It must be obvious to them that only very “broad” bugs (“fix turboprops”, “fix the weather”) and showstoppers can get any traction in the voting system, while bugs like “the (relatively few) owners of expensive flight controls are bothered by buggy yoke animations” or “the electrical system isn’t correctly simulating battery charging” will never ever make it on a “top XX” list. But that doesn’t excuse the lack of a fast track for addressing bugs of a more technical nature. ![]() ![]() Given the history of MFS, the codebase must be quite a mess. I have to admit, when I put my IT guy hat on, I feel for the guys at Asobo. As a user, you hear them talk about the close relationships they have with Aerosoft or Working Title, and you extrapolate that they must also talk to what you consider the “important” 3rd parties (MilViz, PMDG, SWS, A2A…) on a regular basis.Īfter hearing you and Randazzo, I’m starting to think that Asobo only talks to Aerosoft because their boss at Microsoft has some personal history with Kok and/or Hartmann, and because they know that Aerosoft’s aspirations for their products are manageable (as in: looks nice in screenshots doesn’t CTD flight model and systems close enough™ for the kind of user who is impressed by the fact that the product comes with a 100+ page manual, but doesn’t actually intend to read it). I got to give it to Microsoft and Asobo: if your only information sources are Dev Q&A’s and interviews, you get a totally different picture. In fact, what they commonly say to us finding a serious bug is… put it in the vote queue and, if it gets upvoted, maybe we will fix it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |