SeaHawk Jayhawks Ship Landing Pad Issue.

[jerm138 0]

This update came from a different user in a different thread:

I had a small conversation with Aerosoft today.

They said that it would probably not be before next week an update would be ready.

I also got the "to do" list, but I don´t think I can post it here.

But there will be numeruos enhancements and fixes, both in the virtual cockpit, as well as the exterior of the Sea / Jay Hawks. Also other fixes mentioned elsewhere in this forum will be included.

[gwolb 0]

wow, great news, but would that take more than 30 seconds to be officially posted in here somewhere?

[skydvdan 2]

This sucks, I think they should give everyone a 15% discount on this

Now that's just ridiculous. :?

[jerm138 0]

gwolb wrote:

This sucks, I think they should give everyone a 15% discount on this

Now that's just ridiculous.

Not saying I agree or disagree... but it does seem odd that you can get a 15% discount for the CD version, but not for the download version? You'd think it would be the other way around, since the download version doesn't cost them anything but bandwidth.

[skydvdan 2]

Not saying I agree or disagree... but it does seem odd that you can get a 15% discount for the CD version, but not for the download version? You'd think it would be the other way around, since the download version doesn't cost them anything but bandwidth.

Discounts on boxed products versus downloaded products have been discussed before. There's more involved than you know.

[FSXFAN 0]

well if you read the rotor animation thread on the 16th october Mathjis said

We solved the crash above the Xcraft. Do NOT ask me what caused it (we don't know, there is nothing there and we just removed the crash code of the whole object (additional value, 4 fps more on my system)).

The hardening of the decks is complex, there are a few ways to do it and all of them have serious issues. FS2004 was a lot more flexible here. I need another 24 hours to know how to move on this.

We also found an issue that makes the chopper jump on the ground. This is a weird one, as I can recreate it on all of my Vista test systems and on none of the XP systems. Anybody can confirm this?

To test:

- load the hover training hard flight, unpause

- let all engine gauges climb to green

- to go to spot view

- to go to tower view

- on vista I see the aircraft jump after 2 seconds, on XP I 'think' I see a movement, but not sure. Please let me know any results.

thanks jerm138 for the info, i rather wait and let them fix all the issues rather then one and be stuck with the rest waiting on a new patch, :roll:

[gwolb 0]

It does sound like they have a good list of things to fix. So a little longer will be fine. After all ACCELERATION comes out next Tuesday, so that will be fun to use to fill the time, it looks amazing. Cant wait to see the DX10 in action, and the VC shadows look so cool.

[astrodave 0]

Good to know there is a bug even if it should have been fixed already like they said. I was all excited to land on those cutters after figuring out the SDK install and google earth setup etc only to find that I fall through the ships. Pretty lousy beta testing I agree and even lousy communication from some guys who are usually top notch. There must be more going on than they are saying. I bought the Dillingham and Cape Canaveral scenery packages with the seahawk and they are both excellent. The seahawk is also superb and when I get some free time I plan on flying it and using it the way it was meant to be used by learning all the systems. This bird almost gives the dodosim guys a run for their money. Can't wait for the ship fix.

[gwolb 0]

Just remember, you can land on the XCraft, and Valley Forge fine, just have to disable crash detection. Thats what I have been doing as a temp fix, and it works out great. Other good temp fix if for the red bar issue, just switch to 2d view, and then back to VC view, and all fixed. Hope this helps.

[Infin8lives 3]

Well it looks like they've updated the front page with all the awards they've just won. How about an update on the landing pad issue with this product I've purchased?

[gwolb 0]

Yea, Iam still waiting on news about the DO27 fixes they are "working on" also, its been over 2 weeks since I have heard anything about it.

[Infin8lives 3]

Welcome back Aerosoft Staff from your conference. Any updates on the landing pad issues?

[jerm138 0]

This was posted in another thread today:

Gents, sorry for the delay, I was in Germany to help out with the German Flight Sim Conference (http://www.fskonferenz.de/links/bilder.html) and one of the main developers was off-line to fight a virus (the non digital kind). So we are late. But major parts are done, most is tested and when we are real lucky we got it online on Friday, if not early next week. I think we got most issues fixed in this update. If there is more let me know.

Ships

1 ) Xcraft has crashing invisible object above deck removed

2 ) LHD has not blurry textures on some systems

3 ) LHD tractor has incorrect texture

5 ) LHD has effects problems

6 ) LHD has landing deck issue

7 ) Cutter has landing deck issue

8 ) LCS1 has landing deck issue

9 ) CG50 Valley has an invisible crash object

Shipyard2

1 ) The F122 should be renamed to F220 Hamburg

2 ) Correct save path

Model

1 ) The fuel switches did not fully function as expected

2 ) The rotor fold work intermittently, should be moved fully to VC

3 ) The rotor (main and tail) animation more smooth

4 ) Collective now animated

Gauge

1 ) The PFD can show a problem in some conditions (can be solved by cycling through views).

Flight model

1 ) Reducing jumping effects (might not be fully possible to maintain the strong damping the gears of a ship based chopper needs)

_________________

With regards,

Mathijs Kok (on behalf of Aerosoft)

[gwolb 0]

Thanks for the update on the issues being worked on. Its very nice to have something offical. Cant wait for the fixes, but even with the way it is now, its still a great addon. I just got the new FSX Acceleration, and the helicopter in this is nice, but the features in the Jayhawk blows it away.

Now if we could just get the wench to work!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Although my words may have sounded rather harsh, the intent wasn't to merely bash Aerosoft, as I am fully aware that such a thing does not solve problems. I simply wanted to be very clear about how their handling of the situation affects their business... in this case, they could have earned another customer who will provide return business, but instead, they have driven me away after having sold only one product to me.

I have browsed their other products, and there are several that I would like to have. Had these problems with this particular product been fixed before making it available, I probably would have already bought a couple more of their titles as I am very pleased with this particular helicopter. Even if they would have made a post on here yesterday that said "hey guys... it's going to take a few more days," I would not feel quite so bitter about it, and they'd still have my business. But the complete lack of communication with customers who paid for a faulty product is absolutely unacceptable.

I do not doubt that they are busy fixing the problem, but it only takes 2 minutes to post an update on the thread.

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/viewtopic.ph...71&start=28

[João Pinto 23]

I agree that these are issues that should have been found in the beta. Unfortunately these days it's hard to distinguish quality beta testers from the crooks that just want a product first and for free. Hopefully Aerosoft will be more picky on who they choose for beta testing in the future. Every beta that I've participated in for Aerosoft I've seen that there are a few of us that are dedicated to checking a product inside and out to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately we also see (or don't see in the beta forum) the losers that are just scamming the system. It happens almost everytime. I unfortunately wasn't in on the beta for the Seahawk.

This message goes to all others who commented on the performance of the Beta Team of Aerosfoft's Jayhawk & Seahawk package.

Dear Forum Users.

I know you heard about those bounty hunters of free copies that claim to be "Beta Testers" that eventually enable the release of faulty, sometimes rude products.

In my experience of Beta Testing, thankfully extensive and successful in many ways, I stumbled upon one or two of these mercenaries who are either kicked out or ignored.

But a whole team of those, is something I am still waiting to see, since at first sign of inertia I am the first to jump out, because my time is too precious to be fooled around.

But take a moment to check my signature banner. Sounds like a contradiction, according to the words of Skydvdan and others, I apparently am not living up to my level of commitment and still bear the "Coast Guard & Seahawk" title, considering that were all a bunch of (quote "crooks" (unquote). Read on.

I'm not going to divert to the idea that those who are responsible for the release of a product are the developers, because that would be a coward act. We're all responsible, for sure.

But calling the Beta Team crooks and losers, saying others are much more committed to the product and that others should be there and didn't, it's pretentious and rude. I can understand WHY you said it, I just couldn't shut up to the offence that I truly took.

Gentlemen, considering the fact that I might lose the friendship of some, let me do it for a good cause, since I don't intend to have my Beta Testing successful history stained by some people sitting in their comfy chairs expelling their anger in total ignorance of facts.

To tell you the truth, not even the best possible expert on the Jayhawk/Seahawk family, a pilot or even an engineer, could improve the Beta for this product.

All those involved, not just me, were deeply involved in the improvement of the product, but unfortunately we never got the CHANCE to do it properly

I am not going to say why, since I believe Mathijs is the right person to do so, if he so chooses, since it relates to internal issues of Aerosoft.

I am not the type of betrayer that comes about saying that he loves Aerosoft, and then create an audience to say what went wrong, but I do not permit such commentaries that are unfair, imprecise and, above all offensive, giving the notion that we don't care for a product at all but just want a freebie.

I was the Fs2004 Beta Tester for the Coast Guard project. I encountered several major bugs in the flight model and the Ship placer tool, stuff you didn't even know. That work enabled you to enjoy a fine product. Wouldn't I find out the bugs that have been listed? Wouldnt' the Condev work on them? These are the right questions, not "Are they crooks?"

I hope you all can respect the Beta Team, even though you don't know the full facts that didn't allow us to help on the release of a better product. You will certainly understand that we had no choice. That suffices.

Once again, if Mathijs or anyone else chooses to, they'll tell you why.

[Finn 873]

Hi Joao

I don´t think that people really are looking for a black sheep (or black sheeps).

What happens is, that people buy (for their hard earned money) a product, that afterwards doesn´t work as advertised. Wether the fault is improperly beta testing or ignorance by the developers, doesn´t matter.

The product was faulty in the state it was delivered.

A patch has been released (2.10), but some issues still persist, and there has been no mentioning in the forums, if this is going to be rectified (well personally I have heard that a 2.11 patch is under way).

The main issues are that the collective doesnt move as it should, and that some of the ships makes it nessesary to disable crash detection within FSX to be landable. Such issues should have been found, and propably was found by the beta team (even if they inlisted themselves as beta testers, in order to have it for free, I can not imagine that some of them wouldn´t have reported these issues).

In the end Aerosoft is responsible for the quality of their products, not the beta testers.

I have also tried to contribute with certain features (moving ships), and have been in contact with one of the developers (I give You no name), but response is slowly and discouraging.

Maybe Aerosoft just has too many balls up in the air at present, but this doesn´t remove their responsebility for supporting the products they allready have sold.

Wothan

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Joao

I don´t think that people really are looking for a black sheep (or black sheeps).

What happens is, that people buy (for their hard earned money) a product, that afterwards doesn´t work as advertised. Wether the fault is improperly beta testing or ignorance by the developers, doesn´t matter.

The product was faulty in the state it was delivered.

A patch has been released (2.10), but some issues still persist, and there has been no mentioning in the forums, if this is going to be rectified (well personally I have heard that a 2.11 patch is under way).

The main issues are that the collective doesnt move as it should, and that some of the ships makes it nessesary to disable crash detection within FSX to be landable. Such issues should have been found, and propably was found by the beta team (even if they inlisted themselves as beta testers, in order to have it for free, I can not imagine that some of them wouldn´t have reported these issues).

In the end Aerosoft is responsible for the quality of their products, not the beta testers.

I have also tried to contribute with certain features (moving ships), and have been in contact with one of the developers (I give You no name), but response is slowly and discouraging.

Maybe Aerosoft just has too many balls up in the air at present, but this doesn´t remove their responsebility for supporting the products they allready have sold.

Wothan

Whotan as we discussed by email, there simply is no crash code in the ships at the current moment. For some reason however FSX believes there is. This issue has been discussed with Microsoft and they can't explain it. So this is an issue that I can not solve, simple.

The collective issue is a weird one. We checked it many times, the correct animation tag has been added to the animation and strangely enough, it works on some of our internal machines. (But also not on mine) This is also send to MS because we do not understand it, I know we done it all as the SDK explains.

The reasons why we can't fully support the moving ships you done has been explained to you in full detail and you know very well why this can not be discussed here.

The update we plan to do this Friday will mainly be focussed on the shipyard, it will now also update the nav file so you see the new ship on the nav display (it also allows the user to add a new location, say a default carrier from FSX, a lot easier). When we get some other ideas on the open issues we'll include them as well. I also planned to include the files you were so kind to send in, but as the tone of your message was so negative you might prefer not to have that done.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

This message goes to all others who commented on the performance of the Beta Team of Aerosfoft's Jayhawk & Seahawk package.

Dear Forum Users.

I know you heard about those bounty hunters of free copies that claim to be "Beta Testers" that eventually enable the release of faulty, sometimes rude products.

In my experience of Beta Testing, thankfully extensive and successful in many ways, I stumbled upon one or two of these mercenaries who are either kicked out or ignored.

But a whole team of those, is something I am still waiting to see, since at first sign of inertia I am the first to jump out, because my time is too precious to be fooled around.

But take a moment to check my signature banner. Sounds like a contradiction, according to the words of Skydvdan and others, I apparently am not living up to my level of commitment and still bear the "Coast Guard & Seahawk" title, considering that were all a bunch of (quote "crooks" (unquote). Read on.

I'm not going to divert to the idea that those who are responsible for the release of a product are the developers, because that would be a coward act. We're all responsible, for sure.

But calling the Beta Team crooks and losers, saying others are much more committed to the product and that others should be there and didn't, it's pretentious and rude. I can understand WHY you said it, I just couldn't shut up to the offence that I truly took.

Gentlemen, considering the fact that I might lose the friendship of some, let me do it for a good cause, since I don't intend to have my Beta Testing successful history stained by some people sitting in their comfy chairs expelling their anger in total ignorance of facts.

To tell you the truth, not even the best possible expert on the Jayhawk/Seahawk family, a pilot or even an engineer, could improve the Beta for this product.

All those involved, not just me, were deeply involved in the improvement of the product, but unfortunately we never got the CHANCE to do it properly

I am not going to say why, since I believe Mathijs is the right person to do so, if he so chooses, since it relates to internal issues of Aerosoft.

I am not the type of betrayer that comes about saying that he loves Aerosoft, and then create an audience to say what went wrong, but I do not permit such commentaries that are unfair, imprecise and, above all offensive, giving the notion that we don't care for a product at all but just want a freebie.

I was the Fs2004 Beta Tester for the Coast Guard project. I encountered several major bugs in the flight model and the Ship placer tool, stuff you didn't even know. That work enabled you to enjoy a fine product. Wouldn't I find out the bugs that have been listed? Wouldnt' the Condev work on them? These are the right questions, not "Are they crooks?"

I hope you all can respect the Beta Team, even though you don't know the full facts that didn't allow us to help on the release of a better product. You will certainly understand that we had no choice. That suffices.

Once again, if Mathijs or anyone else chooses to, they'll tell you why.

After this answer I am going to close this message line as it gets a bit too personal for my taste (not towards me, never closed anything because of that, lol).

The two beta's teams did find a lot of bugs, we fixed most of them and had to leave some of them. Some of those were fixed in 2.10 and at the same time new ones were found, a rather normal process for us. We don't have any product out that we don't have any acknowledged bug for, 100% bug free software is a holy grale.

During the development we had to fight with several beta's of new additions to FSX like SP2, Xpack, DX10 and things got very very complex. Only this week did we get the final confirmation that the SP2 in Xpack is the same SP2 as will be released next month. So a lot of the bugs we found that we hoped would be solved by getting good SP2 code, will not be solved as SP2 contains a lot of issues that make FSX more problematic. We selected to move these issues forwards, gambling on a better SDK, a gamble that did not pay off. But that why I called it gambling, right?

So we are now looking indeed at an unexplained building crash on some ships (just disable the building crash for now), an animation issue in the VC and a number of smaller switches issues. We will fix those the moment we got time for that, but it's all stuff that should not really affect your 'gameplay'. After it all runs on a sim that has a lot of bugs on an OS that has a lot more bugs.

I hope this explains things bit better. As there were some messages that were rather personal towards beta testers that I do not want to see expanded (they were NOT responsible for the bugs left and are certainly freeloaders), I will lock this now.