JF Hunter F.6 / FGA.9 announced

[Paul K]

I've only ever beta tested one thing ( ACG's Duxford ) so correct me if I'm wrong. With an aircraft, isn't the vast bulk of beta testing just making sure knobs rotate, switches move, instruments, lights and radios turn on and off in response to the controls in the VC; that flaps, gear, airbrakes and doors animate properly and so on ? And if so, does this really require the tester to fly the model very much at all ? I do get the impression that some people approach beta testing as if it were a real aircraft and they are test pilots, rather than diligently checking computer code, texturing, and the correct functioning of 3D animations. I know the flight model has to be tested, but I think that part of it is very specialized and would remain the responsibility of the developer and people who actually fly/flew the aircraft in real life.

As for updates, yes I agree that it gets a little tiresome, so I must congratulate Orbx on their new system which I installed this afternoon. It does the whole thing for you; tells you what you have bought and not yet installed, what you have installed, checks for updates, and downloads and installs those updates for you. Given their wide range of products, and how easy it is just to forget what you have, let alone what the version is, the new FTX Central v3 is the ideal solution.

[WarHorse47]

Somewhere I posted the comment that "I wish they would test it the way I fly it."

It's hard to recall all the issues I came across and reported to developers after purchase. I do remember an ongoing exchange with MAAM after they released their Avenger and I encountered CTDs. I had to setup a test flight in order to repeat every detail, and repeat that flight with every updated gauge to help the MAAM folks track down the cause of the CTD. Most recently I had an exchange (on forums, e-mails and tech support) with JF over inaccurate TACAN and ILS readings. And again, it was a matter of repeating a "test flight" to see what gauge or setting or whatever might have caused the problem in the first place. I guess all those college hours in the engineering labs taught me how to conduct consistent experiments to narrow down the root cause of a problem.

--WH

[DaveB]

I guess all developers do things differently. Betas come in stages. You get an initial visual model with basic VC and basic FD. The way we've always done things here is to test everything on each beta to destruction (checking that everything works) then offer recommendations. These recommendations are taken onboard (or not) and while the team continue to fly and test.. the dev will add new things and tweak others then release a second beta and on it goes until such point that a final beta is released. If all is well with that.. it'll get released. It'd be nice to get real pilots involved and when possible, we have but generally.. the flight model will come through reading pilots test reports and using whatever reference material (PN's e t c) are at hand.

Most of you know that I beta test UK2000 scenery (FS9 versions in my case) and doing this requires a different approach. Gary will get a scenery to a point where he's happy (note.. he makes scenery for 3 platforms) then he'll release betas for FS9, FSX and P3D. The testers run all over the airport in great detail checking taxiways, runways, lighting and every single aspect of the visual model (fences out of place.. cars going through fences, helicopter tails going into hangar walls, roofs missing, buildings not matching ground tiles) and on it goes. We also check the approaches and navaids by flying them. All points are taken onboard and Gary will respond. If he thinks something (a query for example) doesn't warrant change.. he'll tell you in a 'Q&A' when the next beta is released. We'll then check all the fixes and try to find more bugs. A cutoff time is given and all new bugs will be fixed up to the cutoff time and any received after will be released in the first post release fix. There's always one of these. Testing a small airport (even an Extreme version) is enough work to keep you going. Checking something like Heathrow is a very time consuming job!! Imagine the work that goes into the VFR Airfields series!! We don't get paid for this toil but we DO get copies of the scenery. For my part.. as I only test FS9 but don't fly it these days.. I don't generally bother with full versions (release versions) unless a question comes up on the support forum that needs to be answered so I'll install the release version and check to see if the problem exists. I rarely use the Extreme airports in FSX and the main ones I use (Glasgow, Aldergrove and Edinburgh) I'd already bought. It's not possible to install an airport.. have a quick fly over it and say 'that looks nice'. You have to dig and dig deep. The same applies to testing aircraft models (or should)!
ATB
DaveB

[DaveG]

I had Sir Neville Duke fly mine, doesn't get much better than that. (OK, it was only for 5 minutes, but still.. )

[ChrisHunt]

Couldn't agree more Dave (B). Good testing is a science; takes prep - what am I going to test, how, what environment and what results should I expect to see (the test plan). Then taking the time to test thoroughly, making notes and repeating tests where needed and with different variables, e.g. environment. Testing a complex aircraft ought to take quite a few hours (JF stuff in minutes?).

[Paul K]

I had Sir Neville Duke fly mine, doesn't get much better than that. (OK, it was only for 5 minutes, but still.. )

Blimey !

[T6flyer]

As you all know I was very much part of the A2A T-6 project and did a lot of the testing, modifying and reviewing based on my real life experiences with the type. I knew that some of us had time on the aeroplane, but some didn't and all problems were discussed and corrected where and when possible. We all learnt from one another's experiences. I truly believe that what is seen today is a worthy replica of the real thing.

Something which somewhat aided my departure from sim flying was the lack of experience that some developers and testers had with their products. Even to the fact that at times I had seen instances where even the developers had no flight time on type or just based their findings on books and other reference material. The product sells and then the press and websites review the said item giving it wonderful reviews etc, still with no reference to the real thing and everyone loves it! In some way, the blind leading the blind.

Just my thoughts.

Martin

[spatialpro]

On the subject of Hunters... how are your TacPack versions coming along Dave?

I think a TacPack version release (and perhaps even a few minor mods to add maximum P3D compatibility, such as mirrors etc.) would really put the cat among the pigeons!

If you'd also like to add F95 cameras inside the FR and PR noses (perhaps edited to match the subtly different nose shape, plus working for'ard camera eyelid?!) I have the real deal(s) here you could model from...

All the best

Andy

[spatialpro]

Froogle seems to think the Hunter is a JF in-house development, not AH. Does anyone have any evidence either way?

[Henk Schuitemaker]

Andy, the new Hunter is developed by Aeroplane Heaven, it is on their FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/Aeroplaneheaven/