Random Failures Challenger 650

[SGPilot88]

Hi  any plans for random failures for challenger 650 ?  

[Ahmed Saleh]

Acutally great if misuse failures could be implemented as opposed to random...

[Goran_M]

We're still deciding on this.  We'll revisit when we're done with the next few updates.

[dlrk]

On 1/26/2022 at 5:06 AM, Goran_M said:

We're still deciding on this.  We'll revisit when we're done with the next few updates.

This would really be great to see in the next few updates rather than something to be revisited afterwards. This airplane has such great systems modeling, please let us fully enjoy it by implementing some sort of random failure system, even if it is (if only as a placeholder) a global MTBF number.

[Cameron]

2 minutes ago, dlrk said:

This would really be great to see in the next few updates rather than something to be revisited afterwards.

It's honestly not the priority right now. As @Goran_M said, it'll be revisited at the appropriate time in the internal roadmap. Now is not that time.

[dlrk]

8 minutes ago, Cameron said:

It's honestly not the priority right now. As @Goran_M said, it'll be revisited at the appropriate time in the internal roadmap. Now is not that time.

When is that time? I'd understand this more if this was a niche, difficult to implement feature, but and please correct me if I'm wrong, this doesn't seem to be the case here, this is a widely requested feature that just amounts to some sort of RNG triggering failures.

 

[Cameron]

2 minutes ago, dlrk said:

When is that time?

How did I know you were going to ask this? You're just predictable, I guess.

Honestly, we don't know. There's no time on any of this stuff, and we certainly didn't make promises to it as a feature. The time comes when we feel the 650 is fully stable for everyone and bigger code base changes are appropriate. That's definitely not right now, or even likely in the next month or two.

[dlrk]

2 minutes ago, Cameron said:

How did I know you were going to ask this? You're just predictable, I guess.

Honestly, we don't know. There's no time on any of this stuff, and we certainly didn't make promises to it as a feature. The time comes when we feel the 650 is fully stable for everyone and bigger code base changes are appropriate. That's definitely not right now, or even likely in the next month or two.

With respect, you knew I was going to ask it because the difference between "No, never" and "maybe later" is a definition of later.

 

I understand of course that this isn't the time for major code changes. But would adding an RNG that trigger a failure in the exist code base be such a change?

 

Personally, I see unplanned failures as being implicit with having failures modeled at all. But no one (or at least not me or anyone I've seen) is saying "This was promised, it's not here". It's more of "This is widely requested, and seems like it would be relatively simple to implement".

[Cameron]

5 minutes ago, dlrk said:

With respect, you knew I was going to ask it because the difference between "No, never" and "maybe later" is a definition of later.

Not quite accurate, but I don't care to get into it. We'll just call it a matter of experience.

9 minutes ago, dlrk said:

I understand of course that this isn't the time for major code changes. But would adding an RNG that trigger a failure in the exist code base be such a change?

Honestly? In the context of this conversation and our answer, It really doesn't matter. There's no sense in hashing this out because the decision is not up for change.

 

10 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Personally, I see unplanned failures as being implicit with having failures modeled at all. But no one (or at least not me or anyone I've seen) is saying "This was promised, it's not here". It's more of "This is widely requested, and seems like it would be relatively simple to implement".

Na, not really. We're talking less than 1% of the customer base here. Just being honest about it.

[dlrk]

What do you mean "the decision isn't up for change"? It seems that a decision hasn't been made at all, other than not to prioritize random failures.

I, the OP, many others (I don't know the percentage) would like this feature, or at least an answer on when we might hear if it's coming. Not trying to have a debate or an argument here, just trying to get something like "we'll have more information for you folks at ___". That said, I'm lost as to why an RNG linked to the failure system is such an issue.

 

 

[Cameron]

16 minutes ago, dlrk said:

What do you mean "the decision isn't up for change"?

I mean that the decision to re-visit this when we feel appropriate will not change. That was our answer. You need to accept it, or move on some other way.

16 minutes ago, dlrk said:

or at least an answer on when we might hear if it's coming

I answered that. We don't know. At the least a couple of months, as already explained above.

[dlrk]

Well, here's hoping we (not just me, I didn't make this thread lol) hear something in March

[Ahmed Saleh]

I think we need to be patient. Our request was acknowledged which is very good 

[LKN]

On 1/31/2022 at 3:32 AM, Cameron said:

We're talking less than 1% of the customer base here.

I'm one of this 1%!!! I'd like to do the maintenance, polytechnician-pilot! ;-)

The very complaint I have with this fantastic addon is that my nights are very short since I have this beautiful bird.

What you guys have done is just amazing, a step forward in Flight Simulation, definitely worth it! I'm speechless!

Congratulations to the devs, the team, X-aviation and thank you for the joy!