• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

"I flew on a 737 last week and it had double slotted flaps. Your model is wrong."

Messages
212
Country
unitedstates
"Also, your engines are too small and are under the wing. They should be big and in front of it. The thrust reversers are wrong. They look like an MD80s. They should just slide back."

I never actually got those (that I can remember), but I bet at least a few people have. What's the dumbest complaint you ever got?

For those of us who build mostly classic jets, I don't even know if the "your fans don't spin" even counts anymore. I think it's just part of the release schedule at this point. "And at 10:00 a.m., someone will complain that the IGVs don't spin. Lunch at 10:30."

I seem to remember at least one 737 model came with a list of 737 quirks to head off complaints that "Your wheels are exposed when retracted! They should have doors!" and so on. One can only imagine the perils of releasing a Falcon or Convair with aft fan engines.

Was it the Archer that provoked the "great Dreamfleet dihedral argument of 2000-something?" I can't remember. I do remember that it went on for months.
 
Last edited:

=rk=

Resource contributor
Messages
4,450
Country
us-washington
I have a model of Gerald R Ford. I never actually released it because I could only activate one catapult. Everything else works perfectly, imo; traps, IFLOLS, etc. I decided the issue was probably a consequence of having the deck packed with other models, to make it look realistic and the polygon count is too high. I've seen this before, as a model approaches the limit on complexity, the first things to fail are the animations, next after that you start to lose your texture mappings. So I moved a couple dummies onto the forward catapults, consistent with what I see in images and altogether it looks pretty good, to me. Here it is:

long.jpg


So I sent it to two or three people to test, single catapult and all - and my most critical feedback was that the "BU numbers" on the tail of the F-18 don't match the series of the EF-18G Growlers, which is what I'd edited the model to resemble. I thought to myself, "omg the bu numbers and nothing about the dysfunctional catapult and whether it was tolerable..."
Here's a closer view of the offending aircraft. Check the row of F-35's, the closest is either Dino Cattaneo's Lightning, or the Iris version (I forget) as the user aircraft and the other 3 are static models, all with matching VFA-101 Grim Reapers markings.

reapers.jpg


I keep thinking that I should just upload it before they decommission the ship, I finished the entire project before there were even good pictures available to work from. I've also though of rebuilding it from the ground, er waterline up, to try to make it more efficient and be able to activate at least one additional catapult.
 

Heretic

Resource contributor
Messages
6,830
Country
germany
If people, in a moment of higher cortex dysfunctionality, download my enhanced DC-3 model, I more often than not, get irritated questions asking why there's no pressure in the hydraulic system, why the flaps don't have detents or why the cowl flaps or gear system do not behave logically. The reason is not shoddy programming, but just the way the real thing works.

My other favourite types of "reality is unrealistic" complaints are "The aircraft won't climb at altitude!", "The autopilot doesn't hold the exact course/altitude/speed!", "There's no autothrottle!", "I can't start the engines!" and "Why do the engines fail after takeoff?!"

It's quite amusing how parts of a generally realism-minded community can be thrown off the rails by, well, mild forms of realism.
And they should be really glad that they don't have to deal with spontaneous, random failures of equipment at inopportune times ruining their only flying opportunity during the week.
 
Messages
2,077
Country
us-ohio
Someone complained that they couldn't complete the checklist because they couldn't interact with the oxygen mask.
 
Messages
212
Country
unitedstates
Or how if you set an accurate reverse thrust range, people say too much is available. Yes, Virginia, overboost was available in reverse thrust on older airplanes. You didn't just hit F2 until you ran out of throttle - you used what was appropriate for the situation. And jet airliners have a lot more roll authority than people think they do. The roll rates you see from the cabin, if you pay attention, are generally tied to aileron deflection you can barely even see!
 

Heretic

Resource contributor
Messages
6,830
Country
germany
Someone complained that they couldn't complete the checklist because they couldn't interact with the oxygen mask.

To be honest, such things are irking me somewhat, too. Tailor-made lists for MSFS aircraft should only contain items that can actually be checked and interacted with in the aircraft. If I can't check tyre pressure or voice recorder functionality on the virtual bird, what's the point of having it in a checklist for an add-on?
 
Messages
10,088
Country
us-arizona
RIVET COUNTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Worse yet... FLAP COUNTERS!!!!!!!!!!!

So many people that do not even know how to fly, nor arent familiar with the plane they are talking about, run it up and down with faults...

ITS A SIMULATOR!!!!!!


One guy was telling me (and all my many probable customers) that the wing tanks lights on a Learjet were for lighting up the side of the plane and should not be linked in with Landing Lights... even though they were labled as Landing Lights in the manual. (How the light bends from the tip front of the wing tanks backwards, and up to the fuselage, N-number and Rudder, I will never know.. Probably a quantum physics photon principal I havent heard about...)

Why didnt you build 'this' model... Why didnt you make it with those addon things? Why dont you make it for this gauge? Why doesnt it work with my saved Carenado plane flight? Why does it go 'BINGGG'...

2139517.jpg


Note, on the photo, how the light on that tip tank can light up the rudder and N-number? Man, what is wrong with me....??
 

Heretic

Resource contributor
Messages
6,830
Country
germany
Why didnt you build 'this' model... Why didnt you make it with those addon things? Why dont you make it for this gauge? Why doesnt it work with my saved Carenado plane flight? Why does it go 'BINGGG'...

The GTN crowd is the worst thing to happen to the community since the A2A and PMDG fanboys.
 
Messages
2,077
Country
us-ohio
To be honest, such things are irking me somewhat, too. Tailor-made lists for MSFS aircraft should only contain items that can actually be checked and interacted with in the aircraft. If I can't check tyre pressure or voice recorder functionality on the virtual bird, what's the point of having it in a checklist for an add-on?
If something like that is irking you... I suggest you find a new hobby and simply walk away from this one.
 
Messages
2,077
Country
us-ohio
Sure... here's a quarter... LOL

My point is... that's not something worth getting worked up over. Life's too short for that.
 

TurboCompound

Resource contributor
Messages
190
I once saw someone post to PMDG's Facebook page insisting that the cockpit windows on the NGX were the wrong size based on comparing a screenshot to an actual photo (taken at a completely different perspective). Someone with common sense told him off but was quickly overwhelmed by a circlejerk of keyboard pilots defending the professional window critic.
 
Messages
212
Country
unitedstates
It is perfectly possible, provided you understand how to deconstruct perspective distortion, to gauge things from photographs from any angle provided you have definite reference points to compare to (with a grid drawn to vanishing points in the longitudinal plane and to fuselage contours in the vertical plane, for example, window vertical positions can be compared to door height and window height, longitudinal positions can be compared to gear doors and such). With that said, based on screenshots, the NGX windows look pretty close to me.
 
Messages
1,484
You know I get it, and put up with a bit of it myself back in my day....but I find the comments also a bit amusing. There is always tension between marketing and engineering. Next time you are looking at the advertising for an addon, check out the features sim addons compete on...you know, the things an ad says is better about my addon over any other. Its almost always "realism".

And yet, too much expectation for realism drives the need to vent.

There's a circular logic here.
 
Messages
212
Country
unitedstates
Oh, most definitely. On one hand, it's annoying to modify things - especially if they apply to multiple models - but on the other, continuous improvement is a good thing.
 

Ronald

Resource contributor
Messages
974
What's the dumbest complaint you ever got?
None, since - to me - there are no "dumb" complaints. The word "dumb" does not say anything about the individual who has:
- taken the time to look at your hard work........................................................................ ( they could have simply choosen to ignore it in the first place ).
- found your work interesting enough to provide you with their feedback / comments............ ( which they simply could have skipped either).
The word "dumb" (or any other form of internal judgment) only reflects your own perception / state-of-mind, nothing more, nothing less..

I've learned along the wat, to value every form of (end-user) feedback since:
- it comes from somebody who cares enough to give it to you.
- it has been delivered by somebody who can have a totally different opinion/ point-of-view on things.
- you yourself can choose to learn from it (or not)
Think about that, next time you qualify somebody elses contributions to you (as a person) or your work as "dumb".

Here is a nice (background) story, on you how (too) can learn to handle "feedback" from anyone (including the kind that makes you want to go :mad:)
- https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/how-the-buddha-handled-insults/
 

n4gix

Resource contributor
Messages
11,674
Country
unitedstates
I should think in the context in which it was used that "dumb" refers to the question, not the questioner! :stirthepo

I've heard some remarkably "dumb" things occasionally coming from my own mouth for that matter! :rotfl:
 
Top