New FSUIPC (4.944) released.....Could this be it???  Are we minutes away??? 

 

FaxCap

 

FSX:SE version updated yesterday

 

What does NDA mean anyway? Never Dell Anyone.

 

Non Disclosure Agreement.

 

 

The word "trust" or "all" was not used here Gerry.

 

but I used the words "trust" and "all" - or I am allowed to use them.

At this pace this thread will surpass the one about CRJ over at Aerosoft in no time

Since none of us have (to my knowledge) signed any NDAs (Non Discussion Agreements) on this forum, I think we are all safe to continue.

Developers are not the 'prime' beta test audience. Each has their own agenda and as such this will result in a rather narrow scope of testing. It is better to have a wider range of typical users in a beta program with a spattering of developers.

 

Developers really do tend to be the worst beta testers. LOL Remember, the purpose is to test L-M's code... not their own. :smile:

Developers are not the 'prime' beta test audience. Each has their own agenda and as such this will result in a rather narrow scope of testing. It is better to have a wider range of typical users in a beta program with a spattering of developers.

 

Developers really do tend to be the worst beta testers. LOL Remember, the purpose is to test L-M's code... not their own. :smile:

 

But isnt it also to ensure readiness of their product so that when the said platform is released, it has an initial offering of compatible addons to go with it? I know thats why DTG releases a beta to alot of its partners before hand. I guess its really up to LM to determine which addons they consider to be "mission critical" to their platform. 

Many of us have been through the beta process with MS FSX and MS Flight and we can say it had little benefit to a third party developer...perhaps to MS, but little to us. B)

But isnt it also to ensure readiness of their product so that when the said platform is released, it has an initial offering of compatible addons to go with it?

 

Only one small part ... you're ignoring the wealth of existing products that could be impacted by any development changes.  DTG hasn't changed much that would impact compatibility in FSX-SE ... which is understandable, they're coming up with a new platform so it would make sense they don't change much of the FSX code base.

 

And what about those 3rd party products (some very popular ones) that go outside of the SDK and use proprietary methods to achieve their goals but are closely bound to a fixed state EXE and/or DLL ... so when that EXE/DLL changes after a compile they have to change also?  Any new Beta build means they have to make adjustments to their product or it doesn't work.  Some 3rd party will not get involved until final release and then make the changes necessary ... they can't do this any other way since their proprietary method requires this approach.

 

Also, there isn't just "one beta release" ... there could be many, all of which will need to go thru the same regression testing by Beta members.  And remember many of the same DGT partners are also LM partners

 

But contrary to popular myth, LM have changed considerable code in P3D (you don't just turn on a switch and the code instantly goes from DX9 to DX11 unchanged) and added many features which DTG has not done to FSX code base.  And this is not a negative statement towards DTG, I think how they are approaching their development goals is positive and targeted and I hope it pays off for them.

 

LM don't decide on "mission critical" beta groups ... not sure where you got that from?  Source??  

 

I think you are grossly over estimating the revenue sources for 3rd party ... even something that may seem as simple as changing an installer to accommodate new versions is a time consuming task that has to be tested, so when 3rd party aren't making any revenue from that work ... well ... would you work for nothing?

 

I agree 100% with ED, Commercial member testing focus will be very different than end user testing focus ... it's good to have a balance.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Non Disclosure Agreement.

I knew that  :blush:

 

 

 

but I used the words "trust" and "all" - or I am allowed to use them.

I once was married and have lost my will to argue  :smile: 

 

Come on Gerry go wild and give us a release date,  You would make a very fine Mayor 

I knew that  :blush:

 

 

 

I once was married and have lost my will to argue  :smile:

 

Come on Gerry go wild and give us a release date,  You would make a very fine Mayor 

 

I assume your post falls into the categegory of General Nonsense which is not worth replying to.

 

LM don't decide on "mission critical" beta groups ... not sure where you got that from?  Source??  

 

 

I said "I guess its really up to LM to determine which addons they consider to be mission critical". Its hardly a statement of fact and was based on what I understood platform devs providing access to a beta was all about.

 

I always thought there was a mix of devs who have addons that operate within the software, i.e. Pete Dawson, ORBX, etc, and the end user beta testers such as yourself. This was based on the previous posts from others stating that not all devs are given access, so my assumption was that LM would only give access to those who they saw as the most critical contributors to their ecosystem. 

 

DTG does not make as many "addon breaking" changes as you stated so a lot of their early beta access to devs is specifically to allow them to ensure compatibility with their products, but based on your explanation, that may not be the same objective of LM in their beta environment. That is of course completely their right and I am sure determined by some very smart folks there on their team. 

Addon devs are better served improving their own products while waiting for the final version, at which point they can assess compatibility, and work on that without worry of it becoming a moving target.

 

 

DTG does not make as many "addon breaking" changes as you stated so a lot of their early beta access to devs is specifically to allow them to ensure compatibility with their products, but based on your explanation, that may not be the same objective of LM in their beta environment.

 

Significant evolution of a platform will introduce some breaking changes ... can't have 'Change' without actually "Changing" something.  3rd party will obviously have a different view on those changes as the severity of impact to their required adjustments ... but so far I don't believe any changes have caused any existing FSX 3rd party dev to need to completely redo all their work from scratch.  Some of the larger 3rd party Dev teams were able to get their products working very quickly in P3D and others didn't even need to change their FSX installs (if they allow path selection), just point and shoot install.

 

But to clarify what I said earlier as I'm not sure you understood ... be it DTG FSX-SE or LM P3D, there are some very popular 3rd party products that go beyond the SDK that will need to update their products on "final release" build regardless of Beta builds and regardless if LM or DTG.

 

As far as what's critical to LM's ecosystem ... I have no idea, not really something I think about ... but LM provide an SDK for ALL their customers to use/leverage ... the SDK is not restricted to the current active P3D 3rd party developers.  New developers come on board all the time, some get absorbed into large development groups, some stay independent, some move on, some diversify into multiple platforms.

 

As far as who gets Beta access, I think it's more of "who's interested and what's their qualifications" rather than any special selection process.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Im just waiting for Rob to inadvertently slip up like Pete did. :wink:

 

Unless Pete did so on purpose and is having quite the laugh with all the speculation and nonsense hes caused. lol  Has he even commented on it? I may have missed it.