When QW starts charging $146,000,000 for its addons *and* people start dying from plane crashes in P3d, I'll take your comparison of real-vs-QW seriously. 😛

 

2 hours ago, pracines said:

You actually get LNAV/VNAV glitches in the real 787 (you did say "every software program you've ever dealt with")? WOW

 

@ pracines

Well for the record every software has bugs not one is bug free 😉 Even professional developed software...
Hence the revision list and SP are there for a reason 😉

Is it justified to have those bugs, no by all means in a perfect world, but unfortunately the real world isn't perfect.

Lol look at your O/S or your hardware for example 😉

As for the QW787 the price point and team involved matters, because there is a difference in knowledge and skills and team size as in the real world.
I for one think they are doing their upmost to solve the issues they have and
sometimes they take longer to solve (the most simple ones are often the complex ones to solve).
Do I think they should deliver the promised feature list of course otherwise what does it mean in the end...

So I give them some slack to solve the outstanding issues, because of this tiny community I applaud every developer contributing to this beloved hobby freeware or payware.

We still talking about software at a very low price point and team members involved in software land 😉

Have fun in the virtual skies gentlemen, 

Edited March 7, 20197 yr by awf

Because VNAV has a few bugs this causes hundreds to be in danger? You can switch to other autopilot modes that have no problems as far as I can tell. This is inconvenient and annoying but I still have the plane under my control. Plus as others have noted QW isn’t making the software for the actual plane. I bet they would want a significant pay raise.

From what I have seen VNAV can have the following problems: inaccurate TOD when certain altitude restrictions are inserted in a STAR. Inability to spool down the engines quickly enough to meet altitude restrictions or VNAV path.

These issues can be worked around by removing the offending altitude restrictions or controlling the descent path with V/S or FLCH mode. At worst if you didn’t make the necessary adjustments you would be over your altitude restrictions and require vectors to a new approach.

Edited March 7, 20197 yr by JasonPC

Just getting back into P3D...has this update been released?

7 hours ago, awf said:

@ pracines

Well for the record every software has bugs not one is bug free 😉 Even professional developed software...
Hence the revision list and SP are there for a reason 😉

Is it justified to have those bugs, no by all means in a perfect world, but unfortunately the real world isn't perfect.

Lol look at your O/S or your hardware for example 😉

As for the QW787 the price point and team involved matters, because there is a difference in knowledge and skills and team size as in the real world.
I for one think they are doing their upmost to solve the issues they have and
sometimes they take longer to solve (the most simple ones are often the complex ones to solve).
Do I think they should deliver the promised feature list of course otherwise what does it mean in the end...

So I give them some slack to solve the outstanding issues, because of this tiny community I applaud every developer contributing to this beloved hobby freeware or payware.

We still talking about software at a very low price point and team members involved in software land 😉

Have fun in the virtual skies gentlemen, 

Sticking to the CONTEXT of this TOPIC:🧐

•  PBR has been announced as the main feature for this next update - and once again it is NOT too much to ask why the AP is not fixed and working as described in the feature list, as it has been on the feature list for several years.
•  If they were doing their "upmost", then the QW757 would have an auto pilot that functions as stated in its feature list too, but it does not. Will anybody say they did their upmost? How long did we give them there? 10+ years!!
• Other Autopilots, in for example, PMDG's newer generations, and the LDS 767 Autopilot function as expected. LDS is 10+ years old, so it is not impossible or too much to ask.
• It is very important that things like PBR do not cover up or distract us all from the importance of a flight sim company doing what it says it has ALREADY DONE, yet its not done. 
• I would be very happy if QW would just come out and say 'the AP is as good as it is going to get' then lower the price accordingly, as the AP is a central part of the operation of a 787. 

Nobody here can claim that they can enter winds aloft in the QW 787 correct? Then how can QW make the claim that their FMS is comprehensive (a huge yet undelivered claim)? And an even more important question is why is this not a big deal to them who already paid for these features? Even after about 5-6 years of development before release and now about 1 1/2 years later after release and several patches, still major features are still just a "wish list" or a dream that may never come true.  

I'm in no way saying that its an easy job to simulate the Autoflight functions of a 787 for a $70 simulation, but I did not make the claim, QW did make the claim, so... 🤷‍♂️

I hope this is not so difficult to understand or agree with; to disagree simply lowers the standard of excellence that is unbecoming of aviators in my view.

If some are happy with the QW787 as it is, I'm happy for them, but they are not getting what they thought they paid for. Buyers remorse can be embarrassing, especially what history repeats itself.

I knew not to buy the QW787 because I do have the QW757 (rusting at the bottom of my virtual ocean), which I tried every time a patch came out and was totally disappointed, but it was only $25 so I did not expect too much.... I learn.👨‍🎓

 

Edited March 8, 20197 yr by pracines

8 hours ago, pracines said:

Sticking to the CONTEXT of this TOPIC:🧐

•  PBR has been announced as the main feature for this next update - and once again it is NOT too much to ask why the AP is not fixed and working as described in the feature list, as it has been on the feature list for several years.

I'm in no way saying that its an easy job to simulate the Autoflight functions of a 787 for a $70 simulation, but I did not make the claim, QW did make the claim, so... 🤷‍♂️

I hope this is not so difficult to understand or agree with; to disagree simply lowers the standard of excellence that is unbecoming of aviators in my view.

 

Talking about sticking to context of this topic lol (PBR, and here we are at autopilot functions 🙄)
Maybe the topic should have been named differently...

I agree that they should live up to what they have promised, however not every team has the same skills (so maybe they should adjust their marketing list ;-)).

As for PBR update it's not related to the other outstanding issue's and is a different update
(maybe easy to do with someone on the team with 3d skills, so why wait 😉 that makes no sense, hence it's another team member that will do that part)
My understanding is there will follow and update which is 6 months in development now related to the different CTD and LNAV/VNAV/HOLDS/FLCH/TCAS/WX radar etc. (so complex stuff for them to solve)
Also it's a part time development team, if you think, we have a lot of full blown professional development teams in this tiny small community well think again.

With this in the back of my mind and with this team, my expectations are based on that info.
As for the marketing hype I always take it with a grain of salt and Flight 1 has their 30 days policy...
So I personally will wait for that one and if that one lives up to the promised list of system functions, it will stay otherwise it ends in the virtual b...
As for standards and simulation experience there isn't right or wrong, just different expectations from different simmers out there.

I agree that developers should carefully list upfront what a product does and what not and deliver as promised (think about all those WX engines for example with all those promises)

As for real system simulations stuff, there are better choices for more complex and related to real world stuff out there to mimic real world procedures 😉

So I will wait and see, and not upset by a PBR update, because it changes nothing regarding the development time scale of the system simulation bugs.

The QW faceboook post from Feb. 21st announcing the v1.1.3 update states very clearly and unequivocally that...

"Amongst many other improvements, version 1.1.3 will introduce Physically Based Rendering"

Nowhere that I can see does it say ANYTHING about PBR being the "main" feature of the update, it simply states that it is one of many improvements, and to suggest that PBR is the main feature of the update is simply misinformation and negative "spin" IMHO....

10 hours ago, pracines said:

I hope this is not so difficult to understand or agree with; to disagree simply lowers the standard of excellence that is unbecoming of aviators in my view.

Y'know, I'm really lucky. I have a good job, and that means I can afford PMDG. Not everyone can. Your constant campaigning against QW, if successful, will have the outcome that only PMDG and developers like Carenado survive. No middle ground for people who can't drop $140 on an addon without cutting necessities out of their budget, but who want something better than the hot mess that is Carenado systems simulation.

We've explained it over and over - QW isn't perfect. Perfection would cost more than PMDG (yes, there are bugs in PMDG planes too). You're acting like the person who looks at a Lexus and then looks at a Hyundai, and then gets furious because the Hyundai isn't just as good as the Lexus. If Hyundai is as good as Lexus, then Hyundai is going to charge as much as Lexus (and uh, they are - it's called the Genesis line). So unless you want the flight simulation addon world to involve choosing between Lexus and Yugo because every other developer goes out of business, you should probably back down a little bit.

BTW, "comprehensive" means "complete or nearly complete." The FMS in the 787 is nearly complete. It's comprehensive.

Also BTW, the word is "utmost," not "upmost."

 

Edited March 8, 20197 yr by eslader

3 hours ago, eslader said:

BTW, "comprehensive" means "complete or nearly complete." The FMS in the 787 is nearly complete. It's comprehensive.

Also BTW, the word is "utmost," not "upmost."

Not sure where you get your definitions but I know I'm not wrong in what I typed or what I meant. 🙂

The QW 787 FMS is not even nearly complete as compared to the real 787. Remember, QW made the claim, I'm not making this up.

The person I responded to used the word UPMOST and used it correctly, that is why I did not correct them, and I used it in reply. 👨‍🎓

UPMOST is totally correct in context in that PBR is getting a higher place in rank than the Autoflight systems - this is wrong because of the claimed feature list.👨‍🎓

If I have been wrong in any facts I have stated concerning what QW has claimed and what they actually delivered so far then anybody tell me. But all these opinions about "it works fine for me" is only justifying untrue marketing. This in itself is wrong and damages the flight sim community. Calling for companies to DO what they SAY does good for the community. I hope everybody can understand this.🙂

 

com·pre·hen·sive

[ˌkämprəˈhensiv]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

   "a comprehensive list of sources"

   synonyms:

   diverse · diversified · wide · broad · broad-based · eclectic ·

   [more]
2. archaic

   relating to understanding.

 

up·most

[ˈəpˌmōst]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. another term for uppermost.

 

up·per·most

[ˈəpərˌmōst]

 

ADJECTIVE

upmost (adjective)

1. highest in place, rank, or importance.

   "the uppermost windows" · "her father was uppermost in her mind"

   synonyms:

   highest · furthest up · loftiest · top · topmost · most elevated · predominant · most important · of greatest importance · to the fore · foremost · top · dominant · preponderant · principal · leading · greatest · chief · main · paramount · major

    

    

    

    

Edited March 8, 20197 yr by pracines

7 minutes ago, pracines said:

But all these opinions about "it works fine for me" is only justifying untrue marketing.

This is the last thing I'm going to say to you, because at this point I think you're trolling. The definition for comprehensive that you posted shows that they aren't lying in their marketing. You should stop libeling them.

 

1 hour ago, pracines said:

Not sure where you get your definitions but I know I'm not wrong in what I typed or what I meant. 🙂

 

Perhaps not, but you most certainly were wrong about this statement in an earlier post...

"PBR has been announced as the main feature for this next update"

So I would like to know where you got that from, and how you can justify such obviously blatant disinformation...?

I recognize that you don't even own the product, yet you are one of it's most vocal critics, which is your privilege I suppose, but such unfounded comments are not only incorrect and misleading, but they also don't serve our community very well from a constructive criticism perspective IMHO...

 

Edited March 8, 20197 yr by SunDevil56

9 minutes ago, SunDevil56 said:

Perhaps not, but you most certainly were wrong about this statement in an earlier post...

"PBR has been announced as the main feature for this next update"

So I would like to know where you got that from, and how you can justify such obviously blatant disinformation...?

I recognize that you don't even own the product, yet you are one of it's most vocal critics, which is your privilege I suppose, but such comments are not only incorrect and misleading, but they also don't serve our community very well from a constructive criticism perspective IMHO...

Just a thought here, but perhaps you ought to consider that before you go making categorical statements like the one above....

 

Did you not even LOOK at the first post here? 🧐

Did you not see the video made by QW in the first post of this very topic? 🧐

QW has not made any other video concerning this update. But to knock it out of the park, just look at the title QW put on the video, then in the description there is talk of "improvements" NOT FIXES. So if the Autoflight systems have been improved (they need to be fixed not improved) yet not mentioned specifically, my posts explore this problem. My part in this conversation is to highlight the feature list that is STILL incomplete and yet QW's tries to make PBR a big deal - fulfilled feature lists are what need to steal the show. 

Please understand that I do know what I'm talking about - I do not need to own the QW787 to know correct facts about the product. Several owners, even real pilots here, have confirmed the issues that need to be addressed. My role in this specific topic is to make sure PBR does not supersede the much more important features that have been claimed for years. 👨‍⚖️ 

If the QW 787 product provided what QW says it DOES (present tense-not future tense), then I would buy it. I know the QW history of promises (or feature lists) that are not kept as I outlined with the 757.

I do not wish harm on QW, I want them to succeed at keeping their promises (feature lists). 

Now please try again, show me where I'm incorrect or misleading. 🙂

I did look at the youtube video, as well as the description, the youtube video is titled "QualityWings 787 PBR update for Prepar3D v4"  but the description states very clearly...

"Amongst many other improvements, version 1.1.3 will introduce Physically Based Rendering (PBR) for the Exterior Models."

So I don't see any reasonable person concluding that "PBR has been announced as the main feature for this next update" from that video or description, as you seem to keep insisting....

You obviously feel otherwise, so I'm going to leave it that, and let reasonable people draw their own conclusions...

 

Guess this topic has run the gauntlet!  I don't think we need to whip the horse any longer.