Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest iholrf

Payware quality review

Recommended Posts

>In a nutshell: many of the standard systems FS uses (the radio>panel, the default autopilot, the yaw damper) are extremely>"dumbed down". But no developer is required to use them!Indeed, no one is require to use the default 'system' entirely. But then again, the final product ideally will allow for optimal usage by a wide variety of simpilots and systems.Each developer/programmer needs to establish clearly defined goals for the project, then craft the solution such that these goals are met.I've spent many weeks developing a 98% accurate set of RTU's that replicate the Collins Integrated Radio System using RM855 RTU controllers, and the CM850 CDCH (Clearance Delivery Control Head), and be compatible with the FMS being developed by Ed.Go to http://www.aerosim.com/how2use/h2u_demos.htm using IE for an on-line demo of the RM850 series RTU control head.It's an enormously complex system, yet I've managed (with some help!) to achieve the target goals:1) Operation must be 100% per POH.2) Operation must remain 'keyboard controllable' using default FS9 keyboard shortcuts.3) Operation must be Go Flight compatible insofar as possible.4) Must have controllable display dimming.5) Must have controllable keyboard backlighting.Ed commented to me yesterday as I worked on the ADF tuning to fix the last 'problem' that I'd used perhaps the "most painful method" for implementing the task of programming the two knob control of the ADF, but since I needed to keep goals #2 and #3 achievable, I had no real choice in the matter... ;)In a nutshell, the small inner knob controls the decimal tuning, with 1's digit rollover. The large outer knob controls the 10's digit, with 100's and 1000's rollover. I needed to accomplish this using only stock FS key_events in order to achieve the stated goals. It was painful, but the results are worth the effort involved! ;)Personally, I've very much in favor of having an "Independent Standards Review Board," but... who's going to define the "Standards?"FWIW, MS ACES themselves are considering the possibility of setting up some form of evaluation/recognition program themselves, but it's still in the nascent stages of discussion at this point. ;)


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest iholrf

>Nevertheless, why in this market do you think we need such an>"accreditation" entity? Why is it not needed for operating>systems, graphics/painting programs, music programs, etc... ?It is standard business in the IT world.MS has more than one such entity - WHQL for one. There is ISO level programming in many areas and many third party watchdog/analysts.With the production of FS addons seemingly becoming an increasingly viable business opportunity, the need for a standards based testing organization might become necessary.CheersShad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JeanLuc_

I get it, so in turn, there is no "validating" entity for paint programs (like who decides Paint Shop Pro is more "validated" than Photoshop), and Microsoft as the operating system vendor, is the sole offering validation programs to ensure third party vendor's products are "compliant" with the operating system.Looks like the only validating agency we need for FS addons then is Microsoft, considering this personal view of mine: Flight Simulator is an aeronautical operating systems like Microsoft Windows is an application operating system. Both permits running application designed to run with the operating system API.Incidently, it is normal to consider an addon price higher than the supporting operating system, pretty much like Photoshop costs up to 8 times more than Windows XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest iholrf

Maybe not for paint, but there are standards based organizations in almost every aspect of computing.As for pricing there is an old addage:Charge the most you can get away with.Until there is a credible replacement at a better price than PS we're stuck with Adobes extortion prices.Of course, Photoshop is one of the most heavily pirated software out there. One would think that Adobe would be smart enough to recognize that piracy and black markets are severly hampered by products that represent a good value. At $1000.00 CDN Photoshop can not be considered a good value. Its begging to be pirated.The bulk of the cost of your avarage computer is not the hardware, its the software that "nickle and dimes" you to death. The cost of software is actually very expensive and does not represent a good value, especially when you consider the speed at which it becomes obsolite.I do agree that idealy FSX should be considered a FS-OS. It would make addon production easier. By all apperances it is going somewhat that way already with ACES announcment of a 3rd part add-on support team.CheersShad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Nevertheless, why in this market do you think we need such>an>>"accreditation" entity? Why is it not needed for operating>>systems, graphics/painting programs, music programs, etc...>?>>It is standard business in the IT world.>>MS has more than one such entity - WHQL for one. There is ISO>level programming in many areas and many third party>watchdog/analysts.>>With the production of FS addons seemingly becoming an>increasingly viable business opportunity, the need for a>standards based testing organization might become necessary.>>Cheers>Shad >First, this isn't the IT world. Not by any stretch of the imagination. IT and simulation have little in common. WHQL isn't about IT, it's about ensuring that a hardware level piece of software isn't going to destroy your computer.Second, ISO has little to do with quality and lots to do with accountability. ISO tends to make a corporate monster rather difficult to 'turn' when the 'waters get rough' and a new 'course' is required to keep the 'passengers' comfortable.Having spent many years interacting with companies that utilize ISO templates to develop software, watching them go repeatedly over budget and watching them repeatedly release product that is 'behind' in design technology.... I can only say that ISO is quite possibly the singular largest farce in software since vaporware.As for standards, they are written by those who think they are the 'authority'. In a free-lance world such as FS addons... that will never exist correctly. Tell me, who is the 'authority' on FS addons? Who is the individual(s) that all others look up to and trust to be the end-all, be-all of what is 'as real as it gets'?This simply isn't possible, nor is it practical.


Ed Wilson

Mindstar Aviation
My Playland - I69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest iholrf

>First, this isn't the IT world. Not by any stretch of the>imagination. IT and simulation have little in common. WHQL>isn't about IT, it's about ensuring that a hardware level>piece of software isn't going to destroy your computer.errr.... thanks for stating the obvious. I think you missed the point but... whatever.Shad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>First, this isn't the IT world. Not by any stretch of the>>imagination. IT and simulation have little in common. WHQL>>isn't about IT, it's about ensuring that a hardware level>>piece of software isn't going to destroy your computer.>>>errr.... thanks for stating the obvious. I think you missed>the point but... whatever.>>Shad>Nope, didn't miss it at all. Unfortunately you didn't grasp that since IT and simulation have nothing in common, attempting to impose IT concepts isn't going to cut it.


Ed Wilson

Mindstar Aviation
My Playland - I69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest iholrf

>>>>>First, this isn't the IT world. Not by any stretch of the>>>imagination. IT and simulation have little in common. >WHQL>>>isn't about IT, it's about ensuring that a hardware level>>>piece of software isn't going to destroy your computer.>>>>>>errr.... thanks for stating the obvious. I think you missed>>the point but... whatever.>>>>Shad>>>>Nope, didn't miss it at all. Unfortunately you didn't grasp>that since IT and simulation have nothing in common,>attempting to impose IT concepts isn't going to cut it.Standards based testing procedures for QA is not exclusively an IT concept nor did it develop from IT... and nowhere did the OP suggest "imposing" anything - he wants to develop a service whose usage seems voluntary to me... but like I said... whatever.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RotorRick

?I thought Avsim Forum members WERE the "testing organisation"?:-xxrotflmao :-outta Sorry! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest N66FC Raptor

Hi, I'm curios!>Regarding my knowledge / experience:>Well, first of all - you are right! I haven't created a gauge>yet. What I did do was create a small FBW flight controller>that accessed FS from the outside via FSUIPC (which is a>really magnificent addon - thanks Pete!) and an EADI that>could be run on a second computer.Now, in the same sentence you're saying that you have?? .. or haven't?? .. made a gauge or add-on for the flight sim? If you have such a gauge or add-on as stated above .. would you kindly post the code or give a general 'step-by-step' proceedure on exactly how you created this gauge/add-on. After doing this, you may find that your own standards on 'as-real-as-it-gets' is not up to par. Of course you would have to consent to such scrutiny on these forums, but after all, isn't that what you're asking other designers to do?I, personally, am far from being a 'gauge designer', so I'm simply curios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest iholrf

>Hi, I'm curios!>>Regarding my knowledge / experience:>>Well, first of all - you are right! I haven't created a>gauge>>yet. What I did do was create a small FBW flight controller>>that accessed FS from the outside via FSUIPC (which is a>>really magnificent addon - thanks Pete!) and an EADI that>>could be run on a second computer.>>Now, in the same sentence you're saying that you have?? .. or>haven't?? .. made a gauge or add-on for the flight sim? If you>have such a gauge or add-on as stated above .. would you>kindly post the code or give a general 'step-by-step'>proceedure on exactly how you created this gauge/add-on. After>doing this, you may find that your own standards on>'as-real-as-it-gets' is not up to par. Of course you would>have to consent to such scrutiny on these forums, but after>all, isn't that what you're asking other designers to do?>I, personally, am far from being a 'gauge designer', so I'm>simply curios.>I am sorry, but what has being a gauge designer got to do with anything? I certainly would not trust a guage devloper to run a business. I can see no way in which skill at designing a gauge would translate to anything related to a businesses needs what so ever... So why would you want to know what gauge this fellow has made? Or is the fellow not allowed to have an idea if he does not meet some unstated criteria you all have?Man this is a petty place sometimes.Shad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Raptor,Perhaps I was unclear. I have created an addon for MSFS, but it is not a gauge. It's an external program connecting via FSUIPC. I won't post the code (and I never said I expected that from other developers) but I can give you a short "flow of logic".a) Get sim data via FSUIPC. This includes stuff like pitch, bank angle, pitch acceleration, bank acceleration, height above ground etc...:( Get joystick data (X/Y axis)c) Calculate output through a controller I wrote.d) Write flight control surface deflection to MSFS via FSUIPC.e) inhibit MSFS flight controllers from moving the control surfacesf) goto a) (don't worry, I didn't use goto in the code :-) )PS I never stated that this addon was realistic or replicated any existing FBW system! Its just similar (and I still think that statement applies).Regards,Mark


Mark Foti

Author of aviaworx - https://www.aviaworx.com

logo_avsim.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, your 'expertise' kinda went out the window when you referenced a few 'bugs' that were neither bugs nor something that should arbitrarily be changed the way you think they should.There's more to making an FS aicraft/panel than the simplistic statement of 'as real as it gets'. Unfortunately, based on your statements thus far in this thread... I truly don't believe you have either the knowledge or expertise to make the correct decision regarding whether an aircraft/panel is the best it can be or not.MSFS is a computer program. It is not written by any of us. Keeping that in mind, it's code and Microsoft provided API imposes restrictions and limitations. Those of us who develop addons have to go through a long process to determine what we can work around and what we should work around versus what we can't or shouldn't work around.Until you are intimately familiar with that process itself, you are certainly not in a position to judge the results of such a project.


Ed Wilson

Mindstar Aviation
My Playland - I69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>That's not a coding flaw, it's an FS design. FS has it>hardcoded that when the rollover is hit it increments the>integer part of the frequency.>>Sure, there are ways around the design limitation of FS... but>that's not a bug.Sure it's a bug! Just because it's a deficiency in Microsoft coding doesn't justify the escape clause "within the design limitations of MS2004". It can and should be corrected. "as real as it gets" is just hype and nothing more if you have to add "within the confines of the flight sim".Just as an aside Fly! II radios operate just the way the author is asking for so It can be done.The author of the thread has got it wrong.What is needed is better designers NOT better testers. The designers are great programmers but need assistance in the logic to be implemented. The point in question is NOT a programming bug. ie. it doesn't crash the program BUT it is a LOGIC bug in that it doesn't represent reality.Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>That's not a coding flaw, it's an FS design. FS has it>>hardcoded that when the rollover is hit it increments the>>integer part of the frequency.>>>>Sure, there are ways around the design limitation of FS...>but>>that's not a bug.>>>Sure it's a bug! Just because it's a deficiency in Microsoft>coding doesn't justify the escape clause "within the design>limitations of MS2004". It can and should be corrected. "as>real as it gets" is just hype and nothing more if you have to>add "within the confines of the flight sim".No, it's not a bug. It's a design choice by MS. A bug is an unintended behavior/result. Never, ever confuse the two. As for whether it can be, yes. Should be is another issue entirely. Correcting it means that any who utilizes GoFlight radio panels won't be able to tune their radios. Now... since GoFlight radio panels are 'as real as it gets'... should we intentionally code to make them impossible to use? I think not.>>Just as an aside Fly! II radios operate just the way the>author is asking for so It can be done.Marvy... head on over to the Fly! II forums to discuss it. This isn't the correct forum. ;)>>The author of the thread has got it wrong.>What is needed is better designers NOT better testers. The>designers are great programmers but need assistance in the>logic to be implemented. The point in question is NOT a>programming bug. ie. it doesn't crash the program BUT it is a>LOGIC bug in that it doesn't represent reality.>>Roger >>I'll correct you yet again. A bug is a unintended behavior/result. It is NOT what you think it is. The rollover in FS is indeed intended and thus is not a bug. With over 25yrs in the software industry at this point... I'm pretty certain I have a handle on what is and isn't a bug.While you might not like that the rollover happens, the fact is... it was a decision by MS... not the developers. If we code around it, we then take flak for making such things as GoFlight radio panels no longer function.Thanks for supporting us. ;)


Ed Wilson

Mindstar Aviation
My Playland - I69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...