Default altimeter 29.91?

[Boeing or not going 578]

Default altimeter should be 29.92, but it's 2991, when you press std it goes to 29.91, same with the standby instrument.

[martin-w 3,234]

It doesn't matter, it's not enough to bother about.

 

The dev's have the priority issues to fix.

[Boeing or not going 578]

It doesn't matter, it's not enough to bother about.

 

The dev's have the priority issues to fix.

 

Who are you?

[martin-w 3,234]

A flight sim fan who can see the irrelevance of such a miniscule discrepancy.

 

Don't mean to offend, but you are being ultra pedantic. Such a miniscule discrepancy wouldn't even be an issue in the real aircraft.

 

I have a few add-ons that read 2991.

[Boeing or not going 578]

No, you are being ultra pedantic. I am pointing out a bug, whether they fix it or not, that is up to them. Stop spamming my topic and find another hobby.

[pete_auau 1,152]

wow if  that .01  going to make  a difference, sure  they got better  things  to fix first other than this minor problem

[hopskip 253]

Mine sais 1013

[Boeing or not going 578]

wow if  that .01  going to make  a difference, sure  they got better  things  to fix first other than this minor problem

 

Another spam post. 29.92 is the default altimeter. Whether you like it or not, this is a bug. Feel free also to find another hobby other than spamming topics you don't like.

[Wothan 173]

Problem is that in FSX standard baro is defined at 1013.00 mBar, whereas the real figure is 1013.25, thus the difference from 29.91 to 29.92.

[vololiberista 205]

Another spam post. 29.92 is the default altimeter. Whether you like it or not, this is a bug. Feel free also to find another hobby other than spamming topics you don't like.

Wow you're really "hot under the collar" over an "error" of just 7 feet!!!!

And in any case you are supposed to check and adjust the altimeter as part of your preflight, after take-off and landing checks. Obviously you can't even be bothered to do those checks either!!

[martin-w 3,234]

No, you are being ultra pedantic. I am pointing out a bug, whether they fix it or not, that is up to them. Stop spamming my topic and find another hobby.

Well, you are an unreasonable person aren't you?

 

If you didn't want other flight simmers to respond, then why did you post on Avsim, on the "unofficial" forum. You should have gone to the Majestic Software web site and reported your perceived "bug" there, in the proper place. If you didn't want a response from us, then you are in the wrong place. This forum is for "friends" to discuss there mutual interest "and help each other".

 

As for telling me I'm pedantic, the definition of the word clearly alludes you.

 

In my first post, I posted a wink, in my second I made it clear I meant no offense by disagreeing with you, others have been reasonable with you too... and you threw it back in our faces.

[LHookins 3,102]

The fix is a one word change. Instead of rounding down with INT, they need to round to the nearest integer with NEAR. This can usually be done by hacking the model file but is not trivial. I had to do this on a Carenado aircraft.

 

This is the offending code:

Altimeter Calibration Knob (%((A:KOHLSMAN SETTING HG, inHg) 100 * int 100 / )%!6.2f! in Hg)

Change int to near, needs to keep the same spacing so you'll lose a space somewhere.

 

The problem is that it shows a certain carelessness on the part of the developer. It really should be fixed.

 

Hook

[martin-w 3,234]

The problem is that it shows a certain carelessness on the part of the developer. It really should be fixed

"Carelessness" isn't a word I would label Majestic with to be honest. This is a developer that has created a first rate simulation of the Q400. In many ways, ground breaking.

 

Software is complex, as I'm sure you know, requiring many man hours of coding, and is in no way a trivial pursuit. Minor errors creep in, this is inevitable, but there is no way I would call the developer "careless" that I would say is unfair.

 

All human beings are fallible, especially when spending, literally years pouring over line after line of code.

 

As for "it should be fixed" I don't think there are many that would regard this is a high priority item. Most wouldn't care less if it were fixed or not. Not when there are serious bugs to address. Honestly, this is such a minor discrepancy, that it doesn't impact our enjoyment of the sim at all.

 

No offence meant to you in any of the above. We are all entitled to our opinions, and yours is respected.

[BimmerCop 332]

"Carelessness" isn't a word I would label Majestic with to be honest. This is a developer that has created a first rate simulation of the Q400. In many ways, ground breaking.

 

 

Software is complex, as I'm sure you know, requiring many man hours of coding, and is in no way a trivial pursuit. Minor errors creep in, this is inevitable, but there is no way I would call the developer "careless" that I would say is unfair.

 

 

All human beings are fallible, especially when spending, literally years pouring over line after line of code.

 

 

As for "it should be fixed" I don't think there are many that would regard this is a high priority item. Most wouldn't care less if it were fixed or not. Not when there are serious bugs to address. Honestly, this is such a minor discrepancy, that it doesn't impact our enjoyment of the sim at all.

 

 

No offence meant to you in any of the above. We are all entitled to our opinions, and yours is respected.

Great post... +1

 

I really don't think Hook meant to call them careless. Maybe it's just an oversight, which being so minor, could easily happen to any developer.

 

As for the OP, watch that blood pressure, bud... You don't want to pop a vein! ;-)

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[LHookins 3,102]

Efrain, I thought you knew my background! Over three decades as a professional programmer, now retired. I started in the Pentagon. I worked a contract in the Library of Congress. Lots of companies large and small, from embedded processors to mainframes. My last job was for a game company, where I handled their billing system.

 

Careless I said, and careless I meant. I'm not faulting the programmer; I made the same mistake myself about a year ago, but I found it and corrected it and won't make it again. But it should have been caught somewhere in testing, either by the original coder or by the software test group. Then there should have been a management sign-off on getting it fixed, especially since it was such a trivial change. From personal experience, that's often the reason such errors creep through to the end user: management decree. "We're shipping it Wednesday. Have it ready." (That's a direct quote.)

 

The problem is, the bug is visible. Not unlike having a gap around your altimeter where from certain angles you can see the ground through the instrument panel. You may not notice it at first, but once you've seen it, you can't un-see it, and it's obvious all the time. I didn't find the problem in the Carenado aircraft by going above 18000 feet, I found it by pressing B and having the altimeter text read different from what it should have been. It seems trivial at first, but you'll see it over and over and over... and it gets to be a major annoyance over time.

 

I maintained a payroll system for a awhile, where trivial errors were not an option. It's not any more difficult that writing game code. The difference is in the attitude.

 

Hook

 

PS. It's a little like the stupid formatting problems we're having right now. I saw the problem and edited my post to fix it. I thought it was worth it, and had enough respect for my readers not to leave it messed up.

 

H.

Edited May 27, 2013 by LHookins