Calm down

[tweekz]

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

flight modelling is a hyper complex, multi facetted math problem.

Throwing more people at a math problem doesn't solve it faster.

 

The collective effort of collaborating experts usually leads to greater success than if you let a single person work on a task.

It's about recruiting the right people and providing them with the infrastructure they need.

Microsoft has a lot of options in that regard.

[Rimshot]

42 minutes ago, mSparks said:

calm down. It is what it is.

As far as I know they do not have any further revisions to the fde on the roadmap. 

Its a game you can play on PC or the new xbox. Doesnt claim to be anything more (Asobo themselves have said they have no interest in FAA certification)

Ive never seen so much drama over a game before, wth are you lot so touchy?

I am very calm, thank you 😉

As far as you know, indeed. I guess that's as much as I do, but I have a positive view on MSFS. It's safe to say that is not the case with you, lol

Don't see the drama to be honest, unless it is your relentless degrading of everything published so far about the new sim.

[mSparks]

4 minutes ago, b737800 said:

NONE of us know what it will be like on release, or even when release is.

Its not magic. Asobo have been entirely transparent about what they want to achieve, what they have done and what the challenges are.

Expecting them to achieve more than that is not how the world works.

8 minutes ago, b737800 said:

many of your posts are worded and intended to cause controversy and/or confrontation.

presenting simple facts is not intended to cause confrontation, and other people refusing to believe them really is not my problem.

[azulkb]

And again why you stay around here because you are always down never up

[b737800]

58 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Its not magic. Asobo have been entirely transparent about what they want to achieve, what they have done and what the challenges are.

Expecting them to achieve more than that is not how the world works.

If you were to release an Alpha version of your next major update to AutoATC for XPlane at least 6 months before launch and then some muppet stated as a fact that it was as close as is ever likely to be a final product... wouldn't you think they were being at the very least disrespectful? As a fellow developer I'd expect more.

58 minutes ago, mSparks said:

and other people refusing to believe them really is not my problem.

Certainly not the main one.

[Paraffin]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

As far as I know they do not have any further revisions to the fde on the roadmap. 

Just because it isn't listed on the roadmap doesn't mean the flight model isn't in a state of continuing revision. It would be crazy to think they locked the flight model in amber at the time the sim was announced and the first promotional videos came out. 

If MS/ASOBO is intending this to be a "complete" flight sim, then there are things we haven't even seen yet, like aerobatic planes, military jets and helicopters with extended or unique flight modeling beyond what's been shown so far. 

The final quality of the flight modeling can be judged when the sim is released. Until then, it's just speculation based on something that isn't finished yet.

[mSparks]

5 hours ago, Paraffin said:

It would be crazy to think they locked the flight model in amber at the time the sim was announced

It would be crazy to think there is going to be any further revision of something that isnt on the road map, isnt a most requested item on the feedback, and has already been described as "realistic".

Of course some things will change between now and release - I would expect a fair number of requests from their 3rd party partners will be addressed.

But we are nearly 12 months since it was announced, starting the second alpha, and theoretically "months" away from release.

There isn't time for much to change between now and release, the focus is on eye candy, and its a game.

5 hours ago, b737800 said:

release an Alpha version of your next major update to AutoATC for XPlane at least 6 months before launch and then some muppet stated as a fact that it was as close as is ever likely to be a final product. wouldn't you think they were being at the very least disrespectful?

Im well into the 20 of the 80/20 rule. And there is a lot more than 6 months left before its finished. So not at all.

Quote

 

The 80/20 rule is often interpreted as a tradeoff between the level of effort and quality of the solution. 20% of the effort gets you to 80% of the solution; the other 80% of effort goes to polish up the remaining 20% for a more perfect solution.

[jpc55]

I don't know if it is just me, but the title of this thread is controversial to me.

[Doug47]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

There isn't time for much to change between now and release, the focus is on eye candy, and its a game.

 

You kind of do write some silly things at times. 

[mSparks]

42 minutes ago, Doug47 said:

You kind of do write some silly things at times. 

I've been testing lots of this kind of stuff for about 3 years now. Getting close to a release the last bugs take ages to fix and polish, they a hard (or they would have been fixed sooner) and they take a very long time to validate (e.g. instruments acting funny after 7 hours flight would probably take at least 6 weeks to fix)

Making a major change puts all related testing back to day one.

Progress is rapid when a test cycle takes an hour, lots of opportunity to make changes.

Closer to release, each test cycle is much longer, and there is no opportunity to make changes. 

Tech alpha testers will confirm it one way or another - regarding how much has changed between the Oct 24th release and the one dropping any day now. I would expect cleaner, less buggy, nothing notable in the way of major changes.

Waiting on a build with 

https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/877-virtual-reality-vr-for-microsoft-flight-simulator-2020/

support. Which is probably as dramatic as things get from here on in.

[FDEdev]

4 hours ago, Doug47 said:

You kind of do write some silly things at times. 

msparks does this quite often just to (most of the time successfully) provoke other members. E.g. by comparing the MSFS and the DCS stall video he demonstrates that he has very little understanding about aerodynamics and FDEs. 

 

[b737800]

7 hours ago, mSparks said:

It would be crazy to think there is going to be any further revision of something that isnt on the road map, isnt a most requested item on the feedback, and has already been described as "realistic".

I haven't seen a roadmap that is anywhere near detailed enough to make that call.

7 hours ago, mSparks said:

But we are nearly 12 months since it was announced, starting the second alpha, and theoretically "months" away from release.

It was announced on June 9th 2019. It's now very early February 2020. I hope the compare methods in your code are more accurate than that.

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

I've been testing lots of this kind of stuff for about 3 years now. Getting close to a release the last bugs take ages to fix and polish, they a hard (or they would have been fixed sooner) and they take a very long time to validate (e.g. instruments acting funny after 7 hours flight would probably take at least 6 weeks to fix)

Bugs are typically fixed in order of priority and importance, not on how hard they might be to fix- with maybe a quick win thrown in here and there if it's in the same code. A bug that was hard to find might not be hard to fix and vice versa. That's what the public alphas and betas are for. Much easier to find that needle in a haystack when there are a few thousand people looking for it and you'll find more of them purely because you've dramatically increased the diversity.

If it usually takes you 6 weeks to fix a bug that only raises its head after 7 hours then I'd urge you to get at least 1 other experienced developer to help you. I only know that it would take me at least a day or two. It might take 6 weeks, it might take longer, but if that was the norm then I'd have to accept that bug fixing wasn't my forte and I'd be better sticking to just writing them.

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

Making a major change puts all related testing back to day one.

Certainly some truth in that, but at least the test plans are likely already in place and much of it is probably automated.

Finally... we are talking about a new simulator that shares only a portion of its DNA with its predecessor. It hasn't been released yet and when it it, this will be the first release - lots of time and opportunity for it to get even better.

The vast majority of people using it will have not the first clue how close the flight model is to real life and exactly the same can be said for XPlane, P3D or any other.

Regardless, people have biases. People say things, possibly with good intentions, often not, because they feel threatened, or they have an allegiance with the another product or any number of other reasons. You have links with a product that has been out for years, has had many revisions and that you have written commercial software for. That product still has reality issues for which people have been asking for improvements to for years.

I've lost count of how many times you've stated as fact things that are nothing more than highly likely. If your code is written using a similar thought process then I fully understand where the 6 week bug fix timescale comes from.

All the best.

 

 

 

[himmelhorse]

The amazing thing (for me) is that anyone bothers to respond to mSparks at all, particularly, when a lot of his conversations/responses generate arguments like this. 

Hard to start a fight in a vacuum and if you are the only participant. Personally, I do not particularly enjoy reading this nonsense.

As the OP says (this is unrelated) "calm down"

regards

Tony

[mSparks]

21 minutes ago, b737800 said:

If it usually takes you 6 weeks to fix a bug that only raises its head after 7 hours

happens at 7 hours runtime means it might not happen for 770 hours.

fixing a bug requires reproducing it, but yes, having lots of testers for things like that is essential.

hence taking 6 weeks.

27 minutes ago, b737800 said:

. I only know that it would take me at least a day or two.

so you would sign off on a bug that reportedly takes 7 hours to happen when you couldn't recreate after 2 days.....

do hope you dont go anywhere near any backend dev.

37 minutes ago, b737800 said:

It was announced on June 9th 2019.

Been a fairly open secret since

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170418-00/?p=95985

went viral. I actually thought it was being announced XO20.

26 minutes ago, b737800 said:

The vast majority of people using it will have not the first clue how close the flight model is to real life and exactly the same can be said for XPlane, P3D or any other.

yes, which means putting dev time into changing it wont sell more copies, which means they wont put dev time on it. Their dev time is all eye candy, game. Other stuff later [assuming it sells well].

29 minutes ago, b737800 said:

lots of time and opportunity for it to get even better.

and to demonstrate this is how msft/xbox studios/asobo work, you would choose what as an example?

[b737800]

30 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

The amazing thing (for me) is that anyone bothers to respond to mSparks at all

You've got me there. You should see what I'm like when people owe me money 😉