And what did you do to make this topic better:
That’s right. Absolutely nothing:clap:
Sleep tight
There are many different causes of stability issues. Some are easy to fix and some are harder. It’s not just one magic bug that improves the stability for everybody.
As the old saying goes, “You can’t polish a ■■■■”.
1 Like
I agree some things are difficult to fix. But many things have been fixed in other aircraft but are still present in some. So why would they implement some fixes for certain aircraft only, while many aircraft share similair systems?
Lol who’s trolling now
As a developer (i hate when others say that…i now I hate that I am saying it). You’re correct: “many different causes.” We usually work on the biggest user intrusive bugs first.
Because MANY but NOT ALL aircraft share ALL system. SOME share similar systems SOME don’t.
Let’s say you fix a bug in the G3x then the it’ll have an effect on the VL3 and TBM but for the Caravan wouldn’t make a difference because it uses the G1000. And on top of that, the CJ4 and A320 don’t use garmin systems at all. So their systems would have nothing to do with what you touched in the G3x. Then they are the 430s and 530s… etc.
I don’t know if this is what @monkeytennis245 was referring to, but there is another topic, which was started by a forum moderator, and discussing about some of these:
Sure. But the nav function should do the same regarding in wich system it’s operating right? Or atleast the way the airplane is interpreting the info it’s getting from nav should be similair between multiple planes. So if it’s fixed in one plane, the underlying problem what was causing it was found and should be the same problem in the other plane? or atleast not so different that it would take another year to figure it out.
That one is also a bit of a pointless thread tbh. I mean, you are a dev, you know this: content artist and gameplay designers are on a different team from engine/system programmers. At least in the companies I know those roles don’t overlap. You can’t magically call over some guy from content team and tell him to troubleshoot a memory access violation. But they are there, and they get paid to create new content for the game. And they do.
3 Likes
You can do what you wish. I’m just trying to help you get an answer to your question. If you don’t want an answer and are simply venting your frustration, it would helpful if you added that in the title to avoid any confusion.
1 Like
if you did you would discuss the topic and nothing else.
I would say lots of behind the scene ASOBO with 3rd party, will allow PMDG to release their several study level aircraft, Aerosoft, and others. There was multiple fix in aircraft area as well, still remain but, effort have been made. Still important task are all in progress on the roadmap planned and sheduled.
Well, this is both an answer and a reasonable question. I try to simplify this as much as possible. Trying to display the differences. It will not be like this but will try to explain where these “similarities” come from and how they grow into different working planes.
Share:
- There is a base,
– 1. Uses that base (simple prop)
– 2. Uses that base, plus a bit from this, plus a bit from that, and other something because of this, but, because other is used, etc… i think you get the point (airliner).
inheritance:
- There is a base
– 1. Uses that base (simple prop)
– 2. Uses that base, adds functionality (turboprop), extends and adds functionality (jet), extends and adds functionality (airliner)
Well, now combine the shared point 2 and and the inheritance point 2. That’s why it can be difficult to sort it out.
A change in the base (similarity) works for one, but utterly destroys something else, so the similairity can not be fixed, you need to go in each seperate “share” or “inheritance”. Thus also, one inheritance can utterly destroy other inherited functionalities.
Because also one plane is not the other, how much “similarities” there seem to be.
How are you having autopilot issues? I only fly the airliners in IFR and always has been working great never going off course. Are you referring to the general aviation aircraft’s autopilot?
No.
The NAV function works very differently based on the avionics suite. G1000 nav logic is very different than the Honeywell you’d find on Boeing. Airbus is a completely different beast.
SU3 “accidentally” made Boeing airplanes behave like Airbus.
Examples includes the radial to fix leg route smoothing. RF legs were an add on to Beechcraft around 2010. Even then, it doesn’t generate these long drawn out circles like Airbus does.
Very different nav logic indeed.
1 Like
have you tried using Nav in the citation longitude? Also i’m still having ils problems often (787 mostly) but not always. autopilot is very aggresive still. and many more issues. So yeah. I’d rather ask the question how are you not having autopilot issues 
1 Like
This is not at all what the topic is about, but not at all to me. Otherwise like you said, I’d know better… (I hope!)
The subthread started with someone ironically saying only 1 or so bug was corrected in a year with this:
To which you replied:
Which I read as “what are these other bugs you are talking about”, like a genuine question, to which I indicated this topic which is listing “other bugs which are not fixed”:
Now if you were sarcastic instead, I’m sorry I didn’t read you this way, I took your remark for its face value as a genuine question.
However, this has nothing to do with “magically call over some guy from content team and tell him to troubleshoot a memory access violation.” either ways…
i know there are features missing. But i meant that i was talking about the features that aren’t missing but bugged and still not fixed.
I kinda understand that they can’t implement every real life feature. This will have to be done by 3rd party developers. But the features they do implement have to work properly. and that’s not always the case.
This is a valid point in my opinion.
1 Like