Radical change of course for product development

Is that so? That’s great news if true.

2 Likes

No challenges for me that is hard work, I am here for fun :smiley:

Plus If I actually wanted to improve my flying skills I would dust off my log book get a current medical and go back to flying a real plane again.

Basically though, taking 20 minutes to get from cold and dark to the runway before taking off is not fun for me. Checklists and flows and procedures and ATC are a necessary evil in real life flying for safety reasons but I see no reasons to get too obsessed with them in a game. Clearly this stuff matters for some people and more power to them, but it is definitely not my sort of thing.

2 Likes

I think this sim has more than enough room for both approaches, fun and leasure as well as „educational“ and challenging simulation of a flight. And one can even combine both, that‘s what I do. A correct and realistic flightmodel is even easier to fly as it is predictable and reacts as expected. An aircraft that banks left and turns right is harder to control in a simulator or game or whatever.

A game for you. A serious sim for simmers.

2 Likes

Sir,

From one who is four score in age, may I suggest that to release an update that immediately requires a hot fix indicates the word integrity is missing.

JS

6 Likes

It was listed in the last development update.

1 Like

This will miss the topic but I have thought for a few years noe that what‘s going on in the software or better gaming industry is best to describe as „sloppy“. If I worked like this I would have been fired for ages. These miserable efforts to create a GOOD program in terms of overall quality translated to professions like for example pilots (cough cough), fire brigade, police officers, architects, construction engineers, house electricians, etc etc etc (etc forever) would fill the prisons a LOT. This really is only possible in gaming software development, as gamers will buy everything regardless of its quality. Imagine this was code on the International Space station. Or on a satelite that has been sent on a lobg journey and can‘t be caught and fixed anymore.

1 Like

Before one could suggest a ‘Radical change’, one need to understand how development works and how development structure has been modelled.

Even though, if it appears for us something has changed, it will just be community service. As the structure remains intact. The same people will keep on doing the same things, with the same effort, within the same tempo. Modellers wil keep on modelling, developers wil keep on developing, managers will keep on managing. And they all will do this within their own respective speciality.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is how it works.

So with the upcoming two SU’s according to the roadmap (because it’s an iterative product), you will get two times one month development instead of every two months a two month development effort.

Cheers

Errors in those fields do occur.

Mariner 1 - Wikipedia.

The code that exploded a rocket - YouTube.

Yep - no change to the content of the sim updates they will just split the 2 month update into two chunks. You can do that because there are so many small patch jobs being worked on continually you can divvy them between 2 months easy enough.

Meanwhile the World Update team gets 3 full months to sort out the next World update. World Updates cannot be divvied up.

They are absolutely NOT doing this because of all the bug-whining to fix issues faster. It is almost certainly being done to give the World Update team more time to get the next World Update shipped and potentially more time for content like the Reno racing to be tested.

TLDR - they are not doing extra bug fixes they are fudging and delaying the World Update to get more time on it.

1 Like

I’ve not even thought about the reno races. This will definitely give plane and scenery modellers more time, yes.

With the two SU’s they could even create a slower workpace as having these following up could give the impression more has been done. A first one could be a QOL and the second one a generic planned one, with a less features/improvements package release. That would even be a smart move.

Well, is a flight sim. What you are looking for is called GTA. But dumbing things down and releasing broken features aren’t right just because you feel using them is boring.

7 Likes

Remember the mantra of the sim being for everyone. If those that enjoy the more gamey aspects of the sim, then that’s great. By the same token, it should also be enjoyed by those who want a more realistic experience.

2 Likes

It’s just a money thing. It sounds harsh but i don’t care about the sim being for everyone.

There are enough gamey games so those people can play another game every day for the rest of their lives and still haven’t played most of them. There aren’t much options for people who like ‘in-depth entertainment’ so to say.

Everything must appeal to the main stream because that is where the money is. To make something not suitable for the normal folks you need a developer who is passionate about the subject (X-plane?) but those product won’t be very good because of the low budget.

So end of the line we just have to agree it’s a gamey game and we need top gun and races to (sort-of) get what we want. (But deep down i hate it works this way)

8 Likes

I must confess I’m not too fussed about the “competitive” aspects of the sim, such as the landing challenges, but I accept that I am not the only one using the sim, and we all have our different interests.

As long as everyone gets something out of it, that’s what matters.

5 Likes

I would agree that calls for a “radical change of course” are maybe a little naive and probably fail to take into account how a software development effort of this size actually works. But I don’t think it is fair to say that people who would like to see long standing issues with the core sim fixed are “very impatient”. This sim has been out for more than a year, and many of those issues have been around since day one.

I suspect what we are seeing now with the planned back to back SUs and apparent shift of attention back to bug fixes was in the plan all along. We know the Xbox port was a major effort and a milestone that was set in place from the start. I’m sure this took a lot of time from a lot of resources across various teams. That this caused chaos and regression issues was probably no surprise and was possibly even part of the plan, though maybe they didn’t expect quite as much chaos or quite as many bugs.

I don’t see any reason why this can’t be turned into a stable platform that appeals to both hardcore simmers and more casual players. Hopefully with the main Xbox milestone out of the way Asobo can focus back on the fundamentals and fortify the core of the sim. At this point all we can do is wait and see. But I’d say that they better make some progress here soon if they want to salvage the reputation of the sim. There are a lot of folks starting to lose patience, myself included, and I don’t think we are being unreasonable.

3 Likes

In fact it looks like you are saying the same, but only in more words.

I do understand the impatient part, but mfs has also lost a lot of development traction in relation to other sims (where fsx is applied) and parts are completely new which will need improvements where applicable. I hope they will be able to continue development in a proper pace (which they set ofcourse) and keep on iterating up to the point it will be able to match others.

If they are able to catch up in the upcoming 1/1.5 year. I think that’s quite an achievement. What we could do as a community is try to stay constructive. It’s just nit possible to handle all what the community requests to be implemented at the same time. So, some parts will need more patience than others.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time” - A Monk from the 15th century.

1 Like

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.

Absolutely agree. Problem is, is MSAsobo actually trying?!