41 minutes ago, abennett said:

IFR are a set of regulations governing aircraft operations used when meteorological conditions mean that flying by visual references would be unsafe, it has nothing to do with a setting in a computer simulator that controls the distance at which detailed terrain is rendered. TLOD does.

Perhaps as the meteorologist here I totally disgree.  If the terrain is rendered through falling snow or fog .......  Just sayin'...... 🌨️

33 minutes ago, flytriman said:

Fully agree on the dot points.  One suggestion…don’t give a “noob” a choice.  Just say to start the app before loading a flight (leave out the “preferably”).

Garry

Done. I also changed the term noob as I am sure someone will get insulted to "I am new to this app/MSFS". See, I do have feelings 😄

Edited March 15, 20242 yr by Reset XPDR

2 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Perhaps as the meteorologist here I totally disgree.  If the terrain is rendered through falling snow or fog .......  Just sayin'...... 🌨️

No matter who is rightest or wrongest, I have decided to stick with IFR and VFR terminology, with tooltips to clarify what that mean in terms of the tool and, if the user STILL doesn't understand, a detailed description in the usage section of the readme.

As such, any further discussion of this particular apsect of the app is purely for self-entertainment purposes only. 😁

2 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

As such, any further discussion of this particular apsect of the app is purely for self-entertainment purposes only. 😁

In the spirit of that: thank you for not further clouding the issue.....  🔆

Edited March 15, 20242 yr by fppilot

58 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

Here's what it currently looks like:

Looks good to me, just enough information to get going. Can't see how this can be misunderstood. 

It's starting to make more sense to me that using the terms VFR and IFR will be familiar to most simmers - especially when you specify GA and airliners. Of course it might not be, how to put it, semantically 100% correct, but I honestly don't think most people will mind. 

In my profession I spend a lot of time trying to explain relatively complex phenomena in a way that most people will understand. I also spend probably as much time writing very wordy and long-winded reports. It's a tricky balance sometimes. Besides this, I'm a fervent believer in the KISS principle 🙂 

55 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

See, I do have feelings 😄

Haha I've never thought otherwise! And your social skills seem leaps and bounds beyond many of the people I work with! And if all else fails - humour is always a good fallback strategy. Especially if it somehow involves a subtle reference to SW 🙂

48 minutes ago, fppilot said:

In the spirit of that: thank you for not further clouding the issue.....  🔆

I see what you did there! 😅

...

Completely unrelated: 3 hrs until YT has finished processing my 10 min video 🤪

Edited March 15, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

I'm trying to figure out how to work the word hail into the conversation...

Oh dear

I have updated the AutoFPS readme in preparation for the imminent release of 0.4.2, the link for which is here. I have pretty much finished it, but could I ask anyone who has been part of the 0.4.2 test journey to run a quick eye over it and tell me if I have missed anything or if any of the information is outdated or if I need to reword something that is confusing or too wordy. In doing so, please note that I have intentionally structured the document to go from TLDR to mega detail, so please factor that in to your review. Thanks.

3 hours ago, abennett said:

As I previously mentioned, I work with documents and thus have an eye for detail, so I would be more than willing to have a look through any such user guide/manual, and make sure it all checks out, should that be helpful.

 

 

NOTE:  The below is intended to be a respectful response, as was stated in the quoted post above.

And as I previously mentioned, I have 2 teaching degrees.  One of them is in Instructional Systems Development (Google it if you don't know what it entails).  Basically, I WRITE  instruction manuals, entire lesson plans for courses of instruction (which is another way of saying "How to teach someone using methods and terminology that will not confuse the student", and do Quality Control reviews of said products produced by others.  Granted, I'm not a lawyer (but I have interacted with many of them during my 7 years as a First Sergeant in the Air Force), but I'm also not in a courtroom trying to nit-pick the instructions on the side of a medicine bottle because my client didn't follow them correctly and now I want to sue the manufacturer for almost killing my client.

In any case, somebody could ALWAYS say what @Reset says in the app will STILL leave some people in a confused state.  For instance, if he did use his ideas of "VFR (GA aircraft)" and "IFR (airliners)", I'd guarantee you there would be some users who would end up asking, "Wait.  I'm flying my GA Citation jet on an IFR flight at FL410 in weather with no clouds!  I'll be a GA aircraft conducting an IFR flight in VFR weather conditions though!  What setting should I use then?"

The bottom line is that in order for anybody to use the app, they have to be able to "figure out" HOW to use it.  They have to be TAUGHT how to use it the way the developer of it INTENDED for it to be used.  And in order to do that (especially in a case like this where there can NEVER be enough room on the GUI itself for a detailed explanation of the GUI buttons themselves), there needs to be a "reference pointer" for what the GUI button's name is actually saying.  That's what the pop-up box should do...say something like "See item ## in the User's Manual).  In the case of THIS app the pop-up shouldn't try to explain anything about what the button will CAUSE to happen if chosen.  There simply isn't enough room there in this app's case to do that. 

We can agree to disagree.  But this isn't a court case.  Nobody is going to try to sue anybody else if someone chooses the "wrong button" here.  And if the "product" does contain a User's Manual that does explain the purpose of the buttons, it's up to the user to READ that included documentation.  There's nothing a developer can do if the user refuses or is too lazy to "RTFM".

@Reset:  The "dot-list" is a good choice (the real name for them is Bullet Statements).  It's less intimidating to someone than encountering a large multi-sentence paragraph with multiple "explanations" in different sentences.

Having said that, whatever you choose there will STILL be some people who will get confused by it.  It's the nature of the beast when "teaching", so there will always be some users who will still ask questions.  When that happens is when you have to try explaining it in a different way than you explained it to the person or people who did understand it the first time.  Press on.  You have created an outstanding app that I'm sure the flight sim community will also see the benefits of (probably 😉) in the next version of MSFS.  Asobo isn't stupid (although I do have to chuckle when they included the ability in the X-Box version, but then said, "Well, we never thought of doing it in the PC version."  🤪  

   

Edited March 15, 20242 yr by FalconAF

1 The App is working great

2 The Readme is clear

3 People seem to have little to do and start discussing the terminology IFR vs VFR 

🤠

 

13 minutes ago, GSalden said:

3 People seem to have little to do and start discussing the terminology IFR vs VFR

I actually have been thinking that if this is what we are down to haggling about, the app must be nearly ready. 😄

Thanks for reviewing the readme and all your contributions during the test phase. 👍

10 minutes ago, GSalden said:

1 The App is working great

2 The Readme is clear

3 People seem to have little to do and start discussing the terminology IFR vs VFR 

🤠

 

C'mon, G.  Your first 2 items above are great feedback.  The third one implies that anybody "reviewing and submitting" inputs about software documentation are just nit-pickers.  We are "beta testers" just as much as somebody who tests and submits inputs about how the actual software "runs".  I'm testing the documentation and submitting suggestions on how to improve it and make the overall product experience for the end user easier.  It's no different and no less important than what anybody else has contributed about the app.

3 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

I actually have been thinking that if this is what we are down to haggling about, the app must be nearly ready. 😄

Thanks for reviewing the readme and all your contributions during the test phase. 👍

You're welcome.  I wouldn't be doing it unless I thought the app was worth it to begin with.

Edited March 15, 20242 yr by FalconAF

Just now, FalconAF said:

C'mon, G.  Your first 2 items above are great feedback.  The third one implies that anybody "reviewing and submitting" inputs about software documentation are just nit-pickers.  We are "beta testers" just as much as somebody who tests and submits inputs about how the actual software "runs".  I'm testing the documentation and submitting suggestions on how to improve it and make the overall product experience for the end user easier.  It's no different and no less important than what anybody else has contributed about the app.

LOL  It was meant cynical.

Just a few pages ago it was said that this thread went very well with good contributions and no “fighting” about things.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

I actually have been thinking that if this is what we are down to haggling about, the app must be nearly ready. 😄

Thanks for reviewing the readme and all your contributions during the test phase. 👍

Thank you for your great work !