Behind the Screen : October 2024

[Stephen]

 

Behind the Screen : October 2024

 

Go back a few years and X-Plane users were very rarely part of the aircraft development process, there was the very rare access to a final beta, but overall it was an exclusive club.

 

Most developers used a very tight group of testers, very experienced, but mostly very good at identifying and resolving issues. They were capable of doing exactly the same thing over and mind-numbingly over and making notes on the various changes and options required. These notes were passed on to the developer to rectify, then when done these testers then ran the same tests again to see if the issues had been resolved. The only problem was, was that these very specialist personalities were and are still quite a rare species. So the developers groups were very loyal in the context of each other requiring the others specialist services.

 

But as aircraft became much more seriously complex, and with the huge diversity of platforms and the different types of users. When releasing the aircraft, there was usually a huge inundation of issues and problems to fix. It created "Nightmare Fortnight", as it became, for there were loads of needed quick fixes, and the many instant updates required to cover and repair the outstanding issues. 

 

So developers and even Laminar Research with X-Plane itself, opened up the process a little earlier to resolve the majority of these issues before the final release, mostly from the start of the "beta" phase. In context the idea is a good one. As basically the significant user base was now involved in resolving the issues as part of the development program, but it was still mostly constrained to the "beta" process.

 

But in this last year, a few developers have now opened up the earlier "Alpha" development cycle, mostly with FlightFactor's Boeing 777-200ER v2 Ultimate. Granted it was still an exclusive (and paid) invitation to get into this very private domain. FlightFactor ran a development site (again exclusive) for these restricted few privileged assignees. Only a 1,000 ballots at every release were allowed in, but in context the idea worked well in that this very extremely complex aircraft was then able to have the wide range of aspects to cover the massive amount of issues that needed attention. You were under a very strict NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) in not releasing any images or videos, or even publicly announcing any of the aircraft's features and highlights, unless it came from the official sources.

 

Let us be very specific. "Alpha" aircraft are very, very raw, a lot of the development is still missing, details are not only missing, but sometimes not even finished. In reality they are at this stage a very unfinished product. They are not great to use or to even fly as most or even the very crucial areas like VNAV are not either included, or even working correctly, honestly they are horrible...  and so you don't want to go there.

 

They are a nightmare to review? even later "Beta" aircraft are hard to review, because basically they are incomplete. The general idea is to review any aircraft after the release, to summarise it's features and to highlight the best parts of the aircraft, then give a verdict on what has been presented, to to finally note the price and value context of the product. All to help you in making a fair investment that suits your Simulation needs.

 

But the requirements to present a review on the release day can muddle the picture. There is that limited time from release to a point the next "big shiny thing" that will take the purchasers focus away, everyone will usually buy on release, as the "I want it NOW" with FOMO also kicks in, so any review even a week late is just too late? but it's also impossible to present the correct product on release, as changes can go right up to the day of release, sometimes huge changes. That happened with the ToLiss A330neo, as on the very last day all the cockpit textures were completely refined and updated. In this case it meant a night's work (3am) to redo all the review images to mirror the release product. Then there is still the fix up period a few weeks after release that can create even more changes to the original review.

 

The best reviews are done about a month or so after the release and fix window has finished, as you can then assess the product fully and in it's mostly completed state. But in a market driven world we don't get that luxury. To a point the wise purchaser will wait, and get a better assessment of the product, sometimes also at a lower price, as many developers will go within weeks to a "Sale" mode to get extra sales.

 

I am not a fan of this culture, as it first, devalues the product, and secondly it creates a mindset of "if I wait" I will get a "cheaper" product.  Good for you of course, but developers can spend a year to two years to create the aircraft from scratch, it deserves to hold it's value price for longer, sales should be or only come after a period of time, and after the product has created a return for the developers time and expertise.

 

This would be to the horror of the culture, obviously, "I want it cheaper, and less I have to pay, then the better it is for me". But the problem is it devalues the work and returns that lower return that usually ends up with the developer saying "I'm not making anything out of this anymore?" then disappears off the scene taking their expert skills and taking any future products with them. Now they have a bigger excuse in going to MSFS2020/2024 to make some return for their work and skills, so X-Plane loses all round. It is a race to the bottom, and X-Plane has seen the dire effects of such machinations this year.

 

But is opening up these early "Alpha" and "Beta" releases to all recipients a good idea? as noted it is a double-edged sword, specialist testers can't cover all the bases, that the swarm of different users can. Many users are actually very good at this early testing caper, it is gratifying to see on how very well they did these testing protocols, and to give great returns with great intelligence and covering the details, which are given back to the developer. But there is a danger side to this aspect as well. As not everyone is created equally.

 

Streaming is free, and anyone can do it and create online streams, Streamers, Vlogs, Vloggers, they all basically do the same thing in streaming live content. Obviously Simulation is incredibly popular, certainly when a new and exciting product is being released. This creates a bun-fight to get out the first video of the new product, not only for the "likes", but mostly for the money it generates.

 

Disclaimer here, I am not jealous of this because I don't stream reviews, oddly I am a professional video editor that worked in the film industry, but I feel that content should be created with care and detail and doing a lot of research. Now there are some very good Streamers out there, Drishal is one, Q8Pilot is another quality reviewer, and a few real world pilots make good videos on aircraft comparisons, again oddly they can also be the worse reviewers of Simulation aircraft. If you want to learn aircraft systems and procedures then watch real world cockpit videos, not the online wannabes.

 

And here we get down to the problem. The earlier you get the new product, and then get it out there, the more money you make. Then you now have developers letting these streamers in at a very early level of development, it is a culture that is going to clash and end badly.

 

The moment FightFactor lifted it's NDA, it all went shit-faced, with an "Alpha" aircraft at that, but got it worse with the release of the ToLiss A330neo.

 

Let us be clear, I'm not a fan of the sort of streaming that tries to land a Boeing 747 on an aircraft carrier, or in trying to fly a Cessna 172 to 50,000ft, to a point I have a serious personality. And I know that the comments will come, "Oh just lighten up a little", "It's just a bit of fun Stephen". But my take is that in the real world cockpit there is no room for these antics, I want to mirror the professionals, run a clockwork cockpit. My take is that X-Plane or any really good Simulator is an education tool, but also a training tool, for both real world and online pilots.

 

Our job is to teach as well as do reviews, we do all the hard work so you don't have to, there are explanations and tips to shortcut you, and to get you flying quicker. But Streamers don't adhere to those standards, "They are the "Quick Buck guys", worse are their flying standards and in not following the correct procedures, as teachers they are dismally awful, not all as I have mentioned, and obviously it makes great entertainment, but not much else.

 

But to note that "Alpha" aircraft, and "beta" aircraft are not finished, and pointing out the missing aspects of development is a new low, it hurts everyone, the developers and any future sales, and don't get me started on the wails of the missing VNAV (B777v2) and the bad cockpit textures (ToLiss A339), both were either included or fixed before the official release. It is the loss of the basic understanding of the development process, and it shows in how immature they are, but hey, they only want the available money. Yes bad streamers have been around for years, so it's nothing new to Simulation, but don't feed the monster by giving them what they want, cheap easy money.

 

See you all next month

 

Stephen Dutton

5th November 2024

Copyright©2024 X-Plane Reviews

 

[Medellinexpat]

In terms of streaming I’m generally perplexed with what a poor job aircraft developers do in putting their own content up. They have plenty of access to their own product and put up two minutes of footage that tells you very little. Scenery developers are even worse with large amounts of the footage often shot at night, convenient for sceneries often little better than stock.

Discord  hasn’t also created the situation where there’s a sort of insiders access and little for a more general buying community. I don’t need to be intimately involved with every day of development but some effort in building a prerelease buzz might help sales.

It is also worth considering that there are plenty of alpha and beta releases out there which are called ‘updates’. One developer, who might be responsible for a set of CRJ aircraft, often has updates but the general feel of the products remains at best Beta offerings. After several years.

 

As for going off to MSFS is that community any less picky? Compare the Toliss release of their 339 with Aerosoft’s (now there is a name from the past) debacle of an A330. Even worse for Aerosoft there’s no Mathijs Kok to blame anymore.