1 hour ago, maniamcool said:

maybe less time explaining on streams and videos what they plan to do

more time on actually fixing and implementing patches that don't break more than they fix

I'm sure that several very critical bugfixes will not make it to the next patch because of the one hour that one developer had to spend talking to their customers.

the first HP reverb G2 VR glasses will be available at the beginning of November, so in my opinion the VR beta will start in November at the earliest, dont panix folks 😅

16 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

I have seen a couple posts from real pilots or people who are friends with real pilots saying the Navblue's products are not great, that small regional airlines tried to save $$$ by using it and it was missing a lot of data, and they they even queried the current Navblue data products for actual pilots and found they matched MSFS (same procedures/data missing as in the sim). 

I'm very nervous about Navblue as the partner here. 

As a workaround for charts - the new Beta version of LittleNavMap will load the MSFS scenery and nav library.  You have to make sure to turn off the default out of date Navigraph data that comes with LNM, but once you do that you can see all the procedures that are in MSFS. (Also you can zoom in on the map and see how MSFS has named the taxiways, where the parking spots are, etc).  This at least allows you to review what is the the MSFS nav database in a semi-chart-like format, if a bit unrealistic.  It does not help people who want to fly on VATSIM where ATC goes to assign a procedure and it's not in MSFS though.  That has to be fixed through better nav data in the sim.

I am one of those with real-world experience with NavBlue who has commented. Their r/w coverage of US airports is not as good as either Jeppesen or Lufthansa (LIDO), and their sim version reflects that. While I think it is a good thing that the NavBlue Charts+ service will indeed be coming to MSFS, (and apparently at no cost to end-users), I will continue using Jepp charts from the Navigraph charts app since I am already a subscriber.

I am using the Navigraph beta version of core sim nav data for MSFS and will continue doing so. It is fully up-to-date, and will be revised on the same day a new r/w AIRAC cycle starts, just like all the other Navigraph AIRAC products for FSX/P3D and XP. I have also updated my copy of LNM to use the latest Navigraph cycle, so it is fully compatible with the sim when also using Navigraph core data.

18 hours ago, snglecoil said:

What an absolutely GARBAGE update that was....total dumpster fire! I mean sure they spoke to almost every question and concerned brought up over the last few weeks. But not ONE SINGLE WORD about the "Honeycomb issue" 🤬 UNACCEPTABLE!!!!

 

....Whew that was a close one!, Sorry this thread was trending way too positive. Somebody had to bring it back to Earth. You can thank me later </s> 😉

I thought they DID address the Honeycomb issue...by announcing partnering with General Mills...!

Edited October 1, 20205 yr by Sesquashtoo

The bottom line here. They need start to step up to the plate to restore faith in the community by reducing the scope of the patches and introduce the hotfixes and make these productive and effective updates that do not break other things, because so far this is a total amateur hour from the standpoint of some fundamental managerial skills of the software development team/firm. Get it together and let's get this sim rocking. 

I'm pretty sure that ASOBO is using a form of the AGILE development methodology.  Agile doesn't require much if any documentation in order to get code out at a faster pace. 

I must assume that some formal documentation process is taking place in regards to the SDK and eventually will be made public.   But given that the SDK is still in flux the documentation will follow.

Regards

bs 

2 hours ago, bean_sprout said:

I'm pretty sure that ASOBO is using a form of the AGILE development methodology.  Agile doesn't require much if any documentation in order to get code out at a faster pace.

I think they need to really add a beta phase at the conclusion of their two-week sprints - somebody mentioned they intend to establish a community user group to test patches before they are fully released, if so that is exactly the right move. I'm surprised they weren't already doing this, but better late than never I suppose.  Early in development you can get away with just a "minimum viable product" approach, but once you are in a broad release you can't really keep doing that. Customers need to see a more polished product unless they "opt in" to a beta experience.

-----

I do welcome this level of communication we are seeing from these developers, and the apparent openness to listen to feedback and to learn from (and admit) mistakes.  But I must say I also scratch my head at some of the community commentary that pretends like this is some sort of freeware project and that the developers' feelings are going to be hurt by legitimate criticism.  This is a global commercial software franchise worth millions upon millions of dollars - if anyone can't handle the pressure of all that comes with that, they should find another line of work.  There is nothing wrong with customers expecting that features that were advertised and paid for work properly.  The toxicity in some corners is very unfortunate, but sadly that is the nature of the internet these days.

Edited October 1, 20205 yr by PurdueKev

1 hour ago, PurdueKev said:

I think they need to really add a beta phase at the conclusion of their two-week sprints -

I like that idea, but why not just do what Windows 10 does with its Insider program? You can either opt in and get  a range of new and exciting Win 10 builds or not. If you don't opt in, then you wait around until a new build is rolled out to everyone.

16 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I like that idea, but why not just do what Windows 10 does with its Insider program? You can either opt in and get  a range of new and exciting Win 10 builds or not. If you don't opt in, then you wait around until a new build is rolled out to everyone.

I think that would be a good way to do it, absolutely.

Not saying the idea is perfect since it splits the multiplayer user base, but it is certainly worth considering (in addition to improving the robustness of their regression testing methodology, which as someone else suggested they clearly need to work on).

17 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I like that idea, but why not just do what Windows 10 does with its Insider program? 

Good idea. That, or allow people to roll back to previous versions if they find the things they've broken more critical than the things they've fixed.

Just now, mrfilbert said:

Good idea. That, or allow people to roll back to previous versions if they find the things they've broken more critical than the things they've fixed.

The concept will be tough on 3rd party developers if they target a higher version, but with Windows 10, even Asobo targetted version 1903, which is pretty old as Windows releases go.

23 minutes ago, mrfilbert said:

Good idea. That, or allow people to roll back to previous versions if they find the things they've broken more critical than the things they've fixed.

That might cause even more problems. Opt-in would probably be a good solution. Once a stable version is established, the more adventurous among us could try out new builds.

Edited October 2, 20205 yr by airlinejets

On 10/1/2020 at 11:06 PM, JacquesBrel said:

I'm sure that several very critical bugfixes will not make it to the next patch because of the one hour that one developer had to spend talking to their customers.

Especially considering they are CEO/Team leader types.

It is not as if they can go "hey let us get the CEO and the Accountant and the art people and the coffee person to all work on the database code as the database guys are struggling this week" .

30 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The concept will be tough on 3rd party developers if they target a higher version...

 

Fair point, I hadn't thought of that. The trouble is, after each of the last two patches, I've just really wanted the old version back. You know, the one that worked better, whose foibles I understood, and that I was having fun with. I'm sure they're learning their lessons and will break fewer critical things with future patches, but it just doesn't seem right to have a version that does what we want taken away from us and replaced with one that doesn't, with no option but to fumble along with the latter.

Finally watched it.  I don't know I liked it they were pretty candid sounds like they are working first on the bugs right now which is fine.  I am curious why they feel the need to push out the patches so rapidly they hinted that was part of their issue.