Please, only release well tested updates from now on

I can only guess here but I think Microsoft/Asobo are concerned about trade secrets, or public embarrassment. Asobo probably does not have a system in place that is customer facing either. You mentioned that Microsoft has a tracking system but it it’s probably not compatible with the Asobo. This requires infrastructure to make happen.

Yes, and they should you know do those things so they’re not constantly getting embarrassed by absolutely horrible press for bad updates. It’s a win-win!

I really don’t understand your objection and I don’t think engaging further will be helpful; I’m just going to mute you now.

1 Like

I totally agree, but those are sea-changes in development processes that don’t happen overnight. I’m just trying to be realistic here. They would have to do most of it manually and manage it.

Lol. Okay.

I agree with both of you.

I marvel at why this was not thought of by the MSFS development team prior to the planning stage. Its not like they can just do away with software testing by the public.

So here we are with an almost still birth project on life support. Is it a flight sim, no - is it a game, no -

To me it’s a bad joke on the flight sim community. And this only could have happened because the flight sim community has settled for less for too long. Other industries are laughing.

1 Like

Agreed! That ship is already sailed. What we want, and reality, are two different things. Since Microsoft/Asobo are not talking about a public tracking system, we can only assume they will not do it or cannot do it. I can’t stand logging defects that are already in the system, it feels like a colossal waste of time.

If we knew what defects are open we could test against them. The way I envisioned it, it will allow people with specific expertise to test in areas of the Sim in and a concerted unfocused way.

We could have a ranking system where a number of people say a defect is fixed or not.

When there is a new build, people will be able to regression test.

Agreed and voted for :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

I suspect that in the case of SU5, the build that was pushed out was incorrect and didn’t reflect what was tested. It shouldn’t happen again.

Sounds like the DCS approach too. The only problem is everyone basically runs the beta version instead of stable, as the urge to have all the latest and greatest features eventually wins out. Then they complain the beta is full of bugs….

ferrari’s ?

as a developer yourself with all your sports cars surely you can afford to fly the real thing.

what’s that? you don’t have ferrari’s?

Well, same as the devs.

Asobo dont have megabucks despite Microsoft support.

we can all boast stating I work in this or that field or project, lots of us have expertise but the truth is you can’t plan or “test” for all instances with either internal or external teams, it’s a matter of scale.

even in my line of work sometimes a well used project pipeline sometimes spits out anomalies.

mistakes, errors etc can and do happen too.

I think stating “well I do my job and I have never had any complaints” is unfair and tbh just not comparable to what Asobo are doing.

perhaps I’m wrong and the devs are doing this all deliberately as some existential troll whilst spending all the profits on sherbert lemons and playing scalextric whilst laughing at us.

but I doubt it.

I’m sorry if I sound harsh or even dismissive but in every public facing project I’ve seen there’s always a person who apparently works in the field and can do better than the devs.

silly arguing aside, the devs do what they do the best they can within the limits set.

1 Like

I don’t know, over all they seem to be doing pretty well. Any one update could have something that is missed and a hotfix or two is sent out. It is a massive project and there is a lot when developing a major project like this, I know. With millions of setups out there hard to catch everything. We do not have a beta that people can use vs a production version (like what Active Sky does) Not sure if that is possible with a project this big. I do think in time the sim updates will be more gentle. I agree with gb09f, SU 5 was maybe a goof, but HF were pretty quick

Well this has already happened many times. Many updates have been full of problems so far, this could not be what the MSFS development team intended, or is it part of the plan? It seems to be. Perhaps its part of a self inflicted gigantic blunder in progress.

The only major success so far in my view is the way the Feature Presentations fooled millions…that is exactly what they did. No problem, because MS Flight had consequences, except this time, there will be no next time.

I suspect that problematic updates, filled with excuses and apologies, will be commonplace for years to come. There is a simple solution, but there seems to be no interest in a solution…self inflicted…ugh.

The bubble will eventually burst.

1 Like

Yep. I’m not sure how many folks asking to be able to revert to SU4 ever saw how much space was given over to complaints about… SU4. Tbf, SU5 appears to have caused even more widespread and more obvious problems for more people than SU4. I’m lucky in that (so far, knock wood) no updates have adversely affected my setup. Indeed, after SU5 my vr flights (about 90 % of my time is in vr) have been smoother and with greater clarity than ever.

Remember that most people aren’t “plugged in” on the forums, and likely won’t even be aware of the existence of a beta channel much less use it. The active commenters are a tiny, tiny percentage of the total userbase – and they’re exactly the people you want testing your stuff and giving their feedback before it hits everyone else, because they’ll actually do stuff like “try an IFR flight on VATSIM” or “use differential brakes on a new airplane”.

1 Like

Thank you for your feedback.