|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Mar 8, 2015 15:33:27 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of what you say. What my problem is with some developers is that a switch that is marked LIGHTS should operate the lights. They should work from the start. If it has an ADF, it should work. If it has a radio, it should work. If it has an altimeter, it should work. If the object went to beta testers and it is released with simplistic things wrong, the testers should NEVER be allowed to test another item again. Never. ALL developers are guilty to a point. It is the attitude of the developer and the speed of repair that will help, but still, basic stuff should NEVER be wrong out of the box. I also must add that some developers are told to fix defective items and they refuse to. That has happened to some on this forum, including myself.
BP;)
|
|
|
|
Post by olderndirt on Mar 8, 2015 17:46:01 GMT -5
Well, those of you who havent tried the AC can download a demo to test. I still like it a lot and I have no problems with what you call bugs. they will be fixed and dont blame a devellopper for making a rudder that works like the real world AC. Blame them if they didnt do so. (you can make the AC a lot easyer using Bill Lyons Air and aircraft files for the same bird) Some of you guys talk a lot about "perfect". Being ORBX, being AC or whatever. This world is so far from being perfect, so how can you expect a 20,-$ piece of toy for older men to be perfect.     I bought flysimware´s C402 6 month after its release. It was then version 1.5!!! The ASI is in knots but showed MPH! I kindly wrote the develloper and they said, gosh, why didnt we se this one before and made a new patch. Cool enough for me. Its one of the best AC addons that I have bought in a long time. I dont care if its not perfect looking (there´s something with the wing to body angle) doesnt look like a polished Carenado AC etc. Its a great medium/small twin and I use it a lot. I prefer it over my Milviz Baron. The easyest thing in the world is to write negative things on internet forums and even easyer if you havent tried what you comment on. AH is not the number 1 AC develloper, but IMHO, they are not so bad as some of you guys think. I prefer to support a develloper that is brave enough to devellop something different and not just Highwing Cessna and lowwing Piper GA, Boeing and Airbus (zzzzz) and that has a kind and understanding support. Its, of course, important that I like the product, which I do. All that said, I agree that AH should consider their beta testing, should have finished the product some more, more than anything in order to avoid threads like this one, which is not good for business. After some fiddling around, I've made a nice flying little plane - mainly 'cause I've always liked the design. All I've done is what real life owners did - made a hawk from a sparrow. Finally with the rudder - go into [airplane geometry] change rudder area to 7 and rudder limit to 30. Now I can do a forward slip with 2000 fpm down - makes those VASI/PAPI lights change color fast and it steers on the runway power off. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 19:00:31 GMT -5
Bushpounder, when you talk about bugs on this AC, how many bugs have you found yourself? My lights switch work and my rudder works. Its not the best in the world but it never was in reality as far as I have understood. The adf works if you change a 0 to a 1 in the Aircraft.cfg. The glideslope gauge doesnt work and will be fixed in a patch. I agree the adf and the glideslope gauge should have been fixed before release. Those are stupid little errors that makes people whine on forums. besides that, I havent found any bugs. Its not the easyest AC to fly, but not that difficult either. It has a reputation for being difficult to land especially in a crosswind, this addon is like that and I like it for being like that. Its not a bushplane, but its fun to fly in other types of landscape, where bushplanes can be a bit boring. Its a sunday afternoon posh, shiny picnicplane with honey-bunny and doggy. Dont land it to slow or the roll of becomes quirky. The asi is in mph, so touching ground at 65 -70 is slow enough. slower than that, and it wobbles and becomes difficult to control. I worked an hour and a half with Bill lyons FDE for the 125hp model. I got it to fly pretty well and when I was happy with that, I took a flight with the Aeroplane Heaven FDE that I have tweaked a tiny bit and I clearly prefered that, so thats why i say its not so bad. Olderndirt, I will check your tweaks tomorrow. sounds fun and maybe a bit unrealistic.  |
|
|
|
Post by olderndirt on Mar 8, 2015 19:45:24 GMT -5
fun and maybe a bit unrealistic. Perfect description of FSX. |
|
|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Mar 8, 2015 21:37:22 GMT -5
Bushpounder, when you talk about bugs on this AC, how many bugs have you found yourself? My lights switch work and my rudder works. Its not the best in the world but it never was in reality as far as I have understood. The adf works if you change a 0 to a 1 in the Aircraft.cfg. The glideslope gauge doesnt work and will be fixed in a patch. I agree the adf and the glideslope gauge should have been fixed before release. Those are stupid little errors that makes people whine on forums. besides that, I havent found any bugs. Its not the easyest AC to fly, but not that difficult either. It has a reputation for being difficult to land especially in a crosswind, this addon is like that and I like it for being like that. Its not a bushplane, but its fun to fly in other types of landscape, where bushplanes can be a bit boring. Its a sunday afternoon posh, shiny picnicplane with honey-bunny and doggy. Dont land it to slow or the roll of becomes quirky. The asi is in mph, so touching ground at 65 -70 is slow enough. slower than that, and it wobbles and becomes difficult to control. I worked an hour and a half with Bill lyons FDE for the 125hp model. I got it to fly pretty well and when I was happy with that, I took a flight with the Aeroplane Heaven FDE that I have tweaked a tiny bit and I clearly prefered that, so thats why i say its not so bad. Olderndirt, I will check your tweaks tomorrow. sounds fun and maybe a bit unrealistic. No, I don't have this plane. I am talking in general terms mostly. I read what was here and on other forums about the Swift - ADF didn't work, G/S inop, and a few other things. Again, I was speaking in general terms. My point is clearly made on ANY Carenado aircraft. Again, you are OK with a patch. I am tired of seeing patches for basic things. I remember the real one we had in our hangar 35 years ago. It was 200hp and was a rocket. Fun to watch. Too long ago for me to remember anything other than color now.LOL!
BP;)
|
|
|
|
Post by pivo11 on Mar 9, 2015 2:37:17 GMT -5
fun and maybe a bit unrealistic. Perfect description of FSX. Ain't it the trut'!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 7:08:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I see that line a lot. Mostly from people who (for reasons unknown to me) seem to take it as a personal attack on themselves if someone doesn't like something they, themselves have purchased. Not sure why that should be, but there you go.
I think what you are saying then, is that unless you've put your own hand on a hot burner on a stove, you shouldn't jump to conclusions? Maybe it's actually painted red and it's not just giving off massive amounts of infrared and sensible heat? I subscribed to Flying magazine back in the day, and one of the articles in there was "I Learned About Flying From That". The premise was that it's best to learn from others' mistakes because you won't live long enough to make all of them yourself. I found that to be good advice, and I learned a lot from reading that column and from talking with other pilots. Especially in the bush, where things aren't necessarily laid out in written protocol (at least it wasn't back then), yakking amongst pilots was the primary form of communication, and an extremely valuable one. When one pilot told me that using car gas in an airplane was inviting disaster (and I subsequently heard, then read that from several other sources over that, and the following season) because it tended to cause engine failures - usually right after takeoff. I decided not to try that on for myself. Who knows if I'd still be here if I hadn't listened to others but tried it for myself (back then the causes of the failures were unknown because the practice had gone unreported for some time). The mistakes I made I passed on to others, and at least one pilot told me that I may have saved his butt once because he followed my advice (and this thing that he did was a break from normal departure for him). He didn't make the same mistake I did (after that day) and as a result never lost an engine for the reasons I did.
The thing is, we read forums to see what others are saying about a product. If the reviews are consistent and bad enough, we can then decide whether to buy it ourselves or not. It's called "informed purchasing" and seems to me, anyway, to be a rather good idea. In terms of flight simulator, I had an Eaglesoft aircraft at one time that I really liked. It, however, would give me a CTD when I used a certain set of keystrokes in the FMC. THAT, was a very obscure bug, and I don't know if it ever got fixed or not. That is a long, long way from having an ADF that doesn't work, or a GS receiver that doesn't work. It was several weeks before I found the bug in the FMC, but I can promise you, I'd notice on my first or second flight if my ADF wasn't working. Same with a turn coordinator or an ASI incorrectly reading. My point is, if obvious bugs are making it through, then where is the beta testing? The idea of a beta test is to find bugs, and you can't do that without throwing every switch in the aircraft and looking at every gauge through all facets of flight. If the beta testers don't find a non-functioning ADF, they haven't done their job. Assuming it was reported, why wasn't it fixed PRIOR to release? In many cases, it's laziness, not obscurity. The FMC bug was obscure and I wasn't the least bit surprised it wasn't fixed on release. Likely nobody knew about it. If a developer is going to be lazy, then why would I buy his product? Chances are the bug will never get fixed if that's the case. Even most customers know how to turn the ADF on in the cfg panel, and many know how to fix precession in a gyro unit. Hell, if we can do that, why can't the developer? After all, it is WE who are paying THEM to give us a product. If it were free, you wouldn't hear a peep from people (at least in a critical way); but it's not. We are paying for a product. We have a right to hold a developer accountable if we are paying for their product.
Now I don't know about you, but I do believe in "informed purchasing", and when I see the mods that have been done to the Swift, it seems there is little but the graphics left of the original airplane (maybe a slight exaggeration, but not completely uncalled for). If I wanted a Swift, I'd want one as close to the real thing as possible (as close as can be done in FSX), with exceptions for things that don't translate well to FSX, such as the ineffective rudder. I don't need to buy the airplane to find out the ADF doesn't work or the GS needle is dead. Just like I don't need to put my hand on a hot burner to realize I'm going to get burned if I do. Oh, and before you say it, I have bought aircraft on release before and been the guinea pig, finding the bugs in the machine, and then posting my findings here (and a few times, elsewhere), with the idea that if an airplane was really buggy, it might save people who were sitting on the fence some money. I don't believe that they need to stick their hands on a hot burner to experience 3rd degree burns for themselves either.
Of course, we can let the developer off easy if we like. We can apologise for their stuff no matter how bad it is. Give them a free pass, if you will. And, we will get second-rate products for a premium price as a result. For some developers the attitude is that if they can make the same amount of money for 10 hours work as they would for 20 hours, why not, even though the product is incomplete (in some basic functions) and untested? Apparently (some) buyers don't really care. It's a guaranteed forumula for supressing quality work in FS. Unfortunately, we all pay the price for that model. It's also why it's so hard to get good reviews by "official reviewers" on a product because they are fans first and critics last. That sure doesn't help the industry.
Off soapbox.
|
|
|
|
Post by pivo11 on Mar 9, 2015 8:01:15 GMT -5
I'd have to agree with Glenn. Just because you or I know how to fix a non-functioning ADF doesn't mean that everyone does nor should it be required of customers to fix such things. There's just no excuse for it. Ridiculous statements along the lines of "it only costs $20, what do you expect" astound me. What does that mean? I get to buy things that don't work? Or maybe I get to buy things that don't work but I shouldn't complain because they "only" cost so much? Bah!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 8:58:05 GMT -5
Ayyy come on guys. You are freaking out about an ADF and a glideslop that doesnt work. Its peanuts compared to the rest of the stuff.
Those doing that, DONT buy anything, you´ll just get pissed of and I´m not talking about flight sim stuff only.
I totally agree that AH's beta tester team should be fired, because releasing a product with these small bugs is really sloppy. But one thing is for sure, those of you badmouthing a product you havent even tried (did you try the demo?) are not going to make me stop enjoying the AC. I´m to old for that.
I got a mail from AH saying:
The patch installers ( they are full installers as both our shop and fspilotshop don’t want partial zip files ) are being made today and we’ll be using our email out to current customers option for the first time later today.
The change log is as follows.
1. ADF fixed.
2. Glideslope enabled.
3. Click in the middle range of the rpm sorted.
4. Sound.cfg increase in the volume ( original sound.cfg packaged as well )
Not sure when fspilotshop will be updated with the new file but thats happening later today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 9:01:46 GMT -5
After some fiddling around, I've made a nice flying little plane - mainly 'cause I've always liked the design. All I've done is what real life owners did - made a hawk from a sparrow. Finally with the rudder - go into [airplane geometry] change rudder area to 7 and rudder limit to 30. Now I can do a forward slip with 2000 fpm down - makes those VASI/PAPI lights change color fast and it steers on the runway power off. Thanks for the tip , it really makes a better AC out of the Swift. I agree, its a nice flying little plane. Maybe not the best on the scene, but IMHO a lot better than most. But thats a matter of taste. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 9:08:59 GMT -5
As a recent example, here's a current bug list for the recently released Alabeo DA-42...
-a flight director shouldn't be available (on KAP140 eq. planes), but it is (can be disabled in the aircraft.cfg)
-rudder trim knob and indicator are reversed
-G1000 transponder setting always is on, no GND or other modes available
-G1000 PFD popup uses the wrong 'suction' source (same as stdby instruments) whereas the VC G1000 PFD is correctly unaffected by any 'suction' loss.
-G1000/KAP140 no altitude alert sound
-de-ice system, panel labelled with 'no smoking', aircraft.cfg setting states NO anti-ice system at all on that plane, panel pumps (which should pump de-ice fluid) are bound to fuel pump commands, no anti-ice modes (mainly pumping actions) available, system is always off
-autopilot, popup gauge has 'FD' button, VC does not. As previously explained, there's no FD on the real KAP140 eq. plane, so the VC is correct.
-wrong fuel type as per aircraft.cfg, the plane runs the Thielert Centurion engines which consume Diesel or JetA, not Avgas as the cfg says.
-G1000 gyro drift issue
-When tuning the nav1 radio, the active frequency changes instead of the nav1 standby frequency. Nav2 tuning works fine.
-the AP panel in the VC didn't receive a backlight and stays dark all the time
-the ECU test system is inop, it would replace the usual runup tests known from non FADEC planes with an automated sequence when the button is pushed (you have to hold it)
-the fuel transfer pumps don't do anything. They should provide fuel transfer from the AUX to the main tanks
-the engine's fuel supply should happen via the main tanks only. One can only transfer fuel from the AUX to the mains, not consume. In the sim, the plane first consumes the AUX tank fuel and then goes for the main tanks. This circumvents that fuel transfer pump bug, but is wrong.
-the test button for the fire detection is labelled 'Gear/Fire test' whereas the real plane only calls it 'Test' since only the fire detection system runs a test, nothing related to the gear but overheat detectors near the engines.
And as someone pointed out at SOH,
Alabeo pricing...
Staggerwing - 19.95
C195 - 22.95
DA40 - 26.95
C207 - 29.95
DA42- 34.95
The next one C404 - 39.95?
So, this is what happens when we don't hold developers feet to the fire. Price creep and degrading quality. This of course isn't just a Carenado/Alabeo phenomena, it's happening with all developers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 9:51:19 GMT -5
Well, Andre, from all this I expect you have learned something  Carm. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 12:29:25 GMT -5
Well, Andre, from all this I expect you have learned something Carm. He probably has; criticism is safer than praise when it comes to FSX addons. |
|
|
|
Post by olderndirt on Mar 9, 2015 12:37:00 GMT -5
If playing 'Devil's Advocate' generates a couple of pages, let's all give it a shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Mar 9, 2015 17:05:40 GMT -5
I agree, Crash. I don't need to buy/try something when I read it has problems. Consumer Reports has been doing that for years. I am glad that Andre likes his plane. I am always happy when someone is happy with anything they do. I have bought planes that others think are pure crap. In some ways they are correct, but they make great screenshots! LOL! Screw it, it's a hobby.  Cheaper than drinking and hookers! (sort of!) BP;) |
|
Cheaper than drinking and hookers! (sort of!)