What are not correct ? I think the C172 and the TBM are the best .
best regards
Hi @Chris666U. I won’t speak to the C172. I have hundreds of RW hours in that and the C182. I guess you could say the C172 “is close enough for government work”. It’s a simple bird but I still believe (and this is just my opinion) that it is not “close enough” for me. As for the TBM. Really? Torque and fuel flow increase with altitude? The TBM overheats in normal taxi operations if using taxi power. No, they don’t. Except in MSFS. Really poor modeling. I don’t know why and I’m not a coder. It’s easy to enjoy MSFS and I’m happy they came back to the party. Right now, it’s just an interesting “proof of concept”. Someday, perhaps more.
1 Like
Hot fix next week! They must have already been working on it lol, this is the right move. I’d rather they delay Sim Update 3 by a week and fix this issue first lol.
1 Like
“Based on recent feedback from the community about the flaps issue that was introduced in World Update III, we decided to address the issue as quickly as we can and to publish a hotfix next week. As that will require thorough testing, we will be pushing back both Sim Update III and World Update IV by a week. Sim Update III is targeting early March and World Update IV is targeting early April. We appreciate your continued feedback on issues like this as we strive to do right by our community.”
3 Likes
yep because even at idle twins keep flying at present .
… and probably follow what is a good rule of thumb in any aircraft at present and come over the fence about 10-15 % slower than the POH indicates.
Or you could just fly something like the Mooney which has air brakes and land with them deployed 
The truth is they dropped the ball badly - but most aircraft are not actually “unflyable” just unrealistic.
Where did you guys read this? Excellent news!
It’s from today’s Development Update on the main Flight Simulator website.
Stick to flying your campervan. Some of us know how engineering and QA is supposed to work.
“Based on recent feedback from the community about the flaps issue that was introduced in World Update III, we decided to address the issue as quickly as we can and to publish a hotfix next week. As that will require thorough testing, we will be pushing back both Sim Update III and World Update IV by a week. Sim Update III is targeting early March and World Update IV is targeting early April. We appreciate your continued feedback on issues like this as we strive to do right by our community.”
They claimed it was a build error, so not sure where the extra testing needs to be except for this issue. And how does a hotfix take 2 weeks to build? Something smells fishy as usual.
2 Likes
It takes two weeks to test. There’s nothing fishy about testing taking a long time on a complex project.
The problem is they didn’t bother testing the flight dynamics at all for update 3 because [insert here].
See my previous post [REPORTED] World Update 3 has broken flight dynamics, exhibit A - #839 by Sonicviz
Then it was not a build accident as they claimed.
Who knows, and it’s irrelevant almost. They actually had flight model changes referenced in the Update 3 change log (unless that was automatically inserted by the build process), but in any event they admitted to not testing the flight models anyway, which is a major QA fail for a flight simulator.
It’s the testing is the issue, not the build process per se (it should be tighter, but this happens on complex projects and solid reporting/testing is your fail-safe)
Hi dear @Sonicviz
Maybe now it’s a good time to tell you that my job has been in the software development industry for almost 30 years. I’ve worked in many positions from developer, to project manager, people manager, product manager amd designer. So I dare say that I’ve been around and seen a lot. From that experience I know first hand how tricky it can be to make the decision between hotfixing and trying to buy precious time for other important projects by giving the customers an often imperfect workaround.
So you’re assuming a lot, like a lot of people seem to do here. As if they know what really is the case, somehow you seem to have clairvoyance or so. Good for you, but it’s very hard to have a reasonable conversation in this way.
What I hope is that now Asobo has shown us clearly that she actually listens to us customers (which wasn’t surprising for me at all) and gives us the much asked hot fix, that some of the unmovable critics here will soften a bit and give them your support. Just a small bit of appreciation. Or is that too much to ask?
In the thread about this hot fix I already see the comments that I was expecting. “Can we get it sooner?” “Whaaat, is SU3 delayed now? We had a community fix, why bother with another fix and delay the update?”.
People, one thing that I’ve learned is that it is impossible to make everyone happy and satisfied. There are always people complaining. So if it is your choice to make yourself miserable with negativity, be my guest, but please take your wrath elsewhere and don’t put it on the shoulders of Asobo. You don’t seem to see that this company really tries to do things differently than others.
I thorough enjoy what they’ve released until now and have great confidence in what they’ll manage in the future.
Happy flying!
The Apologist from his Campervan
4 Likes
You might have been in software dev for 30 years in various roles (as have I, and still am), but it’s apparent from your ludicrous defence posts you still don’t understand the massive QA fail that happened.
Personally I’ve enjoyed it up to now as well, and can work around the issue in various ways.
That doesn’t excuse the massive dropping of the QA & testing ball in any way, shape, or form.
I’ve pretty much given them a pass on everything so far, even the terrain spikes and crashes, but this was totally avoidable, and because it’s core product functionality (aka the flight model), inexcusable.
This is not about “complaining”. It’s about process, or failure to follow basic QA process resulting in a -ve impact to core product functionality.
It’s a flight simulator, ergo you run a standard test suite (auto, manual, or combined) before you do a major release. You don’t decide to not test core product functionality because “it wasn’t on the official build list”. That, like your lame defence of it, is ludicrous. I will give them one point for admitting it though.
The only thing worse than this would have been an admission they did notice it and released it anyway instead of pulling the release because it was already late and there will be another release in a few weeks so, meh, let them deal with it. That would show a total disrespect for customers (not that failing to test doesn’t, but this would be another level of disrespect). You’d probably find a way to defend that too though I suspect.
There is no excuse for letting obvious bugs slip into production with core product functionality at this stage of the product’s life cycle. Bad PM, Bad QA. Test.Your.■■■■. Basic SW 101.
Good luck flying your campervan.
6 Likes
I agree with you completely about the QA-process. And I am sure that I am not the only simmer that works in the IT-business.
This was a nasty slip in their production factory. Of course nothing should be merged to a master branch until the complete test suite gives a green light. Someone at Asobo made an honest (human) error here. And under time-pressure the process (and many times QA) always suffers. And afterwards we slap our faces knowing very well where we went wrong and we promise to do better. And the next time: stakeholders again. It’s a constant struggle for the right balance. I am sure that you will know this from your own experience as well. This should not have happened and I am sure that they learned from this. But I am also sure that they will sometime in the future slip again. My hope is that they will have the necessary resources available by then to create the necessary hot fixes.
All the best,
The Happy Campervan Apologist 
I can’t find the announcement for the hot fix on the website. Do you have a link?
that was why instructors wear brown pants hahahaha 
1 Like
… and also here in the forum
Don’t stoop to the level of this poster. Those of us with large-scale software development experience recognize valid observations and theories. Those that don’t are not going to be impressed by a list of roles they know nothing about.
Don’t feed the trolls! 
7 Likes