ATC for FS9?

[wombat457 3]

2 hours ago, vololiberista said:

That's not to say that sometimes one comes across bugs. EVERY programme has release bugs.

You are correct BUT that (IMO) is nothing more than an excuse for one of the following:

1.   Poor quality control/testing

2.   Poor attention to detail during the quality control/testing phase

3.   Bugs, issues, problems being identified during quality control/testing being ignored by the manufacturer for the purpose of getting the product on the market for the purpose of generating revenue, something Microsoft is very good at doing.

If the quality control/testing phase was done fully, effectively and properly and the company fixed the problems that may have been identified, no product would be released with issues, bugs or problems only "personal preference" matters that don't effect the "base purpose" of the product.

3 hours ago, vololiberista said:

RC4 works yes, but it is severely out of date and will never be updated.

In short - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

3 hours ago, vololiberista said:

There is a major update in the wings being tested by us right now which addresses many of the problems highlighted on the PF3 forum.

Things that should have been identified during the quality control/testing phase or, identified and then ignored, and evidently wern''t.

Bottom line for me is this ... any company etc that professes regular updates for fixes, issues, problems etc is doing nothing than more than admitting the product, at it's release, had problems and bugs and needs fixing and that makes the product justifiably questionable UNLESS those updates are only to add or include things that are only "niceties".

If companies fully and properly tested their product and fixed identified bugs, issues and problems BEFORE the products release, the customer (sorry - end user) wouldn't have anything to complain about other than personal preference matters and; therefore, the company wouldn't have to deal with complaints or constantly send out updates.

[wombat457 3]

As for the "voice concerns" well, there are a number of ways to  fix that:

1.   Use real Controllers from every control tower world wide (yeah right)

2.   Gather 1 person from every region of every country world wide for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (see above)

3.   Gather 1 person from the N, E, S and W of every country for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (getting closer) 

4.   Gather 1 person from every country through out the world for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (maybe)

5.   Have 1 person from every country record the controller messages in a "controlled" environment. (doable with some effort) or,

6.   Forget using people and use nothing more than computer generated speech.

In today's technological age (which is out of control I might add) there is not reason or excuse for a program that uses speech not to have real (non robotic) speech.  Sure it may take a little more time to achieve or work to implement BUT it is possible and it IS doable.

What really annoys me though is hearing (example only) an Australian accent coming from (for example) an Italian Control tower.  There really is no reason or excuse for that other than what I have outlined in my post above.

Aside from all of that - why do people even want an ATC addon?   After all, doesn't, as John pointed out, the default ATC's achieve the fundamental purpose of ATC (getting a plane from it's gate and into the air then back down to another gate) appropriate and compatible to it's own program?    

In short, if the default ATC's fulfill the "basic" functions of ATC, why even bother with addon ATC programs at all?  

So with that being said - what would people LIKE TO SEE in an addon ATC program?

[vololiberista 205]

37 minutes ago, wombat457 said:

You are correct BUT that (IMO) is nothing more than an excuse for one of the following:

1.   Poor quality control/testing

2.   Poor attention to detail during the quality control/testing phase

3.   Bugs, issues, problems being identified during quality control/testing being ignored by the manufacturer for the purpose of getting the product on the market for the purpose of generating revenue, something Microsoft is very good at doing.

If the quality control/testing phase was done fully, effectively and properly and the company fixed the problems that may have been identified, no product would be released with issues, bugs or problems only "personal preference" matters that don't effect the "base purpose" of the product.

In short - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Things that should have been identified during the quality control/testing phase or, identified and then ignored, and evidently wern''t.

Bottom line for me is this ... any company etc that professes regular updates for fixes, issues, problems etc is doing nothing than more than admitting the product, at it's release, had problems and bugs and needs fixing and that makes the product justifiably questionable UNLESS those updates are only to add or include things that are only "niceties".

If companies fully and properly tested their product and fixed identified bugs, issues and problems BEFORE the products release, the customer (sorry - end user) wouldn't have anything to complain about other than personal preference matters and; therefore, the company wouldn't have to deal with complaints or constantly send out updates.

I hope you are not insinuating that the PF3 beta was poor at quality control! That was and is not the case. The majority of changes made even from the start are/were not bugs but changes and enhancements. PF3 is not a buggy programme by any means.

[vololiberista 205]

18 minutes ago, wombat457 said:

As for the "voice concerns" well, there are a number of ways to  fix that:

1.   Use real Controllers from every control tower world wide (yeah right)

2.   Gather 1 person from every region of every country world wide for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (see above)

3.   Gather 1 person from the N, E, S and W of every country for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (getting closer) 

4.   Gather 1 person from every country through out the world for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (maybe)

5.   Have 1 person from every country record the controller messages in a "controlled" environment. (doable with some effort) or,

6.   Forget using people and use nothing more than computer generated speech.

In today's technological age (which is out of control I might add) there is not reason or excuse for a program that uses speech not to have real (non robotic) speech.  Sure it may take a little more time to achieve or work to implement BUT it is possible and it IS doable.

What really annoys me though is hearing (example only) an Australian accent coming from (for example) an Italian Control tower.  There really is no reason or excuse for that other than what I have outlined in my post above.

Aside from all of that - why do people even want an ATC addon?   After all, doesn't, as John pointed out, the default ATC's achieve the fundamental purpose of ATC (getting a plane from it's gate and into the air then back down to another gate) appropriate and compatible to it's own program?    

In short, if the default ATC's fulfill the "basic" functions of ATC, why even bother with addon ATC programs at all?  

So with that being said - what would people LIKE TO SEE in an addon ATC program?

Ok so you gather 119 people pay them a small sum to record a huge amount of data correctly. If you are not happy then ask Dave for a refund.

[wombat457 3]

Firstly, you were the one that said, and I quote

"...EVERY programmes has release bugs..." unquote, 

You were also the one who said there was an Update in the works to fix the problems people had experienced.  From that, it is not unreasonable to assume that PF3 (being a program) had release bugs, if it didn't there would be nothing to fix.  

I actually thought it was refreshing to hear someone from a company admit that the product wasn't perfect and that it did have some issues and those issues were being addressed.  

As for the points about voices - you might want to re-read that again, especially the bits in brackets at the end of each point.

My points regarding /quality control/testing were general points and, if you care to read what you wrote, supportive of what you wrote - that EVERY program has release bugs.  

So far as I am concerned, PF3 works well for me, but no better than RC, and the bugs that I have found, "and I have found what I would call bugs such as with the Taxi Manager thing" aren't that big a deal. 

[ThomasAH 61]

Please everyone, keep the blue side of this thread up!