). The above "arm-chair-quarterbacking" was simply a single voice from the sea of customers and was written in the most positive and constructive spirit. I have had the NGX installed and have been flying since the release date Aug 4 without a single major problem. This is a more than a great aircraft and I am very grateful for the dedication and technical abilities of the PMDG team. It has no doubt brought a ton of enjoyment to many and will keep doing so for many many years. As my sig says, Thanks PMDG!

+100

I concur

Interesting idea, although I think you need a quick and easy way to delivery the updates rather than a large install and certainly without having to re install your liveries after each update. The idea of a lesser NGX that grows in scope is something that is a trend we should not encourage. I believe a certain Airbus tried that and got thoroughly lambasted for it. Mark.

I actually disagree with that in the case of this type of product. The whole reason I like PMDG is that they offer the most complete, accurate and functional plane on the market. It's why I buy basically anything they release, because I know ahead of time it will be the best, ( I had never even heard of a JS-4100, lol). That model does work for many different things (I'm thinkng iTunes of course), but to me, PMDG isn't one of them.

Terrible idea. How many people complain about Microsoft Windows? That's essentially what they do with their system. Rush it to the market, and then patch it until they develop a new one. Sure, you may think you like it now, but if they did that, you'd be complaining just the same.

Well, start your own software development group then you won't have to do any more, and I quote, "arm-chair-quarterbacking" as you seem very knowledgeable. Make your knowledge pay.

Whoa big SuperG I don't think he was tryin' to attack PMDG man.I agree with what you guys say, having flown the NGX for a bit now, any less would seem unacceptable....but in terms of updates he has a good point. More continuous updates would be a bonus...

I am sadly forced to the decision that the NGX was my last aircraft purchase for FSX. As with all other PMDG softwarethey do try to recreate the most realistic planes on the market, but unfortunately it has to sit on a flawed and dated FSX,and this is where it all comes apart. If you're prepared to spend long hours learning all the systems, the procedures theplanning to get it all right then the end of your flight has to be 100% successful. With FSX you keep you fingers crossed.I've spent more time reading the forum for solutions than actually flying. As I say it's not PMDG's fault, actually they areto blame for my persistence in staying with the hobby. Like me I hope PMDG are looking at MS Flight.

I am sadly forced to the decision that the NGX was my last aircraft purchase for FSX. As with all other PMDG softwarethey do try to recreate the most realistic planes on the market, but unfortunately it has to sit on a flawed and dated FSX,and this is where it all comes apart. If you're prepared to spend long hours learning all the systems, the procedures theplanning to get it all right then the end of your flight has to be 100% successful. With FSX you keep you fingers crossed.I've spent more time reading the forum for solutions than actually flying. As I say it's not PMDG's fault, actually they areto blame for my persistence in staying with the hobby. Like me I hope PMDG are looking at MS Flight.

Can't quite agree 100% with that Jose. I think that after only 2 months since release of this aircraft, we are very likely looking at a pretty well bug free flyable product with absolutely the closest to reality simulation you can find on the market for a PC. In addition, this upcoming SP will make this available to a much broader selection of computer specs. I would much rather take advantage of this "while" waiting for this new MS Flight that who knows could be full of suprises itself.

I agree and disagree with this....where I disagree is that I think the product needed to come at this level with all the cleverness it has now, an earlier basic release would have gone against the whole principal of what pmdg aircraft are. We would have ended up buying a basic sim, no different than the competition with just the promise it would have become something good eventually. What I think is unique about this particular release is that it was a learning curve for pmdg, they have learnt what they can do with the sim, and I think it will mean a quicker production of future products, which will contain this level now as the basic, allowing then for your proposed model of developing it further. Where I do agree, is that now I feel smaller more frequent updates are the way to go, I think having to wait months/years for fixes or upgrades is pointless. And as I say, if the 777 is to appear with this present level of funtionality which should be quicker now to get to, then they should release it earlier, adding to it with frequent updates as they learn, or create new features, and thus apply the evolving procedure.There were some basic bugs, that were discovered within days of release, things like the da defaulting to high levels, the terrain radar bug etc, not on the scale or complexity of the activation or freezes bugs, but none the same they do take away some of the enjoyment of the sim, fortunately pmdg choose to address these in a hotfix. But if we had to wait the months till a sp it would have accelerated the forum moaning further, it was shown how the forum got flooded with posts about these issues, because they were left unfixed and not addressed by pmdg that they were to be fixed etc. So this is where I totally agree with you more frequent patches are needed.However this said, it be good if pmdg can find a better way of the patches being applied so people don't loose their service time, liveries etc each patch that's applied. A feature to automatically copy this data out and re input would be useful.

Interesting idea, although I think you need a quick and easy way to delivery the updates rather than a large install and certainly without having to re install your liveries after each update. The idea of a lesser NGX that grows in scope is something that is a trend we should not encourage. I believe a certain Airbus tried that and got thoroughly lambasted for it. Mark.

Systems wise, yes. But allowing for texture size changes can only be a good thingas long as the modifications are fairly painless.Reducing the texture size will go a long way towards letting ones with 32 bit OS,etc to run without crashing.I have no problems with it as long as you have the option of the full blownhigh res sim as designed.I'm using 1024 exterior textures on my most flown livery, and the difference onmy box is so small as to be almost unnoticeable. But.. I'm not running superhigh res. You may see more of a difference at the highest resolutions.I've done some testing just to see how much scenery I can get away withand not crash. From my calculations, it would not take a whole lot lessmemory load for me to quit crashing in dense scenery. BTW, I'm notusing the 3GB mod.. I'm still at 2 GB.. I've been considering changing itto 3 GB though.. That might get me over the hump in dense scenery.Anyway, I don't really consider having adjustable texture sizes as"lessening" the sim. The difference you see is quite small, and itcould sure lessen the memory load a bit, vs the full 4096 textures.Also, I've had very little problems with the plane so far.I've got 93 hours on the 800WL, and about 3 on the 900WL..As long as I throttle the scenery back, I have no problems.I could probably cure that if I added the 3GB switch, butactually I'd rather just go to 64 bit, which I'll probably do pretty soon.I'm drooling for the 700 more than anything, being as I usuallyrun Southwest. :) But they will start getting a few 800's next year,so it won't be too long before the 800 is a realistic option.

. BTW, I'm notusing the 3GB mod.. I'm still at 2 GB.. I've been considering changing itto 3 GB though.. That might get me over the hump in dense scenery..

Sweet spot is 2.5 Gigs -- It's a compromise between Application address space & Kernel address space.Specify the maximum 3 Gigs, and you will have other Memory issues.

Yep, that was about the plan. I'm using a 768MB or whatever it is video,and was going to try the 2560?? or whatever it is change, if I indeed try it.Not the full 3 GB. Doesn't leave much for the OS.. :(