I thought he was worried I was going to damage the plane file with my change, that why I said relax, sorry it was misunderstood, I’m also american but I never assume that meaning you implied. is that a millennial thing? You learn something everyday. Thank you for bringing this up. Cheers
1 Like
I normally have a lot of sympathy and time for Asobo and appreciate this is a complex sim with the risk things can go awry from time to time. But to break a core feature of the sim (i.e. taking off and landing) and then tell us it’s up to us to sort it out is unacceptable. The manual fix instructions aren’t even clear - i.e. there’s a bunch of .cfg files and you need to figure out which ones relate to flaps.
Even if they can’t push a hotfix for technical/approval reasons, they could at least upload the fixed .cfg files to these forums or elsewhere.
I’m so frustrated at having paid £120 for the PD version with the half-baked additional aircraft and no ability for the community to mod those in the same way as the various other community and no ability to fix flaps issue. Really poor showing Asobo.
3 Likes
it is now obvious that this was a ‘GLOBAL aerodynamics setting’ as opposed to someone working on each aircraft to modify the ‘flaps’ scalars.
Global software edits especially in the flight sim arena are what cause 3rd party developers to lose sleep at night. What they must have is a stable and reliable framework so that they can make their models fly correctly. What is helpful to know is that the framework doesn’t have to be perfect (it does need to be close or in the ballpark though) - the fine tuning can be done on the individual model and config file. But the framework HAS to be reliable.
If this had happened after 10 or more 3rd party developers had their products in the marketplace and the default aircraft were outnumbered by them then you can bet the ranch ASOBO would hotfix this right away.
We just have to wait a bit longer and appreciate that they have owned the error. They didn’t have to do that. It was an ethical move on their part.
as with everything else in this life - take it or leave it
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure it’s not new. I learned from — I think it was my third ex-wife — that to tell a woman to “calm down” when she was upset was the same thing as throwing gasoline on a fire.
I think telling someone to ”relax” when they are calm is kind of the same thing. If you think they need to relax, then maybe they start thinking that perhaps there’s a reason for them to be upset!
And if you didn’t understand that logic, then at least you might understand why I have so many extra-wives. I never understood it either! 
Firstly, I know the CMs are mostly messengers here and it’s been a roller coaster the last weeks and half or so. Thanks for everything you do!
I would humbly request that the team reevaluate the decision to to provide a hotfix.
We have been extremely patient for the last 6 months after the retail release. Through CTD-inducing bugs, visual issues, avionics problems, broken Premium aircraft, 3rd party paid addons broken for over a month, and many other growing pains.
We paid for a product and that product should be fit for purpose. Now the most basic aspects of the simulator have been compromised and the decision is to leave it this way for at least 4 weeks.
As each turn we have been asked to be patient and things would get better. Each update has brought with it more broken items and problems.
The community only has so much patience to give. Microsoft and Asobo are professional software developers, not some indie studio making their first game in the Unity Engine SDK. We paid fill price and we expect a professionally developed product.
This title was advertised with extensive print and social media coverage as being done. Instead we get platitudes and deflection about a “10 year journey”. I want the working and complete product I paid for now, 6 months after release, not in 9 years 6 months.
At some point a line has to be drawn as the the minimum viable simulator. By not issuing a hotfix for this major issue, Microsoft and Asobo are saying that the minimum viable simulator is, in fact, an arcade game with fancy Bing graphics, and not a simulator at all.
If this is allowed to sit until the next update, it sends a clear message to both users and third party developers that the product has been severely misrepresented. And that is not good for the future of MSFS.
17 Likes
Taking off with no use of flaps, the aircraft I’ve flown since the update climb at a much higher rate. Acceleration from a standstill to Vr takes less time and covers less ground.
The changes that have been made to the flight model seem to have affected more than just the characteristics of the flaps.
1 Like
They fixed a bug with the twins and the A5 that had significantly reduced the static engine thrust from what it should have been, so at least the DA62, Baron, King Air, and A5 will take off a lot faster.
Maybe too fast since the DA62 flight model .cfg was not updated to re-tune after the fix.
Who knows though, maybe it impacted other aircraft as well, given how every change seems to mess something else.
I don’t want to sound like I’m complaining, but after each update I feel a bit like my cat chasing her tail.
In my career we had a nickname for the phenomenon… we called it the “Barbie Doll Principle.” Push one thing down and something else pops out.
1 Like
Simply not acceptable to release a world update and quietly change aircraft files.
Simply not acceptable to forget to add PG for city’s such as Southampton and Portsmouth.
This all results in a sim actually going backwards at every release.
QA is the make or break of every business in the end.
Hey, Mars. While I respect you knowledge of IFR and expertise in IFR procedures — we’ve tangled before on AvSim — I think you’re being a little too complex in your thinking here. But you’ve hit the proverbial mail squarely on the head, nonetheless.
In the business world, a “viable” product is one that you can sell and make a profit on. In the software world, it often has little to do with whether it’s suitable to do what it’s supposed to.
That may really, really surprise many people, but go look up a boiler-plate / standard software license. I’m 99% of the cases, you do not own the the software. You have simply purchased the right to use it, and it is not even warranted to perform as intended. And with most software, your sole remedy for any problem is a full refund within a limited amount of time.
By all legal and business definitions, this is not only a viable product but a highly profitable one as well. Since you are able to fly planes in it and have been using it for six months now, you have gotten reasonable / fair use out of it.
In simple terms, you are at Asobo’s mercy so you might want to be a little bit more supportive and constructive. It’s your only hope, Obi-Wan.
I was the Quality Manager in our shop for over a decade. You’re speaking my language!
But… it takes a team. Everybody has to have buy-in to the program. I cannot imagine doing my old job with the constraint of working in isolation due to the restrictions placed on us all by COVID.
I’m not making excuses for anyone, just offering food for thought…
1 Like
I designed and wrote medical software for Total Quality Management of infection control and surgical procedures! Look up QLogic II. It was back in the early 90’s, so not sure you’ll find anything.
In another thread, I started to write up the difference between QA, QC, and TQM, but it got too long and preachy. My point was that QA and QC departments don’t develop anything, and all they can do is stop an individual product from shipping and report frequently occurring errors back to production. That’s where it has to be fixed.
In other words — just as you said — it takes a team effort!
Yes, you are able to fly planes but not land them. Great stuff.
I’m shocked nobody has flagged this one yet 
.
1 Like
I’ve made a hotfix for this, that you can just throw into your community folder instead of having to manually do it, I’ve done it for everyone.
Just waiting on flightsim.to to approve it 
Edit:
Download Link: World Update III - Flap / Lift Community Hotfix (Standard Edition) • Flight Simulator 2020
15 Likes
Brilliant (if it works - haven’t tried it yet).
So why couldn’t Asobo have done this?
Its not properly fixing the issue, its just a work around. I guess thats why?
thank you for doing what should be the developers job.
Like you they could have provided a package for download here and whoever wants it could have put it in their community folder, without the need of a full update rollout.
And other than you, they would have the ability to fix ALL aircrafts, and not only those included in he standard version.
I cannot understand their decission to let us wait for weeks for something that simple to fix and so crucial for realism.
Thank you very much for sharing your package with us!
1 Like
. . . and the workaround is just what they recommended, but left it to their customers to do themselves.
PS thanks for sharing it!
1 Like
Excuse my terrible landing xD
Forum Low Res Version:
HD Youtube Version:
TBM Landing with Hotfix - YouTube
I tried to re-create the video in the original post with my new hotfix:
World Update III - Flap / Lift Community Hotfix (Standard Edition) • Flight Simulator 2020
I realise I’m not the best lander here, but it now seems possible where-as when i tried it before, it was literally impossible.
1 Like