There were some interesting insights into how the feedback and wishlist is viewed by the development team in yesterday’s Dev stream. It certainly dispelled the idea that they carry no weight. Rather the opposite: votes determine where things sit in the ‘stack’ and guide discretionary allocation of resources (understand that there will also be a large slice of resource and work not influenced in this way but directed by planned development).
This does come with its risks though and development priorities shouldn’t just reflect vote numbers (the point of this thread). There ought to be a heirarchy of need also, something along the lines of:
-
Stability. If the software won’t run, then it makes everything else unimportant
-
Physics. The rules on which the world is built. If these are wrong, everything is wrong. As a flight simulator, flight physics in particular.
-
The natural environment. This includes the atmosphere, the surface of the earth and biome.
-
The built environment. Everything we have added to the former.
-
The social environment. How we use the former two spaces.
The challenge is that some of the most visible and entertaining aspects of the SIM can come from the built and social environment. As in reality we don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the physics of things. And as with setting any kind of priority you need to strike a balance between the the utilitarian and the beauty of art.
So to be clear: such a heirarchy isn’t a manifesto for utilitarianism and ignoring the desire to have ‘pointless’, but enthralling, things like moving trains and boats, but it is to say why you shouldn’t just rely on votes as the beautiful and entertaining will win out every time against the dull, but necessary.
Of course bringing all these things to software that runs on a home computer/console is clearly impossible, so as another thread notes, MSFS shouldn’t exist (but thankfully does!)