I don't have a problem with individuals who are upset or have valid issues with the product.  I too am frustrated with patches that break things.

Where it gets ridiculous, is when people start attacking the integrity, and professionalism of the development team, with absolutely no frame of reference or experience in the area.

People who have absolutely NO experience in software development who claim that it's "not that hard" to be able to isolate bugs or develop software.  

It would be like me, armed only with what I learn flying MSFS, trying to question the integrity and ability of my pilot on my flight.  It's ludicrous.

I've been in software development for over 20 years.  The software I've worked with has nowhere near the scope of what is trying to be accomplished here.  I know how hard it is.  The amount of tests that can be generated on just a single interface screen is mind boggling.  Yet we have people who seem to think that because they code for a very specific application, or do web development, or author firmware, that somehow it makes them experts in the field and that they have any idea the complexities of coding and deploying a product with the width and scope of what Flight Simulator is trying to achieve.

This is made even more difficult, as others have pointed out, when you are trying to incorporate an older code base and don't have the benefit of the insight from the previous coders.  I have tried to navigate spaghetti code.  It's very frustrating to try and determine what the previous coder was trying to do.   Especially when your understand that many a lot of "code" are band-aids and work arounds to earlier design problems.   So you are stacking bad code, on more bad code, etc. etc.  

I seriously don't have a problem when people have issues, but I really do start to get my hair up on end, when people, from a position of complete and utter ignorance begin to demean and insult others who are working hard hours to try and bring to them a product, that quite frankly, is revolutionary in it's scope and complexity.  What's even more frustrating, is usually those who are the most insulting, often won't write a decent bug report if their lives depended on it.  "Not my job" is the common response.

So we see a bunch of armchair coders, convinced that software development of this scale is "not that hard", complain of issues they are having, and won't even take the time to write a basic bug report with steps to reproduce.

At least those who take the time to video document their issues and submit the bug reports are doing something.   Even if they think those bug reports fall on deaf ears.

It's been made clear that MS/Asobo employees do monitor these forums.  And I imagine, that's why so many unsatisfied people feel the need to vent and express their outrage here, hoping someone from that company will listen.

But I ask you, how willing would YOU be to assist someone who just spent the last 5 paragraphs accusing you and your company of being incompetent, lazy, criminal, arrogant, not caring, etc?  

And even when your CEO goes out and lends a hand to a team of freeware developers to help mitigate the issue at hand, and someone offers a simple post of thanks, these same malcontents, have to jump in and start off by "yeah but....."

Frankly it's shameful.  And if Kaosfere's post hit a nerve, then think for a second who's nerve you hit when you direct the same level of vitriol to the staff of Asobo and Microsoft, because you feel, as a licensee of a piece of software, you have the right to insult and demonize the people who developed it. 

 

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by wthomas33065

19 hours ago, JimBrown said:

I had a quick look at the GitHub pull request for the fix. From what I can see, this is the change that fixed the issue:

In "A32NX/SimObjects/AirPlanes/Asobo_A320_NEO/ai.cfg",

From: headingPID = 2.0, 0.01, 2.0, 0.4, 3.0

To:      headingPID = 2.0, 0.5, 2.0, 0.025, 1.0

Note that this is for the A320 only. Other planes will no doubt require different values.

...jim

I can confirm that this change does stabilize the default A320 quit a bit as well.  I was able to actually fly from KMCO to FLL and capture the localizer in for a nice landing at Runway 28R at KFLL.  You have to find the ai.cfg for the default aircraft and make the changes.  I suggest you always backup the existing one before modifying the values.  

The fix does nothing to increase the apparent sluggish climbout from about FL200 through FL300.  I do not know if that is by design or not.  The original climbout seemed to be a bit steep.  But in my short flight from KMCO to KFLL I was unable to get past FL240 before being told to descend.  Just an observation. 

4 hours ago, sanh said:

Go over to steam charts and type x-plane 11 and look at the downward trend on x-plane usage this year.

Sure 😂😂🤣

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/1250410,269950#1y

 

1 hour ago, wthomas33065 said:

I don't have a problem with individuals who are upset or have valid issues with the product.  I too am frustrated with patches that break things.

Where it gets ridiculous, is when people start attacking the integrity, and professionalism of the development team, with absolutely no frame of reference or experience in the area.

People who have absolutely NO experience in software development who claim that it's "not that hard" to be able to isolate bugs or develop software.  

It would be like me, armed only with what I learn flying MSFS, trying to question the integrity and ability of my pilot on my flight.  It's ludicrous.

I've been in software development for over 20 years.  The software I've worked with has nowhere near the scope of what is trying to be accomplished here.  I know how hard it is.  The amount of tests that can be generated on just a single interface screen is mind boggling.  Yet we have people who seem to think that because they code for a very specific application, or do web development, or author firmware, that somehow it makes them experts in the field and that they have any idea the complexities of coding and deploying a product with the width and scope of what Flight Simulator is trying to achieve.

This is made even more difficult, as others have pointed out, when you are trying to incorporate an older code base and don't have the benefit of the insight from the previous coders.  I have tried to navigate spaghetti code.  It's very frustrating to try and determine what the previous coder was trying to do.   Especially when your understand that many a lot of "code" are band-aids and work arounds to earlier design problems.   So you are stacking bad code, on more bad code, etc. etc.  

I seriously don't have a problem when people have issues, but I really do start to get my hair up on end, when people, from a position of complete and utter ignorance begin to demean and insult others who are working hard hours to try and bring to them a product, that quite frankly, is revolutionary in it's scope and complexity.  What's even more frustrating, is usually those who are the most insulting, often won't write a decent bug report if their lives depended on it.  "Not my job" is the common response.

So we see a bunch of armchair coders, convinced that software development of this scale is "not that hard", complain of issues they are having, and won't even take the time to write a basic bug report with steps to reproduce.

At least those who take the time to video document their issues and submit the bug reports are doing something.   Even if they think those bug reports fall on deaf ears.

It's been made clear that MS/Asobo employees do monitor these forums.  And I imagine, that's why so many unsatisfied people feel the need to vent and express their outrage here, hoping someone from that company will listen.

But I ask you, how willing would YOU be to assist someone who just spent the last 5 paragraphs accusing you and your company of being incompetent, lazy, criminal, arrogant, not caring, etc?  

And even when your CEO goes out and lends a hand to a team of freeware developers to help mitigate the issue at hand, and someone offers a simple post of thanks, these same malcontents, have to jump in and start off by "yeah but....."

Frankly it's shameful.  And if Kaosfere's post hit a nerve, then think for a second who's nerve you hit when you direct the same level of vitriol to the staff of Asobo and Microsoft, because you feel, as a licensee of a piece of software, you have the right to insult and demonize the people who developed it. 

 

This whole post could be summed up in a few sentences— only those with extensive coding experience can comment, we should tip toe around without dare insulting ASOBO because they might just give up and ASOBO works so hard to fix things they screwed up.

If that’s your stance than I see someone who is afraid to confront the truth because you are worried this game might be abandoned and left this way.  To me, that speaks of exactly how bad the current state of the game is and kind of makes the point that if ASOBO produced better work the game would not be in this state which is entirely the point many are trying to make.

10 minutes ago, Janov said:

Sure 😂😂🤣

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/1250410,269950#1y

 

I believe that is what they refer to as "calling someone's bluff"

Well-played.

 

5 hours ago, jspilot said:

Not worth my time to engage with this.

 And yet, you did.

 

4 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

I'm not sure why I've even engaged.

And yet, you did.
 

4 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

You think that turbulence is something to do with the pilots.

And you (both) engaged without even understanding my point -- I know word not allowed well that pilots sometimes can't avoid turbulence.   My whole point was that it would be irrational and unreasonable to berate a pilot for encountering turbulence on a flight, even repeated turbulence, unless you know the specific situation and whether or not they did something irresponsible that lead to the situation.

Similarly, my perception is that the people who seem to get most upset and impatient with the errors from Asobo, to a very large extent, usually aren't developers.  And even when developers are critical, they are generally capable of acknowledging the nuances of the situation and doing it reasonably and respectfully, as with @SceneryFX above.

Because the simple fact is that Asobo are a fairly small team who took on a massive and hugely demanding project after only having made "normal" games before.  Even backed by Microsoft the level of effort of what they've had to do is enormous.   Have there been errors and mistakes along the way?   Yes, definitely.  They are not blameless, and I'm not trying to vindicate them.

But what you have here, to a large extent, can be generalized as a mob of people with torches and pitchforks, with the folks who have expertise in the field saying, "Hey, calm down.   They could have done better, but your reaction is over the top."  

I'm sure you'll find a professional dev or two who has worked on a massive project in the "burn them!" mob, but on the whole that's the lay of the land.   And maybe people should listen to the folks with knowledge in the field who say "don't burn down the village yet" and ignore those who are acting the same as someone who'd insult a pilot for hitting turbulence.

But hey, as they say, haters gonna hate.

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by kaosfere

17 minutes ago, Janov said:

Sure 😂😂🤣

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/1250410,269950#1y

 

Interesting  metric. . Even in decline MSFS has more players over last 30 days 4749.8. while XP11 1380.3. I think one of the reason MSFS  lack of quality 3rd party add ons which XP11 have plenty. Yet  while XP11 is pretty stable it also stagnant. I'd say both sim in wrong weight category at the moment. After a year or so  I think it would be more obvious what MSFS trends to become. It's all about learning curve of Asobo right now.

31 minutes ago, jspilot said:

This whole post could be summed up in a few sentences— only those with extensive coding experience can comment, we should tip toe around without dare insulting ASOBO because they might just give up and ASOBO works so hard to fix things they screwed up.

Well considering that you came to the entire wrong conclusion of my comments, I must either deduce that your reading comprehension is in need of improvement, or that you are intentionally misquoting individuals.  And if that is the case, then I'll simply file you away as I do other trolls.   Have a nice day.

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by wthomas33065

The initial high figures for MSFS were installation times. Some users took a day to get the beast installed during which time they were counted as "using" MSFS. That's (mostly) over now.

Kind regards, Michael

33 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I believe that is what they refer to as "calling someone's bluff"

Well-played.

 

Well played?   X Plane is currently at it's lowest participation in an entire year?  You would think that the steep decline in MSFS participation would spike the participation in other similar products.  So all those people who are saying "I'm going back to XPlane", aren't, actually.

Xplane has less than half the concurrent users that it had at it's highest point this year and it still was still less than the lowest number of MSFS users.  So I really don't see what bluff was called or how well played it was, when you are countering a Full House with a pair of Jacks.

1 hour ago, wthomas33065 said:

Well played?   X Plane is currently at it's lowest participation in an entire year?  You would think that the steep decline in MSFS participation would spike the participation in other similar products.  So all those people who are saying "I'm going back to XPlane", aren't, actually.

Xplane has less than half the concurrent users that it had at it's highest point this year and it still was still less than the lowest number of MSFS users.  So I really don't see what bluff was called or how well played it was, when you are countering a Full House with a pair of Jacks.

Yes indeedee...the last datapoint is incomplete--drawing a conclusion based on that (or any other single data point) is a rookie analyst boo-boo.  The main story is the trend line.  X-Plane has a fairly stable trend, MSFS had its day in the sun, then plummeted off a cliff--and that trend line is the kind of stuff that gives corporate execs nightmares.

1 hour ago, pmb said:

The initial high figures for MSFS were installation times. Some users took a day to get the beast installed during which time they were counted as "using" MSFS. That's (mostly) over now.

Well, no, every new user still has to download over 100GB of data, counted as usage, and all the users still have to download gigs of update data each week, which is also counted as usage, where X-Plane usage figures are for, well, you know, actual usage. So that time spent downloading the latest update not only breaks your game, it gets counted towards usage figures used to champion the game's popularity.  That's sorta like counting all the time spent waiting on cars in the repair shop needing warranty work in a car dealer's customer traffic stats.  200 customers spent 400 hours in the dealership (cursing the entire time while they fixed their defective cars).  But hey, our customer traffic stats are really looking up!!  Bonuses for the managers!!

Anyway, back (waaaaaaaay back) to where there was an actual post even peripherally related to the actual forum topic here...I find it difficult to hand out kudos for resolution of issues when the basic product that was advertised--HEAVILY advertised--has still not been delivered.  Anyone here remember those neat graphics of wind flows over terrain and how they were modelled in the sim?  Anyone want to show me that capability in what was actually delivered?  1000-point flight dynamics for super-accurate modelling of aircraft performance?  Nope, not even close.

They're trying...I get that.  But they're working themselves out of a hole of their own creation.  There are no rewards for heroism for putting out a fire that you yourself started.

 

1 minute ago, w6kd said:

X-Plane has a fairly stable trend, MSFS had its day in the sun, then plummeted off a cliff--and that trend line is the kind of stuff that gives corporate execs nightmares.

Only compared to the steep curves of MSFS.  I call a swing +/-50% in their concurrent users over a year hardly stable.

Excellent post Bob!!!

1 hour ago, Janov said:

Sure 😂😂🤣

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/1250410,269950#1y

 

 

 

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

I believe that is what they refer to as "calling someone's bluff"

Well-played.

 

 

Please re-read my post about x-plane usage and then tell me how this is calling my bluff? Was my comment about x-plane wrong? It certainly wasn't.

As for the msfs comparison - no game is going to maintain its opening day numbers several months after release. Some people will move on to the next big thing like they always do.

I am going to end with @wthomas33065 reply which totally "owned" the argument. Mic drop.

51 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

Well played?   X Plane is currently at it's lowest participation in an entire year?  You would think that the steep decline in MSFS participation would spike the participation in other similar products.  So all those people who are saying "I'm going back to XPlane", aren't, actually.

Xplane has less than half the concurrent users that it had at it's highest point this year and it still was still less than the lowest number of MSFS users.  So I really don't see what bluff was called or how well played it was, when you are countering a Full House with a pair of Jacks.

 

1 minute ago, wthomas33065 said:

Only compared to the steep curves of MSFS.  I call a swing +/-50% in their concurrent users over a year hardly stable.

You have to remember that there are events in the life of X-Plane that drive ebbs and flows in user interest--release of 11.50, the betas and such.  Then there's seasonality, and the unknown effects of COVID over that year.  But the trend is stable...and much more so than what we've seen with SimZilla so far.