Stop spamming my topic and find another hobby.

 

These are public forums so it's not your topic. Also disagreeing with your point of view is nor spamming.

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.

 

Fair enough, Hook! lol You do make a good and valid point, which I can also agree with. I'm in an agreeing mood this morning! hahahaha Surprising, after the HELL OF A NIGHT we just had. Domestic after domestic. People just can't act or get along after a few beers. Especially siblings. lol

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

 

You do know that the difference between 29.92 and 29.91 is around 10 feet right.  I can promise you that atc won't care about 10 feet.

 

The simple fact that we can debate 1/100th mb for a standard altimeter setting speaks volumes to how far this hobby has come.

 

We have gone from this in the Sublogic days 

 

 

 

To this in 1995

 

To this in 2013

 

Quite frankly, I'm excited to see what the future of Flightsim has to offer.  Too excited to let something this trivial bother me  -_-

 

 

whereas the real figure is 1013.25

 

Being precise, t's 1013.2 hPa according to ICAO,

Being precise, t's 1013.2 hPa according to ICAO,

 

Nope...

 

At mean sea level (msl), the pressure = 1013.25 hPa and temperature = 15.0 degC

 

^_^ 

 

Nope...

 

At mean sea level (msl), the pressure = 1013.25 hPa and temperature = 15.0 degC

 

^_^

 

Not for the purpose of determining Flight Levels according to Annex 3 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation:

 

Flight level. A surface of constant atmospheric pressure which is related to a specific pressure datum, 1 013.2 hectopascals (hPa), and is separated from other such surfaces by specific pressure intervals.

.

 

Note 1.— A pressure type altimeter calibrated in accordance with the Standard Atmosphere

a) when set to a QNH altimeter setting, will indicate altitude;

b)  when set to a QFE altimeter setting, will indicate height above the QFE reference datum;

c) when set to a pressure of 1 013.2 hPa, may be used to indicate flight levels.

 

Note 2.— The terms “height” and “altitude”, used in Note 1, indicate altimetric rather than geometric heights and

altitudes

Thank God we aren't discussing Pi... Never seen so much push and shove over .05...

Thank God we aren't discussing Pi... Never seen so much push and shove over .05...

 

Oh don't you DARE talk about Pi....

Lol use hPa...STD setting will be 1013..makes life simpler

Oh don't you DARE talk about Pi....

 

LOL  :lol:

"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.

 

I never once said it should be fixed, nor claimed it was high priority. I was merely pointing out a bug, and a few angry old men yelled at me to get off their lawn because they have nothing better to do.

 

These are public forums so it's not your topic. Also disagreeing with your point of view is nor spamming.

 

I am the topic creator, it is my topic. If you don't like the fact that 29.91 is not the default altimeter then go start your own topic complaining about it.

Pict, on 28 May 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

 

Lol use hPa...STD setting will be 1013..makes life simpler

True but even second generation jets indicated 1013.2 !!

Having said that no one, not even ATC is going to get worked up if they discover you are 7 feet above or below your required flight level.

 

B747-400F, on 28 May 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

 

 

I am the topic creator, it is my topic. If you don't like the fact that 29.91 is not the default altimeter then go start your own topic complaining about it.

I gather from this thread that it's you who are complaining!!

Other posts here are suggesting are they not that it's hardly worth the effort.

The only time you need to worry about an error of 7 feet is perhaps during autoland when you would be using the radio altimeter anyway!

I never once said it should be fixed, nor claimed it was high priority. I was merely pointing out a bug, and a few angry old men yelled at me to get off their lawn because they have nothing better to do.

Oh dear. You're not very good with forums are you?

 

The quote from me, that you subsequently responded to, was directed at L Hookins [Hook]... NOT YOU!

 

And I think you will find that it was you calling people spammers, and telling people to go away and get a different hobby that set this thread off in the wrong direction.

 

You may have been "only pointing out a bug", but I was merely giving you my opinion, and politely too. Same for everyone else that responded in this "open public forum".

 

If you wished to "only report a bug" without others offering their opinion... go to the Majestic Software web site and do it there, rather than in an open, "unofficial" forum, that was set up for all opinions to be shared.

 

Your attitude has been very overassertive in this thread. I truly hope you will continue to respond, but in a friendlier manner. No one here is criticising you, merely offering an alternative opinion. That's what forums are all about. People disagree with me all the time, I don't care. I welcome alterative view points... you should do the same.

 

Pict, on 28 May 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

 

 

Lol use hPa...STD setting will be 1013..makes life simpler

True but even second generation jets indicated 1013.2 !!

 

 

Yup I know...the mu-2 I fly's analogue altimeters only have the kholsmanns in hPa, and sets only in the whole digits (ATC here only says QNH in whole hPa, no decimals)...but back on topic it's not really a big deal plus it may also be a real quirk of the Q400 as I saw a similar thing on a real Global Express and CL300 here recently.

Oh dear. You're not very good with forums are you?

 

I agree. B747-400F doesn't seem to understand that forums are for polite discussions where anyone can express an opinion without being gratuitously offensive..