Negative decision height with 'click+hold'

[TMV45]

Hi,

When I use the new 'click & hold' function for speed dialing the DH, I get a negative value. I think it''s because of this:

- with single clicks, the value works 'clockwise' - if the icon shows right turns, the DH goes up, if the icon showa left turns (anti-clockwise), the DH goes down till '0'.

- with the click+hold, it does nothing if the icon show anti-clockwise (left), and decreases the DH if the icon shows clockwise turns. The decreasing goes even below the '0' and becomes negative.

[JGregory]

Thanks for the report.

[Cam]

I also have the same problem.

[JGregory]

Verified.

[Cam]

Out of curiosity, I can’t understand how this would not have been picked-up during LES testing after implementing the change. 

[Goran_M]

The same can be said about any issue that crops up.  The more complex the add on, the more bugs slip through the testing cracks.  The TBM had an update made every day for a week because of bugs that were found by the first batch of customers.

 

[Cam]

2 minutes ago, Goran_M said:

The same can be said about any issue that crops up.  The more complex the add on, the more bugs slip through the testing cracks.  The TBM had an update made every day for a week because of bugs that were found by the first batch of customers.

 

Yeah I get that. But this is such a simple change that only involved turning a knob - how could a tester miss that?

[mjrhealth]

1 hour ago, Cam said:

Yeah I get that. But this is such a simple change that only involved turning a knob - how could a tester miss that?

The next time you get off your chair to get something than promptly forget what, youll know why.

[Cam]

27 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

The next time you get off your chair to get something than promptly forget what, youll know why.

What are you talking about. These are professional software developers who understand testing regimes - particular regression testing.

[Goran_M]

We're still human beings, who sometimes miss things.  Yes, it's a simple thing, but even simple things get missed.  I sometimes forget what day it is.  Not much is simpler than remembering the day.

[JGregory]

8 hours ago, Cam said:

Out of curiosity, I can’t understand how this would not have been picked-up during LES testing after implementing the change. 

 

8 hours ago, Cam said:

Yeah I get that. But this is such a simple change that only involved turning a knob - how could a tester miss that?

 

6 hours ago, Cam said:

What are you talking about. These are professional software developers who understand testing regimes - particular regression testing.

Things are not always as simple as they may seem on the surface.  All aircraft developers know that.  This bug has been fixed and will be in the next update.  Time to move on.

[Cam]

8 hours ago, Goran_M said:

We're still human beings, who sometimes miss things.  Yes, it's a simple thing, but even simple things get missed.  I sometimes forget what day it is.  Not much is simpler than remembering the day.

I totally understand what you are saying, and that is why software developers establish test cases and test as they make changes - to minimise the likelihood of bugs falling through the cracks. Yes, they won’t catch them all, but we seem to have introduced a lot with the v1.6.x changes. 
Guys, I love this aircraft and the work you’ve done, but we’ve gone from a flyable v1.5.1 to something that has too many bugs for a successful release. Very frustrating. 
I’m not ‘stirring the pot’, but as someone who has developed and released software, I can’t understand this. 
Cheers and all the best in getting us a working aircraft. 

[JGregory]

3 hours ago, Cam said:

but we’ve gone from a flyable v1.5.1 to something that has too many bugs for a successful release. Very frustrating. 

Ironic, most users tell us the exact opposite.

[Cam]

1 hour ago, JGregory said:

Ironic, most users tell us the exact opposite.

That's nice to know - I'll not debate the point any further, although I do note all the bugs reported herein.

Cheers

[Goran_M]

We know there are issues.  But "too many bugs for a successful release."??

I've seen much, much worse.

Your opinion is a little harsh, in my own, honest opinion.  

Rest assured, we're working on fixing the known issues.

All we ask is that people report them as they come across them.  We don't really need to know how bad some people think it is.  Those opinions are purely subjective, and if I was to be completely blunt and honest, and with all due respect, they do nothing to help us fix the issues that are present.

 

 

[Cam]

1 hour ago, Goran_M said:

We know there are issues.  But "too many bugs for a successful release."??

I've seen much, much worse.

Your opinion is a little harsh, in my own, honest opinion.  

Rest assured, we're working on fixing the known issues.

All we ask is that people report them as they come across them.  We don't really need to know how bad some people think it is.  Those opinions are purely subjective, and if I was to be completely blunt and honest, and with all due respect, they do nothing to help us fix the issues that are present.

 

 

Mate, I appreciate all the work that goes into these add-ons - I have also been the target of customers who find bugs in my software. One thing I do understand is the effort and cost of testing. I know my comments don't help fix the bugs, but I cannot fathom why the testing doesn't identify them if it is so rigorous.

Thanks and all the best in resolving our bugs - I really, really love flying this aircraft and want to complete successive, successful flights again.

[JGregory]

3 hours ago, Cam said:

but I cannot fathom why the testing doesn't identify them if it is so rigorous.

what happened to ..."I'll not debate the point any further ..." ?

[Cam]

Fair call. Cheers.