Thank you Matt, immensely, for the update. This calms my concerns.
Thanks for the update Matt, that is very much appreciated
Really good news that work is in progress! Little sad that this made it into the this preview built (and the release built) in the first place, hopefully it will be fixed properly soon.
Matt, Thank you for updating us. It really is appreciated!
Matt,
Tell me you have a life outside of MSFS2020/Working Title. I see you responding here and at WT site all the time - literally.
We all appreciate you making the Asobo team aware of these critical issues!
Thanks!
MrBill38119
I have to be honest & I’ll probably get slated but this bug is pretty major. Personally if doesn’t get fixed by the 27th then delay the release by a week. If this bug is present in release day then they’re gonna be an absolute storm kicking off. I understand you guys are working around the clock. But this cannot be let off into the community on release day
A bigger problem I see here would be the Xbox release which is tied up with SU5. It would be a major issue in terms of PR and publicity for a brand if they hold back the release due to an issue which not the majority of gamers would realise. All I could wish is good luck to the team on fixing this one! Personal opinion though, I agree with David. Delay the rollout as it can wreak havoc on networks like VATSIM.
Delaying a long awaited waited major xbox release just one week prior to release for this bug?
No way.
More likely would be a hotfix a week later.
Matt has already confirmed a patch after release is what they will do. They already found a solution for it, between himself, Seb, and Flush
I don’t understand how this wrong implementation of temperature effect on altimetry made it into this preview, also considering it was already done quite some time ago (it was supposed to be released in SU4 I believe?). Enough time to thoroughly test it internally? The only thing you need to do is place the aircraft at any aerodrome with an elevation above sea level with non-standard temperature and QNH set and observe the altimeter not showing field elevation. Apart from that I don’t understand how they are able to come up with such an implementation, any pilot would be able to tell this implementation won’t work.
Happy that the bug has been acknowledged and a fix is on the way. I just hope it will be the last time we see these kind of gross misunderstandings. I’m sure the problem is not a lack of programming skills, rather a lack of understanding the concept behind what is being programmed.
Making these kind of mistakes raises doubts about the accuracy of other parts of the simulator, areas which we can’t check that easily. For example, is the flight model also put together using false assumptions about aerodynamics and rules of thumb from a student pilot handbook?
I understand the frustration, but this is why devs generally stay silent. In one paragraph you’ve managed to take a bug from just being a bug to being commentary on the intellect of the people involved. Mistakes happen, sometimes things get introduced late that have unseen downstream effects. Sometimes the data you expect to get to make these things work isn’t nearly as reliable as predicted.
The two examples posted are definitely of the programmer oops variety. I had the RMI issue myself on the CJ4, because you have to remember that that sim simvar NAV RADIAL still returns you a value no matter the kind of radio (there are occasionally good reasons to have this data), so you have to actually code a special case to not move the RMI in those scenarios. Easy to miss. Same with the ISA calc, they’re clearly pulling the right value and someone forgot a subtraction.
It’s a big team, a bigger project. and everyone is human. I choose to look at this situation as a positive: the feature didn’t always work as intended, despite passing some test cases, and the community came through. This kind of thing is exactly the reason for this kind of feedback system, and I’m super stoked that we, together, were able to catch something important.
-Matt | Working Title
C’mon @anon50268670, that wasn’t necessary. Just staying with the facts is enough and always more effective. If you still don’t like SU5 with the obvious bugs still in there you can wait with re-installing the sim on your PC until SU6!
I don’t honestly, nobody can be an expert in every field. I think the devs are doing an awesome job, I just think they are not being informed properly, where do the devs get their information from? I would think they consult an expert in the field of meteorology or so before programming something complex like this, apparently not because any pilot would be able to tell this is a wrong implementation.
Proper Crew Resource Management is what we need here 
. Hopefully these kind of issues are being solved internally and everyone learns from it. But I am afraid of the storm that is coming on release day. Maybe communicate this as a “known bug” or something.
In that case it would be wise if @OlieTsubasa443 or @Jummivana would write a paragraph on this in a known issues section to avoid an unnecessary and counter productive storm on this forum.
Which reminds me: Didn’t we get to beta test the release notes too?
You don’t know which combination of events leads to this behaviour. You assume too much I think. You don’t know if the developer was instructed properly or not. Maybe a conflict with another module results in this mismatch. That’s one reason why we are here, isn’t it?
But I know it’s of no use arguing with you on this issue, because you have your opinion ready.
And again you pull the bad management card. Very easy to do.
But let me tell you this: we’re looking at one of the world’s most complex pieces of software at the moment. So my opinion is: mindbogglingly great management and developers. With a lot of heart for the community at that. Even though they are bashed day after day by many people here…
Not my style.
I’m a noob when it comes to these things, but if I hadn’t read about this bug on this forum I would have been blissfully unaware. I’m pretty sure I won’t be alone in that.
I know this affects everyone, but as I think has been pointed out above, you’ll see the issues if you use charts or other external software (I’m pretty confident that’s a minority, even a small minority, of the user base) or on vatsim or similar (an even smaller minority).
That’s not to belittle the issue or say it shouldn’t be fixed - it should (and will be as noted above) but the visibility will be amongst a relative minority of users. That could be a much higher proportion of the forum users though, given the more enthusiastic simmers tend to be on here in greater proportions (just a guess).
That makes me suspect that the “storm” may not be as stormy as you might think. In any event, a storm in the forum won’t increase the speed of a fix.
As I think I said on another thread, my plan is to concentrate on enjoying flying the new version when released and not bother reading the forums for a few days. Nothing I say or do on the forums will make any difference to this one.
It seems very easy to push the whole community in front of you and say that if “your” bug won’t be fixed then there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets.
We were weeks without properly working flaps and that went quiet pretty fast.
Agree but looking at this particular bug and how it 100% matches a rule of thumb and the way its implemented I can’t conclude otherwise. Which is not meant as an insult, it’s just my conclusion and my opinion on the topic with the hope it will be fixed soon and everybody will learn from it.
I’ve spend a lot of hours on the Beta forum and in particular figuring out this bug, I wouldn’t do that if I wouldn’t care. I’m not here to bash people, I’m here because I believe with some more work this sim is gonna be awesome 
.
+1
Thank you for your hard work in spotting all these hard to find bugs and giving a chance to anyone, including those not caring or knowing, to learn more about Aviation in the process. The more educated about these topics, the better we can better the game collectively, and I believe you’re a great contributor helping us all in this process.
Nintje91,
I think you’ve been helpful and made your point to Matt to share and find a fix, and we can appreciate it. After the last beta, many of us were quite concerned about the release needing to be pushed back. It was released anyway and I was stunned that most of the comments I saw were that this was the best update release yet and that the beta testers had done a great job. We did it last time and we did it again. The needed patches came quickly and I think they will again.
Personally this is all way to complex to get right easily with so many attributes being modeled and so many system configurations. And we keep pushing for more. So thanks to everyone involved in these betas, it really is coming along very nicely!