QOTSII update and 748 news?

[jgoggi 65]

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. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

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.

[B747tebs 80]

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.

[jgoggi 65]

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

[Captain Kevin 586]

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.

[jgoggi 65]

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...

[downscc 1,327]

2 hours ago, jgoggi said:

it's just a computer code...

hahaha... funny.  Are you purposely trolling?

[Captain Kevin 586]

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.

[AirCanada235 103]

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. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

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.

[downscc 1,327]

58 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

do keep in mind that they aren't official reps of PMDG.

This is important... I relish my independence and it's only a matter of time before they get tired of my insolence and irreverence and take away my hallway privileges.

[AirCanada235 103]

13 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

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.

Ummmmm - hope tmhis wasn't directed at me but at the origional poster!  I am trying to code a new performance program and am failing at it. I've never once said coding was easy not claimed it is / would be. In fact - I think I was trying to help the original poster get his head on straight!

[jgoggi 65]

Guys, just to clarify that my standpoint is absolutely NOT a claim that what should be done is easy and quick to solve. I only wanted to highlight that I had the impression that the head of the developers is not on this issue, so that its fixing will occur but it is left to an undefined future, after more important things... The only clue that **might** (but does not) make me think it's easy is that the same issue was on the 777 and, in the SP that came out one month after reporting it, it was already fixed. That's it...

[scandinavian13 5,192]

18 hours ago, AirCanada235 said:

Ummmmm - hope tmhis wasn't directed at me but at the origional poster!  I am trying to code a new performance program and am failing at it. I've never once said coding was easy not claimed it is / would be. In fact - I think I was trying to help the original poster get his head on straight!

Correct. Generic/indefinite use of 'you.' 'One' may have been more appropriate to give better context.

[jgoggi 65]

Now that the 744 for P3D v4 is out, do you think it might be time to fix that dreaded self-increasing thrust?