Ridiculous

[bigbasspic]

I bought this plugin mainly because of the FMC. After some handflown patterns (beautiful!) I tried the simple route EDDW EDDH. The plane never reached its destination, because this gismo-CRAP crashed every time. All plugs disabled. But at least it got off the ground.
After update 1.0.2. it crashes at the point I execute this really simple plan. GizmoLog.txt attached. No, I'm not going to make a video of this.

After all the things IXEG said about their software prior to release I can only say this is RIDICULOUS.

Being a programmer myself, I would be ashamed if I would sell software like this.

 

Benjamin

GizmoLog.txt

[Cameron]

Hi Benjamin,

Sorry you are experiencing frustration.

We're very dedicated to the product and will get your issue resolved as quickly as possible.

Thanks!

[HerrSchwarz]

17 hours ago, bigbasspic said:

I bought this plugin mainly because of the FMC. After some handflown patterns (beautiful!) I tried the simple route EDDW EDDH. The plane never reached its destination, because this gismo-CRAP crashed every time. All plugs disabled. But at least it got off the ground.
After update 1.0.2. it crashes at the point I execute this really simple plan. GizmoLog.txt attached. No, I'm not going to make a video of this.

After all the things IXEG said about their software prior to release I can only say this is RIDICULOUS.

Being a programmer myself, I would be ashamed if I would sell software like this.

 

Benjamin

GizmoLog.txt

Ya its pretty much a Beta for 75$. Was thinking that to myself the other day. It will take a long time. But i hope some time next year it will be fully functional.

[Litjan]

2 minutes ago, HerrSchwarz said:

Ya its pretty much a Beta for 75$. Was thinking that to myself the other day. It will take a long time. But i hope some time next year it will be fully functional.

We agree that there are still a lot of lingering problems - but assure you that we are working hard to get these problems taken care of. I am sorry that you are having a bad time with the product.

I would maintain that it IS possible to enjoy the product as it is, though - as many users report. It all depends on your personal level of expecting a perfect and bug-free product.

Jan

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Litjan

[HerrSchwarz]

5 minutes ago, Litjan said:

We agree that there are still a lot of lingering problems - but assure you that we are working hard to get these problems taken care of. I am sorry that you are having a bad time with the product.

Jan

 

No anger on my side. I have trust in you, since you´re working very hard every day. But i can absolutely understand the poeple who are disappointed. The sad part is, V 1.0.1 worked relativly fine, now V1.0.2 screwed up a lot of other things so my anticipation to fly is just gone since Friday night. I hope it comes back at some point.

Edited May 1, 2016 by HerrSchwarz

[Defiance_co]

Here's a tale of woe and frustration from myself ..........

A certain swedish company ........

A Micro Transaction game/sim

Last October, havoc ensued from a new 'area' they added

Crashing for many hundreds if not thousands of players, and reading and asking old playing mates it's still the same lol

1k Dollars i threw at it myself in 9mths as i loved it so much, others up to 3-5k Dollars !!

The game is still crashing, the big spenders have stopped spending

The compay has addressed the crashing by fixing it ? NO, they keep releasing more micro transaction items to keep the coffers topped up while they bury their heads in the deep sand where developers can take your money and players/buyers have nothing they can do except wait lol (should be criminal, one day hopefully it will be)

They even had the cheek to make some/us believe some 'beta sessions' were to test for bugs, not only did they not want the main crashing bug info, they only wanted to see if the new items worked lmao, they then added more, yes more, Micro Transaction items in the bug-soup roflmao

So bigbasspic .......................

Coming from that outlay dollar-wise, to this group/company of guys (and maybe gals ) who have persisted for say six years, try and stay the course and let them crack the bugs in which from my pov they're squatting them faster than most others would even attempt

As you're a coder yourself, you should know the spectrum of hd or sw combos out in the real world, can show up bugs that were never even encountered in testing

Yes it had problems, here's something that's fact that keeps me sane .............

There's only One Thing so far in this life which is a 100% guarantee, Death, everything else with luck/skill you can maybe get 99,9%r

Hope you feel better when the problems are fixed for you

Take Care

Have Fun

Tony

 

 

 

[ixam500]

4 hours ago, HerrSchwarz said:

Ya its pretty much a Beta for 75$. Was thinking that to myself the other day. It will take a long time. But i hope some time next year it will be fully functional.

Well, I don`t really get your point here. If you look at it realistically, this plane is already the most EXTENSIVE for X-Plane and could easily be in the top-league of FSX. Furthermore, it has been released for 1 week, how should they "fix" every bug (its also impossible to bring a totally bug-free product on the market, as there is too many combinations of hardware, scenery, plug-ins and add-ons). Look at software released by big players in the industry, where they have 200 people working on a project with a way higher budget. IXEG are I think 5 or 6 people who are more or less "quereinsteiger". Of course, its not fully complete, but calling it a "Beta" is IMO degrading to the team and their efforta for the past 5 years.

Cheers

Edited May 1, 2016 by ixam500

[Ben Russell]

For reference.

Battlefield 4 bugs forum; 798 index pages and growing.

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/view/2955064762159285271/

These guys have thousands of people, hundreds of millions of dollars budget, entire buildings full of talent all working in one place together to bring you products that are still full of stupid annoying bugs.

 

We are a small team of about six people spread all over the world working in our spare time and up until release we were entirely self funded.

Thanks to those with the patience and vision to support us in what we're trying to do.  

Edited May 1, 2016 by Ben Russell
caps to italic

[HerrSchwarz]

41 minutes ago, ixam500 said:

Well, I don`t really get your point here. If you look at it realistically, this plane is already the most EXTENSIVE for X-Plane and could easily be in the top-league of FSX. Furthermore, it has been released for 1 week, how should they "fix" every bug (its also impossible to bring a totally bug-free product on the market, as there is too many combinations of hardware, scenery, plug-ins and add-ons). Look at software released by big players in the industry, where they have 200 people working on a project with a way higher budget. IXEG are I think 5 or 6 people who are more or less "quereinsteiger". Of course, its not fully complete, but calling it a "Beta" is IMO degrading to the team and their efforta for the past 5 years.

Cheers

You´re right, you clearly missed my point here.  Its not about the features it offers, its about how reliably they work. And some of them simply don´t work as intended. Look at the Bug Forums you will see one or two Bug Reports.  If they´d sell this as kind of an early access airplane, im sure no one would complaign. And like i mentioned before. If you are happy, fine. Quiet a few ppl are not. Whats the point of trying to convince them ? Its still the best looking and mostly in depth simulated airplane out there for x Plane 10. Sure. But still.. and i don´t want to repeat myself here but there is stuff to work on, which they do. And thats why i am not mad at all i have trust. But i´m just sayin, that i can understand, that ppl are complaiging! Hopefully it clearified my point for you.

[Ben Russell]

1 minute ago, HerrSchwarz said:

You´re right, you clearly missed my point here.  Its not about the features it offers, its about how reliably they work. And some of them simply don´t work as intended. Look at the Bug Forums you will see one or two Bug Reports.  If they´d sell this as kind of an early access airplane, im sure no one would complaign. And like i mentioned before. If you are happy, fine. Quiet a few ppl are not. Whats the point of trying to convince them ? Its still the best looking and mostly in depth simulated airplane out there for x Plane 10. Sure. But still.. and i don´t want to repeat myself here but there is stuff to work on, which they do. And thats why i am not mad at all i have trust. But i´m just sayin, that i can understand, that ppl are complaiging! Hopefully it clearified my point for you.

Actually I'm 100% sure there is plenty of overlap in the hundreds of people that requested early access and all the bugs and complaining about imperfections.

 

[ixam500]

10 minutes ago, Ben Russell said:

For reference.

Battlefield 4 bugs forum; 798 index pages and growing.

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/view/2955064762159285271/

These guys have thousands of people, hundreds of millions of dollars budget, entire buildings full of talent all working in one place together to bring you products that are still full of stupid annoying bugs.

 

We are a small team of about six people spread all over the world working in our spare time and up until release we were entirely self funded.

Thanks to those with the patience and vision to support us in what we're trying to do.  

LOL, I actually wanted to bring that example, since I pre-ordered it and it was literally unplayable for me for the first few months.

5 minutes ago, HerrSchwarz said:

You´re right, you clearly missed my point here.  Its not about the features it offers, its about how reliably they work. And some of them simply don´t work as intended. Look at the Bug Forums you will see one or two Bug Reports.  If they´d sell this as kind of an early access airplane, im sure no one would complaign. And like i mentioned before. If you are happy, fine. Quiet a few ppl are not. Whats the point of trying to convince them ? Its still the best looking and mostly in depth simulated airplane out there for x Plane 10. Sure. But still.. and i don´t want to repeat myself here but there is stuff to work on, which they do. And thats why i am not mad at all i have trust. But i´m just sayin, that i can understand, that ppl are complaiging! Hopefully it clearified my point for you.

I kind of understand it now, but just sayin, even if its not "early access", and taking the experience of the team, there were very little bug reports (for different bugs, eg one small navigraph-reading bug can cause a lot of damage), must be frustrating for some ppl though (especially the XPUPIC one) which I understand.

[Ben Russell]

We're trying. And we're actually converting the FSX/P3D masses... (according to the rest of the internet...)

Anyone that thinks they can do it better is welcome to do so, plenty have already tried.

Thanks again to everyone making constructive efforts to track down the bugs.

[HerrSchwarz]

5 minutes ago, Ben Russell said:

We're trying. And we're actually converting the FSX/P3D masses... (according to the rest of the internet...)

Anyone that thinks they can do it better is welcome to do so, plenty have already tried.

Thanks again to everyone making constructive efforts to track down the bugs.

If you look at my profile you´ll see, i say that over and over again to ppl who are complaigning. I trust you guys, i have faith in your qualitiy product but i am aware that it´ll take some time. All good.

Edited May 1, 2016 by HerrSchwarz

[Ben Russell]

22 hours ago, bigbasspic said:

I bought this plugin mainly because of the FMC. After some handflown patterns (beautiful!) I tried the simple route EDDW EDDH. The plane never reached its destination, because this gismo-CRAP crashed every time. All plugs disabled. But at least it got off the ground.
After update 1.0.2. it crashes at the point I execute this really simple plan. GizmoLog.txt attached. No, I'm not going to make a video of this.

After all the things IXEG said about their software prior to release I can only say this is RIDICULOUS.

Being a programmer myself, I would be ashamed if I would sell software like this.

 

Benjamin

GizmoLog.txt

"Programmer to programmer"; this bug report is useless. *delete*

[HerrSchwarz]

Just now, Ben Russell said:

"Programmer to programmer"; this bug report is useless. *delete*

Don´t get mad, Ben.

[Ben Russell]

5 minutes ago, HerrSchwarz said:

Don´t get mad, Ben.

What's to be mad about? Top of the world.

[JRBarrett]

FWIW, I just purchased the aircraft yesterday, and have completed six flights already with no crashes or major issues at all. This is a clean install of 1.0.2.

The only issues I found were the incomplete PROG page in the FMS, (which I was aware of in advance), and twice a spurious left duct overheat light with no obvious cause.

I did note that the ground spoilers did not auto deploy on landing, (known issue), but after changing the flaps call out setting to "1" in the user pref file, the spoilers have been working fine.

The only (very minor) bug I have not seen mentioned yet, regards the VOR course selector knobs. The pilot side selector shows "0" when set to north, while the copilot side shows "360".

The flying characteristics are superb. The best I have ever seen in any XP or FSX add-on, and I have all the major ones for both platforms.

I am running XP on a Windows 7 PC, and have minimal XP plugins. Other than Gizmo, I have the dataref viewer plugin and SkyMax Pro.

Jim Barrett

[tkyler]

23 hours ago, bigbasspic said:

Being a programmer myself, I would be ashamed if I would sell software like this.

 

Understood, but very few can develop software like this, so we don't get to pick and choose.   I do have a 'theory' on this whole situation, I may blog on it shortly...but I don't back down nor feel any embarassment.    We have endeavored to move to a new level of detail, not just in the subtleties of the FMS, but in a lot of other areas also.  Every additional level brings exponential detail to tend to and the more you chase, the harder it is.   Many programmers have said what you said; however, I would say,   "But you are not doing this now are you, we are".  

Please understand that I don't mean that to be derogatory, but rather than until one has given this a try, really have no clue how difficult it is given this market we are in.  What?  Maybe 5 FMSs developed in the 30+ year history of flight simming?  It is easy to sit on the other side and tell us how its supposed to be done, but at the end of the day, (or a few months from now), you will find that we..... not any other programmer.... are the ones who got it done, ergo, we figured out how to get it done...and Gizmo plays into that.    

I do not dismiss the complaints or bugs, I know they are there, they frustrate me too; however, it is my contention that this is the way it had to go for several reasons I won't get into cause they're my own opinions.....and though some disagree, I will re-iterate that here in a few months, this thing will be humming along, you will have paid no more money and you will get support for many years to come, in addition to new functionality, all for the original 74.95 price.,...no cost for new liveries or such.  When the dust settles, IXEG will have produced a next level aircraft....and we will be quite proud of that achievement.  In addition, we will continue to support you and every other customer to ensure you get your monies worth for many many years to come!

-tkyler

Edited May 1, 2016 by tkyler

[tkyler]

1 hour ago, HerrSchwarz said:

Its not about the features it offers, its about how reliably they work

This is definitely one of the areas I was on the fence about.   I have wavered back and forth over this, and totally see your point.  I'll shed some light on why I went the other way.  

When I would get a description from Jan about how the FMS behaved....I would assess the workload to implement.  I could "block off that feature", toss out some INVALID message" to the user when they tried it....and be done with it.  NO gizmo crashes risked, etc.   The problem was, that IF we wanted to implemented such a feature in the future, then it had to be wired into existing functionality....and the wiring generally proved to be extensive enough that you just could not leave the feature hanging or effectively block it off....it was either, "put it in now, or risk too much effort adding (motivational problems) it in".

So, we really wanted to make this thing as real as we could....and so we just had to say, "lets go for it"....and we did that in so many areas, we just couldn't test all the permutations resulting from the extra options and functionality.   THIS is what I refer to as the "rite of passage" or "pain of childbirth". ...and why I say this couldn't go any other way.  IF we want a super accurate FMS, then we just have to put it out there, see what users do that we did not, and fix it.   Take the punches....and one day, the bruises will heal and we'll have this wonderful thing we envisioned years ago...and it will be good.   So keep punching, we'll keep fixing and get there.....but its Sunday, no fixing today   Family time.

-tkyler

Edited May 1, 2016 by tkyler

[Mikkel]

Nice of IXEG to respond to an unsatisfied and not entirely constructive user. Good service for an absolutely brilliant product. I remember PMDG had problems as well with their NG.

Given the complexity of the product and the variety of the end users' systems I cannot imagine even the thread owner of this thread to have produced a perfectly reliable product under such conditions.

Chill out. Look out the window or do other things that makes you more happy .

[HerrSchwarz]

1 hour ago, tkyler said:

This is definitely one of the areas I was on the fence about.   I have wavered back and forth over this, and totally see your point.  I'll shed some light on why I went the other way.  

When I would get a description from Jan about how the FMS behaved....I would assess the workload to implement.  I could "block off that feature", toss out some INVALID message" to the user when they tried it....and be done with it.  NO gizmo crashes risked, etc.   The problem was, that IF we wanted to implemented such a feature in the future, then it had to be wired into existing functionality....and the wiring generally proved to be extensive enough that you just could not leave the feature hanging or effectively block it off....it was either, "put it in now, or risk too much effort adding (motivational problems) it in".

So, we really wanted to make this thing as real as we could....and so we just had to say, "lets go for it"....and we did that in so many areas, we just couldn't test all the permutations resulting from the extra options and functionality.   THIS is what I refer to as the "rite of passage" or "pain of childbirth". ...and why I say this couldn't go any other way.  IF we want a super accurate FMS, then we just have to put it out there, see what users do that we did not, and fix it.   Take the punches....and one day, the bruises will heal and we'll have this wonderful thing we envisioned years ago...and it will be good.   So keep punching, we'll keep fixing and get there.....but its Sunday, no fixing today   Family time.

-tkyler

I think you qouted the wrong person here. I am not punching in any way. I´d like to point that out again. Never did that!

Edited May 1, 2016 by HerrSchwarz

[tkyler]

52 minutes ago, HerrSchwarz said:

I think you qouted the wrong person here. I am not punching in any way. I´d like to point that out again. Never did that!

It was your post I quoted.... but I did not mean to imply you were the one punching...my post just kind of morphed into that; however,  I have never taken anything you've said as punching at all, I quite view your comments are accurate and constructive, definitley noted! 

-tkyler

Edited May 1, 2016 by tkyler

[stevekirks]

6 hours ago, tkyler said:

Understood, but very few can develop software like this, so we don't get to pick and choose.   I do have a 'theory' on this whole situation, I may blog on it shortly...but I don't back down nor feel any embarassment.    We have endeavored to move to a new level of detail, not just in the subtleties of the FMS, but in a lot of other areas also.  Every additional level brings exponential detail to tend to and the more you chase, the harder it is.   Many programmers have said what you said; however, I would say,   "But you are not doing this now are you, we are".  

Please understand that I don't mean that to be derogatory, but rather than until one has given this a try, really have no clue how difficult it is given this market we are in.  What?  Maybe 5 FMSs developed in the 30+ year history of flight simming?  It is easy to sit on the other side and tell us how its supposed to be done, but at the end of the day, (or a few months from now), you will find that we..... not any other programmer.... are the ones who got it done, ergo, we figured out how to get it done...and Gizmo plays into that.    

I do not dismiss the complaints or bugs, I know they are there, they frustrate me too; however, it is my contention that this is the way it had to go for several reasons I won't get into cause they're my own opinions.....and though some disagree, I will re-iterate that here in a few months, this thing will be humming along, you will have paid no more money and you will get support for many years to come, in addition to new functionality, all for the original 74.95 price.,...no cost for new liveries or such.  When the dust settles, IXEG will have produced a next level aircraft....and we will be quite proud of that achievement.  In addition, we will continue to support you and every other customer to ensure you get your monies worth for many many years to come!

-tkyler

As someone who's lived on the PMDG side of the fence for awhile the FMC errors are something I haven't seen before, but as an amateur programmer, I know where they come from and that's the mass mystery of "users".  You think you do something solid and good in one section, only to find out that once it's in the wild, it wasn't as solid as you hoped.

Overall, the FMC has been fine for me, until I start yanking it around, like changing approaches and STARs in flight, stacking commands before hitting "activate" and "execute" and other allowable but not normal things to do.  Overall, $75 user for a clone of the Smith FMC is not what I expected nor what I received.

Here's what I got:

* A 3D cockpit that's beautiful to look at AND easy of the FPS

* A sound set worth a price of it's own.  I mean, a show of hands here - who else leaves the windows open during start and taxi just to listen to engines?

* A flight model second to none - maybe the FJS 732 - but wow, what a fun plane to fly on vectors to final in crosswind!

* An FMC that can get me from point A to B in most cases out of the box, with demonstrated commitment to improvements

* An engaged dev team that is genuine in their concern and enthusiasm, not walled off in a castle on a mountain top

Not only will I continue to buy from IXEG and X-Aviation, I'm looking forward to giving them more money for even more Boeing content...

$75 = $30 for the base plane, $30 for the FMC and $15 for the sound set.  When you think of it that way, isn't this a bargain?

[poodster]

Totally agree @stevekirks!  The fmc has bugs and is missing some key features, but based on the current efforts in only a week since release, I'm sure these fmc bugs will be squashed in no time. Once I know I can use the fmc wihout a chance of a crash, I'll be even more happy than what I am now (which is very happy   )

[wiloghby]

20 hours ago, tkyler said:

So, we really wanted to make this thing as real as we could....and so we just had to say, "lets go for it"....and we did that in so many areas, we just couldn't test all the permutations resulting from the extra options and functionality.   THIS is what I refer to as the "rite of passage" or "pain of childbirth". ...and why I say this couldn't go any other way.  IF we want a super accurate FMS, then we just have to put it out there, see what users do that we did not, and fix it.   Take the punches....and one day, the bruises will heal and we'll have this wonderful thing we envisioned years ago...and it will be good.

With some limited experience in development, this approach makes perfect sense...and also explains why you have a legacy of best-in-class X-Plane products attached to your name going back longer than most of us have been old enough to buy beer.

If I could offer your newest outfit, IXEG, one constructive suggestion, it would be to have a larger and longer beta period.  I know the population of users who know the plane well enough to avoid giving spurious bug reports, while at the same time deviate from normal operating procedures enough to find new ways to break your plane, is not huge.  But certainly it could have been bigger or longer to compensate for going for complex and complete implementation from day 1.  That seems like the natural adjustment to make in the development plan, I would think.

Of course I also know there are unique financial and other strategic pressures involved in picking a release date.  Certainly the product is better for prioritizing fidelity over expediency.  The ideal scenario of a best in class simulation with no major bugs on release would likely have required months more time that perhaps you did not have because of these pressures.  Of all possible alternatives to that ideal, you chose the absolute next best thing...which is releasing a product with the best simulation (and potential for nearly complete fidelity in the future) with a few bugs.  Further still the team has demonstrated a commitment to fixing issues quickly. 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by wiloghby