It pains me to see various aircraft, panel and sound products coming so close to "perfect", and then dropping the ball on something so obvious, and thus coming up short on what might be an award-winning product. I recently came across one really well known product that's undergoing revisions and newer versions, as well as an entire new offering. This developer is creating an aircraft that is basically one of a kind. I mean that in the sense that until now, no one has created this particular FS2000 aircraft with the same level of detail and complexity. However, in showing off the latest versions of this airplane, some visual errors were not fixed as of yet, nor intended to be. In a popular forum, a customer asked why don't they simply fix [the item mentioned] and do it like the photos reveal on the real aircraft. The response by the developer was snappy and bitter, basically telling the poor guy to leave them alone. This was wrong. I have to agree with the customer here, this person sighted a major flaw in appearance that I too knew of, and couldn't imagine it would be time consuming to fix. In my opinion, how could such a visual flaw go unnoticed, especially with the great amount of effort going into the rest of the aircraft.
Now, this same company has just announced another product, following on the footsteps of the above mentioned product. It's going to prove to be another winner. However, in the preview pictures there are once again, major visual flaws. I just don't get it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's wrong. But again, I don't want to complain too much, as if it wasn't for them, our experiences wouldn't have been this passionate to start with! Several folks on the forums have mentioned the same things need fixing, even before release. No response. No doubt, they are going to release a great aircraft, with even more features and special effects than before, but with worse visual features on some parts of it, than exists on many freeware aircraft. With all that free advice out there by hundreds of trained eyes, why don't they listen to everyone out there? Again, almost perfect, but there's always something...
My next ranting comes from a soon to be released package of corporate aircraft for FS2000. Now, while this piece of software offers us simmers something that has never been done before, and could do it the very best I've ever seen, there are more small glaring "bugs" or items that are sloppy. For instance, when viewing around your aircraft, some of the views show the earth tilted about 15 degrees from the level. Why the designers choose to have their panel config files reflect this tilted view, I'll never know. Surely no corporate airplane I've ever been in, sits other than perfectly level, minus or plus a degree. But 15!? So, there you go, you will have to edit the panel config's to fix this problem yourself. Not a big deal, but still something the consumer has to do again, to try to perfect software with a slop factor. Another problem is that some of the aircraft don't steer on the ground. Even with differential braking, and close to full power on one engine (this would never happen in real life), will it turn lazily around an arc. Again, a beautifully designed aircraft, with a major flaw. Sure, a patch or perhaps a user config tweak may fix this, but my point is, we shouldn't have to do this! Not at all. Especially when we trust designers to be the experts, not us, and we have to fix something they should have known about all along. It makes me lose confidence in designers. In all fairness, this product came out really well. It brings forth several new "doodads" in the cockpit, and from flight modeling to overall airplane graphics, is a big winner. I want everyone to know out there that if you're guessing about the product I'm referring to, go get it! It will be receiving a very high score from me, despite, again, some sloppy parts. Overall, it was very very well done. A little more effort, I am saying and it could have been that so called "perfect". But, yes, there's always something...
Finally today, my quest for flight model accuracy has me touting once again, the power of FLY!2K and its add-ons that have hit the market. The flight modeling and user ability to control weight and balance is a great plus. FS2000 has all this stuff in a config file, but not in a user interface. This makes it very difficult for me to know if an FS2000 aircraft (commercial or free) is really a good flying model or not. Unless I've flown a so-and-so, I won't know if it's accurate. We have to believe it is, because the designers tell us it is. I usually believe them. You can fool a lot of people most of the time with flight models. But there's something about FLY! that just seems so much more accurate and non-fooling. One company that makes airliners for FLY! produces the finest flight models I have ever come across. But, there's limitations that can be done when it comes to sounds and visual aspects that FS2000 excels in. I can fly any good-looking airplane in FS2000, over great scenery, with great sounds and a frame rate that's lousy compared to the competition. Or, I can fly a great flight model in FLY!, over so-so scenery, fair sound effects and an awesome frame rate.
I am afraid many will think I am complaining. Not really. Don't think that. On average, I feel I am very accepting. I just have seen so many repeat mistakes, bugs or sloppy errors reoccurring lately, I thought I'd say something about it. We get these in really great products. They keep popping up. If only a little more time and effort was spent to polish, clean up and check for accuracy, more of these latest releases would be truly outstanding. I have to say one more thing, most of the commercial designers out there do their work aside from their full time jobs. I was lucky in when I was a designer at Looking Glass, for FU3, I had a full work day in which I was paid and scheduled to concentrate on the flightsim. Most of these dedicated, hard working designers do it as a hobby, late at night, when they really should be sleeping. Their dedication alone, is worth considering. And I do consider that. So, maybe we really should not complain about a tire being too big, or rudder pedals that do nothing. You tell me!
