It may also be that the LMP3D is waiting for NVidia to do it's thing before digging into some of the other redering issues.  *shrug*

 

When NVidia wakes up to the potential here there will be a flash fire.

 

Hopefully not, else they'll have to wait for a long time. The PAPI lights have been broken with their past two driver releases.

Hopefully not, else they'll have to wait for a long time. The PAPI lights have been broken with their past two driver releases.

In that is hidden a good point.  Even NVidia with their hardware and software development prowess can't keep from breaking things as they move along.  This should be a clear sign to everyone about the difficulty of software development.

Here are the rotor wash and wake and bridge pylon "fixes" ... 

 

 

The bridge pylon issue is still present but a little better than it was in v2.4.  Wake and Rotor wash over water that has wave animations looks a little odd but my hunch this is a compromise we'll have to live with.

 

We need to keep this discussion civil ... attacking others is not acceptable.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

So your logic goes something like this ... because XYZ wasn't fixed it was therefore not reported by the Beta testers ... that's almost funny if it weren't attacking the Beta testers.

 

Unless your logic goes differently, like this: Our dedicated beta tester team reports all possible problems, but unfortunately and usually it happens weeks or months late, compared to the first reports on various forums... why? Because once again we are the ones 'unable to reproduce' those situations with the evident bugs, which almost everyone notices, except us...

There are many highly qualified programmers, FS addon makers and other related folks among these simple users, who also pragmatically provide the exact way HOW to reproduce those problems, but the dedicated team members first ALWAYS start from the position: the bug doesn't exist, because WE have not encountered it yet. That's how it takes five times longer than it should have been...

Nobody was attacking the beta testers. It's just that serious bugs cannot be dealt this manner, even if LM has their own internal bug reporting system - I guess.
A beta tester rarely flies, rarely makes fancy videos, he rather searches for specific situations to TEST specific features.

When we were testing the MS-FS series, starting from FS4, we were often joking, saying that often we have fours times more accumulated SLEW time, than we did actual flying... You simply need to know HOW to test stuff, how to find out in a single minute if clouds are rotating or not, if oversized clouds cause 50% performance loss and the like.

Do not take it personally Rob, there's nothing against you in my sentences.
Most probably it is the entire beta-system which needs a fairly strong refurbishment at LM.
 

Thanks for the video again.  I can't name them, but it seems more has changed than what was listed.  Even more realistic, closer to real, going up the other side of the uncanny valley.

 

 

Do not take it personally Rob, there's nothing against you in my sentences.

 

The comments were directed at Beta Testers ... I am a Beta Tester ... how else could that be taken other than personally?  It's standard passive/aggressive type of statement and yes it is an attack on Beta testers, not the first one either ... has been repeated by JimmiG several times in various threads.

 

The invalid Logic was making the assumption that bugs were NOT reported long ago before anyone got a released product/version with the bug still in it.  Making an assumption that because a Beta person reports a possible issue it will get fixed ... again invalid logic.  Beta testers are NOT responsible in setting LM's priorities, we have absolutely NO say in it.

 

 

 

A beta tester rarely flies, rarely makes fancy videos, he rather searches for specific situations to TEST specific features.

 

So I'm making fancy videos now ... you do realize the video's I've produce regarding the PAPI lights issue with nVidia were picked up by nVidia and the communications with LM?  But as far as efficiency to convey a "visual" issue, "fancy videos" are far more efficient at providing specific evidence ... text communications of visual problems lead to mis-understandings, far easier to present it visually as it avoids any possibility of getting "lost in translation".

 

As far as my testing process, you have no clue what I do ... I rarely slew unless it's very close proximity, I use the Map to locate places, it's faster and far more efficient.  I also don't slew when I'm testing out VAS as slewing can skew the testing results.  But again, what's that got to do with my "fancy videos"?

 

But my point here is you're now commenting my efficiency of testing without even knowing how I test and making an assumption the videos I provide are my only tests?

 

LM needs beta-testing to be refurbished?  And this is from what information you have on LM?

 

Anyway, like I said, attacking beta tester and saying your not when you really are IS NOT productive.  You have a beef with me then PM me, because this isn't helping anyone or anything.

 

Cheers, Rob.

So I'm making fancy videos now ... you do realize the video's I've produce regarding the PAPI lights issue with nVidia were picked up by nVidia and the communications with LM?  But as far as efficiency to convey a "visual" issue, "fancy videos" are far more efficient at providing specific evidence ... text communications of visual problems lead to mis-understandings, far easier to present it visually as it avoids any possibility of getting "lost in translation".

 Aaaah meeehn.  

 

You're still making fancy videos

Personally, I'm still completely yanked at the lack of adequate cupholders for the rear seat position on the Baron 58.....................

Here are the rotor wash and wake and bridge pylon "fixes" ... 

 

 

The bridge pylon issue is still present but a little better than it was in v2.4.  Wake and Rotor wash over water that has wave animations looks a little odd but my hunch this is a compromise we'll have to live with.

 

We need to keep this discussion civil ... attacking others is not acceptable.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Thanks for the video Rob.  Definitely looks better than the floating effects in previous versions.

I seem to remember that there was a post by the Prepar3D team on the forum setting how to record bugs  with helpful details  how they occured etc. That was a long time ago and i think almost no one (possibly no one) bothered to respond.

 

 

Don't close the thread because of a few twits,  a lot of folks read this everyday,  just kick the twits,  let the thread go on. 

 

Good job Rob 

There are some fx files that were done by Vince McCoy that improve the quality of seaplane water landing effects in P3d, in case anyone is interested in them:

 

 http://www.fs2000.org/2014/12/04/p3d-mccoy-water-landing-effect/

 

I thought that this file was also in the AVSim file library, but I couldn't find it.

Don't close the thread because of a few twits,  a lot of folks read this everyday,  just kick the twits,  let the thread go on. 

 

Good job Rob 

I been coming here for over 7 years daily and sometimes several times a day. It seems that the same few folks think that their desires or complaints are way more important than our desire to enjoy the products. Every time a regular member tries to wave the BS flag and call these guys out for what they are... then comes the threats to shut us down. Rob A has done more for Prepar3D and the community than nearly any other person on this board now or in the past. Good for him because he gives a good as he gets.

I love the video that Rob produces in his free time after his "job" as beta tester ;-)

As far as my testing process, you have no clue what I do ... I rarely slew unless it's very close proximity, I use the Map to locate places, it's faster and far more efficient. I also don't slew when I'm testing out VAS as slewing can skew the testing results. But again, what's that got to do with my "fancy videos"?

 

No Rob, I don't have a clue about what you do. Interested if you tell us, but I'm mostly interested in the result of it. But that wasn't only my humble point.

Please do NOT take it personally. I have already expressed my thanks to your great work and dedicated and immensely helpful attitude, in two earlier messages.

 

I guess you are not the only beta tester, so you shouldn't take it personally. I can perhaps sort of judge your beta-work, because you are a moderator and a very frequent tester in these forums, and I DO like what you do.

 

Nothing is against you. But if the the end result is as it has been, the test-phases are not really productive, at least not as much as those could be.

 

I've been a veteran FS beta guy for all versions since FS4, participated in countless other beta alpha and phases for many addons, that's why I dare to express that something wrong or not effective enough with LM's method of testing.

 

Easy to prove this as obvious and outstanding bugs had been continuously denied by the testers, and not only by yourself.

If for any reason a bug is not fixed, that's not a major problem for me. But when a bug is not fixed because it is denied, that's a serious communication problem in my elderly eyes.

 

 

But my point here is you're now commenting my efficiency of testing without even knowing how I test and making an assumption the videos I provide are my only tests?

 

I may, might or perhaps should comment on the testing phase qualities and skills only by the end result of the phase.

 

By listening to the comments, answers of the testers in different forums. I may judge the effectivity of testing by the result or by the fact that even a released version LATER testers and sometimes developers alike, simply DENY the existence of a bug.

 

These types of bugs should be noticed, tested and reported by the testers BEFORE a release and not arguing its existence AFTER the release. If that happens, it simply means the testing is not effective enough or the testers are not effective enough.

 

Of course it is an entirely different matter if a bug is know by the developers, but for one or another reason they postpone the fix for a later version or ever. That happens and tester have no influence on that, obviously.

 

 

Anyway, like I said, attacking beta tester and saying your not when you really are IS NOT productive.

 

Please try to differentiate between constructive criticism and a personal attack!

 

If you, as a tester, feel that any criticism is, at the same time, an ATTACK on you, you are seriously mistaken. You are a bridge here for many between them and LM, hence, as all important figures in the limelight, you time to time have to and should bear some sort of constructive criticism too, specially if you hear those comments in PLURAL.

 

I repeat: in my words there's nothing personal towards you, neither as a tester nor personally, nothing is negative about your great and dedicated work!

But the result shows after one major and then four intermediate version for the 2.x series, that something is a bit wrong about the testing phases at LM. That's all I tried to express here.