alex98

QOTSII update and 748 news?

Recommended Posts

Dear PMDG team,

Is there another update coming up for the QOTSII? The Issue tracking thread is being quiet for a while now... I do not mean that there should be an update, just curious to know if you guys found any issues to get corrected and if yes, what kind of issues.

Second, any news on the 747-8 extension? Really looking forward to this one!

Best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

It is futile to ask questions like this really. News will come when it comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rondon9898 said:

It is futile to ask questions like this really. News will come when it comes.

True dat!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alex98 said:

Dear PMDG team,

Is there another update coming up for the QOTSII? The Issue tracking thread is being quiet for a while now... I do not mean that there should be an update, just curious to know if you guys found any issues to get corrected and if yes, what kind of issues.

Second, any news on the 747-8 extension? Really looking forward to this one!

Best regards

It is like asking is heaven ready for me and when is my time? : )

Worth a shot though... the extension will be worth the wait I am sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love PMDG and I'm always excited to see new screenshots that Robert puts up, new videos that Kyle sticks on his channel or that marvellous "XXXX released!" thread title on the forum, but there are certain definitive rules in life that one cannot conquer - what goes up must come down, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the folks at PMDG put updates up when they're ready, not by request.

 

Just one of the several indisputable facts of life.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain_Al said:

It is like asking is heaven ready for me and when is my time? : )

Worth a shot though... the extension will be worth the wait I am sure...

I was mainly curious about the issue tracking process and I thought it would be interesting for us to know in which direction the team is digging now. A little too naive from my part?... :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alex98 said:

I was mainly curious about the issue tracking process and I thought it would be interesting for us to know in which direction the team is digging now. A little too naive from my part?... :biggrin:

If there was anything to report, they would report it. If you haven't heard anything, there's likely nothing worth reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect after the initial new update method was deployed, it probably required some updates and changes to the delivery method before any new product updates would be pushed out. Would not be surprised to see any new product updates waiting for the 748 expansion and releasing at a similar time, with the 748 already incorporating those changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 77west said:

I suspect after the initial new update method was deployed, it probably required some updates and changes to the delivery method before any new product updates would be pushed out.

A little of both. I think the OC's livery download function may already be using some of the added efficiency found in the improvements to the updaters, actually.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the 748 will not inherit 744 inaccuracies, if any. The one that comes to my mind is the thrust HOLD mode not able to keep the reference thrust at takeoff, that the 744 already imported from the 777 (where it is now fixed)... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jgoggi said:

I hope the 748 will not inherit 744 inaccuracies, if any. The one that comes to my mind is the thrust HOLD mode not able to keep the reference thrust at takeoff, that the 744 already imported from the 777 (where it is now fixed)... 

James,

Bringing this up at every possible moment really isn't helping anything. You posted. We acknowledged it, and we acknowledged that we're looking into it. What are you looking for here? You keep bringing it up, so there's gotta be something. If you only wanted it fixed, acknowledgement that it's being looked into should be enough, as it is with the majority of users here in the forum.

Moreover, I don't recall it ever being an issue in the 777, so your assertion that it's something that we've fixed previously is an interesting one, indeed.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scandinavian13 said:

Moreover, I don't recall it ever being an issue in the 777, so your assertion that it's something that we've fixed previously is an interesting one, indeed.

Come on, Kyle, in another thread I posted the link to that post dating back to 2014 where I highlighted this problem in the 777. One month later it was fixed in SP1c (see changelog)... Here it is again, for your convenience:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jgoggi said:

Come on, Kyle, in another thread I posted the link to that post dating back to 2014 where I highlighted this problem in the 777. One month later it was fixed in SP1c (see changelog)... Here it is again, for your convenience:

James,

I was only a beta tester for the 777, so to expect me to recall every single issue is a bit on the extreme side. That's also not mentioning that it's an issue from nearly three years ago. I said "I don't recall," and not categorically that it wasn't there. Your lack of linking to any issue prior to that point didn't help.

As I mentioned earlier, though, each time you bring this up, one of us advises you that it has been acknowledged and is being worked on. Is there anything else that you want from us in particular, or are you simply continuing to bring it up to hang it over us?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Kyle, I didn't mean that you should have remembered, I just said that I had already brought to your attention that issue in the 777 by posting the link to the message in the forum. No, nothing else, after fixing this issue the 744 will be perfect :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jgoggi said:

Sorry, Kyle, I didn't mean that you should have remembered, I just said that I had already brought to your attention that issue in the 777 by posting the link to the message in the forum. No, nothing else, after fixing this issue the 744 will be perfect :biggrin:

Cool. Thanks for linking to it. I'd completely forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2017 at 3:33 PM, scandinavian13 said:

We acknowledged it, and we acknowledged that we're looking into it. What are you looking for here? You keep bringing it up, so there's gotta be something. If you only wanted it fixed, acknowledgement that it's being looked into should be enough, as it is with the majority of users here in the forum.

Kyle, as of today the news I have is that nothing has been updated about that issue, so the aknowledgment that it will be fixed is not enough if nothing has been done, after almost 4 months from the release, after implementing a new update method that allows micro-real time updates and considering that this bug should NOT have been there SINCE DAY 1 (because it had already been experienced in the past in another PMDG airplane and fixed more than 2 years before the 744 release...). With all the respect and gratitude I feel for PMDG, I can't understand why there is no will to fix it, it looks to me as a kind of "punishment" you are giving me for insisting on this. When I bought this airplane I paid it all, I did not say "ops, sorry, I did not realize that I paid only 50 bucks, but don't worry, I have aknowledged that and I will give you 85 more maybe in one month, maybe in one year, maybe later...". Please, words and aknowledgments apart, can this issue be faced and fixed once and for all? Thank you very much. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jgoggi said:

Kyle, as of today the news I have is that nothing has been updated about that issue, so the aknowledgment that it will be fixed is not enough if nothing has been done, after almost 4 months from the release, after implementing a new update method that allows micro-real time updates and considering that this bug should NOT have been there SINCE DAY 1 (because it had already been experienced in the past in another PMDG airplane and fixed more than 2 years before the 744 release...). With all the respect and gratitude I feel for PMDG, I can't understand why there is no will to fix it, it looks to me as a kind of "punishment" you are giving me for insisting on this. When I bought this airplane I paid it all, I did not say "ops, sorry, I did not realize that I paid only 50 bucks, but don't worry, I have aknowledged that and I will give you 85 more maybe in one month, maybe in one year, maybe later...". Please, words and aknowledgments apart, can this issue be faced and fixed once and for all? Thank you very much. 

James,

Bugs should never be in anything, at all, ever. That's not the reality of life, however. If this were true, your keyboard wouldn't have a backspace button on it because we'd all type perfectly and never err. Your insistence that we should be perfect is...heartwarming...but neglects the fundamental fact that humans err.

Your later comment that we won't fix it is what concerns me, however. I don't recall stating that we wouldn't fix it. I don't recall saying that we rejected your claim at all, at any point that you raised it. In fact, whereas I usually push back against people claiming something is a bug, I believe from the outset, I simply said "get us something repeatable, and submit it via the portal and we'll look into it." Regardless, not everything is easy to fix, and not everything gets put at the front of the queue of things to fix because someone keeps bringing it up.

The issue here is not that we won't fix it. On the contrary, we raised it and began looking into it within days of you bringing it up.

  1. Code is never perfect. Any good developer endeavors to make it so, but this is not the reality of the world in which we live.
  2. Just because you don't see an immediate fix doesn't mean that someone refuses to fix it, or someone refuses to face it. Claiming otherwise is to be blatantly misleading, and borderline malicious.
  3. Nobody is punishing you. I keep pressing back because you're borderline badgering us to fix something that is taking some time to look into. Each time, I have noted that it is being looked into. This means that we have people on the team actively looking into, and attempting to fix, it. Playing victim (I fail to see how we're "punishing" you - each time you've brought this up, I may have been increasingly blunt, but I have always noted that it is a legitimate issue and it's being looked into) and accusing us of inaction when you haven't the slightest clue of what's going on behind the scenes doesn't help anyone. You are not the only one affected. We want our products to be perfect even more than you do. Having someone cudgel us about it periodically for some reason really doesn't help.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

being a developer myself, the smallest problems can lead to the biggest updates. What i want to say is, from the outside, everything looks easily fixable sometimes (especially for people without a background in software development), but sometimes fixing small things require huge changes and lots of testing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my assumption comes fom the fact that it was quickly fixed in the 777, where it was exactly the same issue...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jgoggi said:

Well, my assumption comes fom the fact that it was quickly fixed in the 777, where it was exactly the same issue...

Two different planes, two different systems. Not a good assumption to make. Remember that with the Boeing 777-200LR, -300ER, and freighter, you only have one engine choice, the GE90. With the Boeing 747-400, you have three. None of the General Electric engines use EPR, whereas the Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce engines do. Changing one parameter could easily affect something else, so it may not necessarily be as straightforward or easy as you think.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

Two different planes, two different systems. Not a good assumption to make.

Anyway it's strange that they have exactly the same issue, don't you think? In the end we are not talking about a real powerplant system, it's just a computer code...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jgoggi said:

it's just a computer code...

hahaha... funny.  Are you purposely trolling?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jgoggi said:

Anyway it's strange that they have exactly the same issue, don't you think? In the end we are not talking about a real powerplant system, it's just a computer code...

Just computer code, eh? I suppose to you, computer code is simple stuff and easy to fix. You've also completely ignored the rest of what I said, so I'm not really sure how it could be "exactly the same issue." Similar with respect to the issue, yes, I could say that. Exactly the same, not quite. As I said, none of the General Electric engines use EPR, so that's one thing out of the equation in the 777. With the 747, two out of three engine options use EPR, so if it affects EPR, which I believe it more than likely does, that's going to complicate issues a bit. Point being, what seems to be a simple fix may not, in fact, be a simple fix.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jgoggi said:

Anyway it's strange that they have exactly the same issue, don't you think? In the end we are not talking about a real powerplant system, it's just a computer code...

James,

My advice to you at this point would be to let the guys at PMDG fix this. You have put it on their radar (sounds like a few times now) but there is less than zero sense in continually brining it up. As Dan mentioned above - your at risk of sounding like a troll and I'm sure you don't want to be labeled at that. Initially you found / made the PMDG aware of an issue - leave it at that and let them work through it.

 

I will give you support when I agree with you that communication from PMDG could be better as it concerns the status of identified issues with products we have purchased (hence the long outdated issue tracking thread that seems to have gone untouched since launch day) or things along those lines but Kyle and Dan do their best to touch every single forum thread. However, we have NO clue what is going on behind the scenes and how many formal support requests they are working on. 

My point was James - you MAY wish to turn the volume down  bit on this topic. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AirCanada235 said:

(hence the long outdated issue tracking thread that seems to have gone untouched since launch day)

Those threads are usually for larger showstoppers, like the sound device issue that caused crashes, and workarounds. Nuisance issues may occasionally end up there, but it's mostly there to help cut down on the duplicate reports right after release.

1 hour ago, AirCanada235 said:

Kyle and Dan do their best to touch every single forum thread.

FWIW - and while he and the rest of the beta team / tech team is a massive help when they step in here - do keep in mind that they aren't official reps of PMDG.

1 hour ago, AirCanada235 said:

However, we have NO clue what is going on behind the scenes and how many formal support requests they are working on. 

Precisely.

Moreover, my issue isn't that it continues to be brought up as much as it's the assertion that it's simple to fix. Luckily, it seems that a few in here understand the complexities of code.

I know that developing add-ons and coding is our job. I get that. But that doesn't mean that everything that we do and code is easy. You'll note that there are very few who do what we do. That's mostly due to the level of effort and work that goes into it, I'd argue. If code like this were easy, one would imagine that everyone would be releasing study-level sims.

It's an issue. I fully agree. I have agreed since it was confirmed as an issue. It needs to be fixed (and I don't think you'll find someone here at PMDG who would claim otherwise). All the same, code is not always simple to change or fix. It may seem like that from the outside, but if you'd like to make that claim, I implore you to try coding something actually complex. I think you'll find that you'll change your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.