So, as I feared, HOLD thrust bug not fixed...

[jgoggi 65]

So many cosmetic correctiions in this first update, but what I think it's the real annoying bug is not fixed, as I feared: the self increasing thrust during HOLD mode at takeoff (that's why I insisted on it, I felt it was not being given the right priority). Look at the screenshot in the attached link: green takeoff reference N1=98.7, real N1 at lift off:100.3 (and still increasing until 400 ft). If it was the real plane, it would be AOG with that issue!

[anden145 2,284]

I'm fairly certain, that they're aware of this 'bug', since you so insistently have been adament about it. It could be, that the solution is a bit more complicated and that they are still working on a solution for it.

Who told you, it would be fixed in the update which was just released?

[jgoggi 65]

They told me "hopefully", but it's a bug of the system logic, it should have maximum priority... (and I didn't want to add that it should have already been detected during beta testing of the release version...).

[Woozie 732]

When i read the changelog i knew that this thread will appear soon ;)

RSR quote from the update thread:

Quote

 we anticipate pushing a number of updates for this product line in very rapid succession

This is the first update since the new dynamic update system went live. It absolutely makes sense to issue a smaller update with mainly cosmetic changes to "test" the system before they throw any major releases at it. According to RSR's statement above, we can expect further updates soon. Just be a bit patient ;)

[jgoggi 65]

Delete

[jgoggi 65]

10 minutes ago, woozie said:

It absolutely makes sense to issue a smaller update with mainly cosmetic changes to "test" the system before they throw any major releases at it. According to RSR's statement above, we can expect further updates soon. Just be a bit patient ;)

Yes, seen this way, it makes sense... 

[Captain Kevin 586]

Because OH, MY GOD, THE PLANE'S GOING TO CRASH BECAUSE WE TOOK OFF AT 1.6% N1 OVER WHAT WE WANT!!!! We should just drop everything and not update anything until this gets fixed, right? Because, you know, trying to adjust the payload for one plane and getting a completely different value shouldn't be fixed, right (last time I checked, entering 24 in the payload should NOT give you 10, it should give you 24)?

2 hours ago, jgoggi said:

They told me "hopefully",

Key word being hopefully. Hopefully does not mean actually.

[jgoggi 65]

Captain Kevin, I suppose you are in the real world aviation, aren't you? Then you should know that even an 1.6% is often outside the accepted limits...

[anden145 2,284]

... and is your computer going to explode, because of these 1.6%? 

[jgoggi 65]

1.6, 0.0000001, 1 billion... The point is not the number, is that the logic is wrong... You get it?

[warbirds 555]

I look at this first update as a test and the real meat will come later when all the update bugs are worked out. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

6 hours ago, jgoggi said:

If it was the real plane, it would be AOG with that issue!

Firstly, no. At worst, you're looking at an AT INOP sticker. At best, you just fly because the automation isn't causing any actual limitation exceedances. I recall mentioning this in other threads, this is still flyable. Yes, it's wrong, but your reaction to it is quite a bit hyperbolic, and overly-fixated.

James - seriously. We've told you that we're looking into it. Constantly bringing it up isn't going to get it fixed faster. It's not going to make us more aware of it than we already are. The fact that the issue isn't fixed shouldn't be seen as some personal thing that we're holding out on you. Seriously - go enjoy the plane and quick hyperfixating on something so minor. You're really missing out here.

 

 

Thing that sucks about this whole situation is that it really makes you wish there were some, you know...micro-updater function where we could update the product when the issue is fixed. I mean, right now, all the little cosmetic things that were a little easier to fix are just getting held up at the cost of  trying to chase this world-ending, plane-is-unflyable bug down...

Oh, wait...

[jgoggi 65]

1 hour ago, scandinavian13 said:

Firstly, no. At worst, you're looking at an AT INOP sticker. At best, you just fly because the automation isn't causing any actual limitation exceedances.

Anyway this is an A/T issue, but a PMDG 747 software issue, because it occurs just when the A/T is NOT connected...  I haven't tried, but what if you takeoff at almost max thrust? Will the EEC control that thrust increase during the HOLD period? If not, the thrust increase may well lead to an exceedance...

[fabristunt 25]

I'm looking forward to the update that will fix this, but how could this go unnoticed in tech beta and even in the larger beta?

[pcubine 143]

14 minutes ago, fabristunt said:

but how could this go unnoticed in tech beta and even in the larger beta?

Easy. In the grand scheme of things it is insignificant.