A Little Fairness, Please

[Guest BeaverDriver]

I want to clear one thing up if I may, about this (and other) Carenado releases. The beta testers have been taking a beating here over this aircraft. I see numerous posts that say that this airplane was never tested by RW pilots as claimed, that they missed bug after bug after bug, and basically that they didn't do their job. That is patently unfair and untrue, as I have met Bernt and yeah, he really does fly 767's and has flown Dash 8's (pretty easy for me to tell the latter - I work on Dash 8 equipment and he knows the systems pretty darn good!). Now, I know that the beta testers did not receive a final copy of this aircraft to test (it was stated here publicly). You can't flag what you don't have. I also know from personal experience that Carenado does not always listen to his testers. So even if you flag it, if the developer doesn't listen, you're S.O.L. It's very unfair for the beta testers to be taking the pounding they are over here for this, or any other release. The same thing happened with the 208, and it was the main (only?) beta tester for the 208 (who, if I recall, flew for Sensa, an all 208 airline at the time) who came to the rescue with one of the people at Avsim who knew how to program, that fixed that airplane. That says two things to me - one is that this guy really cared and I guess couldn't get Fernando to fix what he was flagging (or never got the final release to test, which is very possible), and two that the beta testers really do care and do their utmost best to get things as right as possible. Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones (in spite of the above) that take most of the flak when things aren't right. It seems that a lot of people at here have short memories, because if they would remember back, Carenado has been guilty of incomplete releases with every single machine they've ever produced over the years. There is nothing new here (except the list of bugs is considerably longer than in the recent past, but the past lists have not been insignificant in themselves). Throughout the years they have gone through numerous FDE guys and beta testers, yet on every release similar complaints about "this" not being done, or "that" not being done, and "where were the beta testers in all this?" are heard loud and long. Has nobody clued in to the fact that maybe the one common denominator is Carenado themselves? Surely ALL beta testers can't be that bad, can they? It is not fair at all to blame the blameless, and what's worse is I don't see Carenado stepping in here to defend these guys that work for him. Maybe that is the most reprehensible thing of all.

 

Maybe it's time to take a step back and think about this for a minute. There is one fellow here who has been particularly aggressive towards the beta testers on this airplane, and while I understand his frustration, I think he's aiming his "barbs" in the wrong direction. The thing is, if he removed the attack on the beta testers and the claim that this thing never was tested by RW pilots, I tend to agree with most of what he's saying. We are ALL responsible for giving Carenado a free pass in terms of quality workmanship, and I'm right in there with that group, because we go through this with every release (lately it's been better, until this release, but still beyond what it should be), and yet we are still waiting, cc in hand for the millisecond the latest and greatest is out. Yeah, I hear that the airplane costs less than taking your wife to dinner, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, or with an FSX airplane? I bought an entire series of Learjets that included THREE models that were completely and fully functional right out of the box, AND included 3D gauges before they were common at all, for half the price of the King Air. Let's compare apples with apples, at least. We have "heard" that this airplane broke new ground with pressurization (that doesn't quite work) or the GNS400 (which is really just a 430 without the com section), etc. What new ground?? We had working pressurization in the 340! He have fully functional EHSI's in other aircraft that Carenado has produced. There are basic things in this aircraft that are missing, but were included in previous releases (EHSI is my "example du jour" - I'm an Avionics Tech and we have never seen an HSI without a GS needle and distance info in it - it's what HSI's do, and has been in previous HSI's that Carenado have done). How come? I could go on, but I don't want to belabour a point; I just want to make a point. The thing is, how could Bernt, et al test these things if they never got the final release? You can't flag what you don't have. Everyone has said how great the dynamics are on this machine. Yeah, that's not a surprise at all to me, given who was doing them. Bernt wasn't making gauges, he was making dynamics. He is a beta tester (and designer, and a d*mn good one!), and he is taking a lot of flak for things he had no responsibility for and probably not even access to. As I said above, that's patently unfair.

 

Ultimately Carenado is responsible for the release. He is the "Captain" after all. If his beta testers are letting him down, then fire them and get someone who can do the job. But I'm am absolutely certain (as someone who has done beta testing themselves) that it wasn't the beta testers that missed every bug that was in the release of this airplane. Please, if YOU noticed it, don't you think trained pilots and experienced beta testers did; or would have if they had had the full airplane to test? A little common sense and a little fairness, please.

 

[EDIT - I see we are having a little forum trouble. I hit the "Post" button once, but got a white screen. When I came back in, I see the post has been duplicated somehow. If the moderator would like to remove 1 of the threads, that's fine by me. It shouldn't appear twice. Thank you.]

[CoolP 283]

Glenn, I join on on the fairness tenor of yours.

 

But lets not make the big mistake to focus on a few negative, maybe rude, maybe too harsh worded statements, while positive and constructive work can be experienced too, right in these forums. http://forum.avsim.n...s/#entry2336928

 

The attention to unfair behaviour alone elevates it to levels where it doesn't belong. So a proper method could be to just focus on the guys/items really deserving attention, presenting the others some role-model to think about and, hopefully, get better.

[andy1975 13]

Wow Glenn ... i can just say you hit the nail perfectly! I hope everyone will readout your sense of diplomacy!

[747-fan 19]

I for one have never once imagined the testers to be at fault, and Stolle's FDE is great. Who's accused them of doing bad work? I gathered that Stolle felt under attack, but I haven't been able to find the post(s) he reacted to. Why he took it personal isn't clear to me at all.

 

Carenado as a company (or the man/board on top) has made a lot of bad decisions. One was not giving the entire plane out to the testing team. The other was releasing before it was done. For the life of me I can't understand why they couldn't at least have waited two more days, to avoid the big fuss and the first service pack. The blame must be put on whoever made the beta infrastructure and is in charge of the release go/no-go decisions.

 

From what I've read, the main argument is that the avionics and system modelling aren't good enough to warrant the $40 price tag when you see the extreme level of attention to detail other companies with similarly priced products are able to produce. It's not about apples and oranges, it's what they're up against when they price themselves into that league, at least from the viewpoint of an end consumer.

 

I bought it after the SP got released, and I like it a lot. I wouldn't have touched it unless the SP fixed all those items. I found it too expensive for what it was, not so anymore. Now it's very good.

[Jack_C 1]

Hey guys. I for one will admit I can be harsh when to comes to reviewing. For that I apologize. I just get tired of addons being pumped out KNOWINGLY they shouldn't be released yet. The other thing is the "tested by real pilots". To me this means nothing. If it said tested by pilots RATED on that particular airplane that would be better. I am rated on the 737, Dash 8 and various other planes but my knowledge of say an MD11 is diddly squat and my testing one would be no different than any other person without knowledge of the md11. So this Tested by Real Pilots is a gimmick in my opinion. It should not be used. Its like a product that says MSG free but read the ingredients and it has hydrolized vegetable protein. Its misleading and so is this.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

747-fan - The threads are out there for sure, but CoolP's point is well taken in not elevating some to higher levels than already achieved. It serves no purpose to drag those threads to the forefront again. Bernt did take some of it personally because it was made personal (basically an attack on his integrity). As I say, I would rather not drag the actual threads to the forefront again. You may search for them as you wish. I agree with you re the blame must lie with the person with the go/no-go decision making, and that ultimately is with Carenado. Good point.

 

Jack - I quite agree with you. I will suggest though that a RW pilot, even if not type rated or has time on type, can make certain assumptions based on experience that non RW pilots don't have. I do know in Bernt's case he sent out very detailed questionnaires to those who do have time on the machine (he does this for all the machines he's worked on) which helps him then interpret what needs to be done in FS to give the aircraft the correct "feel" and performance. Your point is well taken however, in that unless you've flown on type, it's pretty much a guess as to whether you have it right or not. That said, no aircraft is dead on because if it were, only RW pilots (and even then, those with time on type, or similar) could actually fly the aircraft. I spent 17 years in the left seat of mostly bush machines, but I'm not sure I could successfully fly a RW King Air from wheel's up to wheel's down (it might be good for a new comedic reality TV show watching me try though <LOL>). So I think in this case, and in the case of the 208, the claim is legitimate, but unfortunately if they only built planes (any developer now) with actual time on type, we'd probably have an extremely limited number of airplane types to fly.

 

Andy - thank you. I just felt somebody needed to come to the defense of the people that were doing the beta work as I've "been there" myself. Bernt is perfectly capable of taking care of himself, but at least maybe an outsider's PoV is of some value. Appreciate the sentiments.

[smokeyupahead 6]

I don't own the C90 but I always did appreciate Mr. Stolle's work!

None of the frustration for the bugs in the C90 seamed directed to Mr. Stolle. I haven't read all of the posts but from the ones I did read none of them were.

 

David DD

[fritzreinhart 0]

Well said, Glenn. I fully agree.

 

Cheers,

Fritz