This is probably not even worth posting, but is it possible that default aircraft could have bugs? {insert sarcasm here} I noticed that the Default Robinson R22 Helicopter has a "Strobe" switch which does not do anything. The aircraft does have a beacon, but no switch for it. The only way to activate the beacon is to use "L" keystroke that turns all the lights on. The MS designer probably misnamed the switch and forgot to put the right variable in. This is easily fixed by modifying either the XML code of the switch (that turns it into a beacon) or the aircraft.cfg file, which would set it to strobe.Sorry if this is old news :)

Oh, this is only "old news" to beta testers... All our pleas for fixing these blatant errors seeming fell into a black hole somewhere around Tau Ceti I think... it might have been Proxima Centauri... :-erks

There are tons of bugs like these. On a side note, nobody has so far understood why taxi lights were removed... But back to topic, e. g. also the 738 obviously has NAV lights but no switch for it - not to mention the LDG light switches always point into the opposite direction of what would be correct - what about that tri-state panel lights switch on the 'bus anyways...?! and so on etc etc etc... Go figure. :-erks *:-*

I don't know, in any version of MSFS there are always things about the default planes that aren't appealing, but perhaps the "bugs" are merely indicative of time constraints or deadlines placed on the developers. I think the FSX models are much improved over anything previously offered, the detailing is a big leap over that found in FS9, and although it could be improved on still, they do need to consider those people who have hardware that might not be up to the task of rendering it.The flight dynamics are also improved with FSX, it looks like someone spent hours instead of minutes on that task, and while there's room for further improvement still, I for one appreciate the ability to be able to use and enjoy a default aircraft without diving into the airfile right away. With some of the defaults, the only tweaking required is very minor indeed, you're almost talking nuances here, such as tweaking the Extra's airfile for knife-edge flight, where with previous versions you need to start from scratch.The great thing about MSFS is, that starting from the stock version fresh from the DVD

>it

>>The great thing about MSFS is, that starting from the stock>version fresh from the DVD

>>>>Doug - you're a tattletale! As far as I'm concerned, that's the core reason for Flight Simulator's very existence and longevity. Flight Simulator is just a big toybox that now includes some tools and building blocks. The grownups call it a "simulation" and "Software Development Kits"....<<<

>I don't know, in any version of MSFS there are always things>about the default planes that aren't appealing, but perhaps>the "bugs" are merely indicative of time constraints or>deadlines placed on the developers. >>I think the FSX models are much improved over anything>previously offered, the detailing is a big leap over that>found in FS9, and although it could be improved on still, they>do need to consider those people who have hardware that might>not be up to the task of rendering it.>>The flight dynamics are also improved with FSX, it looks like>someone spent hours instead of minutes on that task, and while>there's room for further improvement still, I for one>appreciate the ability to be able to use and enjoy a default>aircraft without diving into the airfile right away. Doug, I totally agree that the models, the textures and the flight dynamics are very much improved. They even managed to please "Captain Tarmac" (aka Mel Ott) on the 747 performance! Of course, Mel's comments could have blistered the ablation shield on the shuttle, so they had no choice in the matter.Unfortunately, the panel & gauges got short-sheeted this time due to some untimely departures from the dev team in mid-stream. On the upside though, since most of the affected gauges are XML, it won't be long before they are 'fixed' by someone who want's to take the time. ;)

>>>>Doug, I totally agree that the models, the textures and the flight dynamics are very much improved. They even managed to please "Captain Tarmac" (aka Mel Ott) on the 747 performance! Of course, Mel's comments could have blistered the ablation shield on the shuttle, so they had no choice in the matter.<<<

Just about a bugs life

>Third party developers work to different standards though. If>I bought a dedicated add-on for the Robinson I would expect to>see this fixed.Very nice summary of the 'bug killing process,' and quite like that used by ACES from my converstations with the devs themselves.There's also a particular class of 'bug' which is known as 'cascading,' because the single, high-priority 'bug' you just fixed has (often unknowingly) fixed quite a number of lower priority bugs......hence, one might spend an inordinate amount of time trying to "find" the proximate cause of one of those lower priority bugs, when in fact said lower priority bug no longer exists!!! ;)The opposite phenomena is one which I term 'sympathetic,' which occurs when one specific high priority bug fix results in one or more 'sympathetic' bugs to be introduced at some other level... Sometimes, bug squashing can become a never-ending merry-go-round... :-erks