A few more from Queen... PMDG 747 V3 BETA

[olspsd08 8]

Holy Tomale!!! Pheeeww Piccaso take a seat please.

[ArjenVdv 190]

Looks amazing, but PMDG, please clear them to give us some videos already! I am actually way more eager to hear the sound of the GE engines spooling up.

[Steven Silva 27]

te envidioo hombre... :smile:  :smile:  Excellent Images 

[overspeed3 410]

Sure looks amazing x squared!  But are there going to be any other liveries? :smile:

[greggerm 312]

Yellow tail-tip... the FSX flavor.

 

Imagine Prepar3D!

[walfob 10]

Looks good but it would be even better in a real world livery! Does anybody ever fly PMDG livery aircraft?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Does anybody ever fly PMDG livery aircraft?

 

The beta team doesn't have them yet.

[Cann0nF0dd3r 21]

 

wait......

 

 

 

 

 

LOL Maybe tax time, we'll see!

[Angelo Cosma 61]

Have I missed any of the P3D beta shots? I think so far all of the ones I seen have been FSX.

[Boomer 1,619]

Yellow tail-tip... the FSX flavor.

 

Imagine Prepar3D!

 

Well Im guessing the P3D version is not ready for beta then...

[sascha 314]

#5 really shows off the beautiful lines of the 747 and the quality of this model!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Have I missed any of the P3D beta shots? I think so far all of the ones I seen have been FSX.

 

Only the FSX version is in beta right now.

 

 

 

I know a lot of people seem to be confused by this, but thinking it over for a few minutes would make sense of it all. While FSX and P3D are similar, they are not the same. What causes issues in FSX may not necessarily cause issues in P3D. The inverse is also true. Having the beta team test both simultaneously could cause issues where a bug is reported on the wrong platform, one platform is not tested as well as the other, and odd creep in the code.

 

As an example, I'm building a hammer. In one environment it'll be a standard hammer, while in the other it'll be that hammer with some minor changes. By the time I'm ready for product testing, the hammer has a wooden handle that is still being refined, with the standard metal head.

 

Serial Processing:

All testers report the wooden handle (for environment 1) as uncomfortable and awkward.

The wooden handle goes through a few iterations to get it right, to the point where most of all testers think it's good to go.

The next environment requires that the handle be made of composite.

A composite handle is designed to the same shape of env 1, and passed to the same team. Most of all testers think it's good to go but the composite cracks.

The composite is refined to make it more crack resistant, and the team signs off.

 

The end design is two hammers that are visually exactly the same with the exception of the handle, which is optionally wooden, or composite.

 

Parallel Processing:

Some testers report the wooden handle (for environment 1) as uncomfortable and awkward.

Some testers report the composite handle (for environment 2) as uncomfortable and awkward.

The handle for env 1 is modified to the env 1 tester feedback and goes through a few iterations to get it right.

The handle for env 2 is modified to the env 2 tester feedback and goes through a few iterations to get it right.

The handle designs diverge because of the limited crossover between teams.

The wooden handle gets an unnecessary steel core making it heavier because of a team member who tested for both env 1 and 2, reported a fragility issue in env 1's tracking system when env 2 was where the issue was.

The composite handle fracture issue is made crack resistant using the same steel core to keep things slightly more common, making it heavier than it needs to be.

 

The end result is two heavy hammers that are visually very different with the exception of the standard metal head. This is all because two projects were forced into parallel processing in environments that are not directly parallel.

 

 

 

Granted, that's all hypothetical, and liberties were taken to better illustrate the point, but there's a lot to be said for limiting variables when testing things. You do it when you write your code. You do it when you test software. You do it when troubleshooting.

 

TL;DR: limit your variables. The sim environment is a variable, which carries with it a number of other variables.

 

Well Im guessing the P3D version is not ready for beta then...

 

It's ready, but why not just take all of the issues fixed in the FSX version, roll it into the P3D project, and have everyone's attention during the process? Makes for better finding and tracking of issues, and a shorter beta period on the second project.

[lbarber 20]

 

 

Makes for better finding and tracking of issues, and a shorter beta period on the second project.

 

and I think perhaps more importantly, a shorter total beta period resulting in consumers getting their hands on their new toy faster overall. 

[Gabriel Teles 172]

Beautiful! Thanks for sharing.

[red259 31]

Only the FSX version is in beta right now.

 

 

 

I know a lot of people seem to be confused by this, but thinking it over for a few minutes would make sense of it all. While FSX and P3D are similar, they are not the same. What causes issues in FSX may not necessarily cause issues in P3D. The inverse is also true. Having the beta team test both simultaneously could cause issues where a bug is reported on the wrong platform, one platform is not tested as well as the other, and odd creep in the code.

 

As an example, I'm building a hammer. In one environment it'll be a standard hammer, while in the other it'll be that hammer with some minor changes. By the time I'm ready for product testing, the hammer has a wooden handle that is still being refined, with the standard metal head.

 

Serial Processing:

All testers report the wooden handle (for environment 1) as uncomfortable and awkward.

The wooden handle goes through a few iterations to get it right, to the point where most of all testers think it's good to go.

The next environment requires that the handle be made of composite.

A composite handle is designed to the same shape of env 1, and passed to the same team. Most of all testers think it's good to go but the composite cracks.

The composite is refined to make it more crack resistant, and the team signs off.

 

The end design is two hammers that are visually exactly the same with the exception of the handle, which is optionally wooden, or composite.

 

Parallel Processing:

Some testers report the wooden handle (for environment 1) as uncomfortable and awkward.

Some testers report the composite handle (for environment 2) as uncomfortable and awkward.

The handle for env 1 is modified to the env 1 tester feedback and goes through a few iterations to get it right.

The handle for env 2 is modified to the env 2 tester feedback and goes through a few iterations to get it right.

The handle designs diverge because of the limited crossover between teams.

The wooden handle gets an unnecessary steel core making it heavier because of a team member who tested for both env 1 and 2, reported a fragility issue in env 1's tracking system when env 2 was where the issue was.

The composite handle fracture issue is made crack resistant using the same steel core to keep things slightly more common, making it heavier than it needs to be.

 

The end result is two heavy hammers that are visually very different with the exception of the standard metal head. This is all because two projects were forced into parallel processing in environments that are not directly parallel.

 

 

 

Granted, that's all hypothetical, and liberties were taken to better illustrate the point, but there's a lot to be said for limiting variables when testing things. You do it when you write your code. You do it when you test software. You do it when troubleshooting.

 

TL;DR: limit your variables. The sim environment is a variable, which carries with it a number of other variables.

 

 

It's ready, but why not just take all of the issues fixed in the FSX version, roll it into the P3D project, and have everyone's attention during the process? Makes for better finding and tracking of issues, and a shorter beta period on the second project.

 

Do we have an idea of approx how long after the FSX release the p3d release would come? Are we talking something like weeks or several months? I ask because I am considering switching to p3d and if there is going to be a delay of several months that is one thing. If its only several weeks then I can hold out.

 

Chris H