Christian Rosa
Utente
- Messaggi
- 270
- Reazioni
- 80
- Età
- 52
Forse anche troppo 
ma comunque ben venga.
ma comunque ben venga.
MSFS A320 Fenix V2
- Autore discussione absea
- Data d'inizio
absea
Bronze Supporter
- Messaggi
- 622
- Solutions
- 1
- Reazioni
- 394
Vi riporto l'intervento di poche ore fa di Amir che è a capo del team sviluppo del Fenix circa i vari ritardi,
francamente non ci ho capito una mazza o almeno non sono riuscito a quantificare l'ulteriore ritardo del rilascio del Fenix V2 part2 (4mesi, 1 mese...boh?), ho solo avvertito una grande frustrazione riguardante le SDK che cambiano le regole e delle mancate risposte da parte di Asobo oltre che frustrazione per scelte sbagliate.... che li porta ad essere ancora in alto mare.....
For whatever it's worth - it has literally nothing to do with MSFS2024, we know nothing about it - same as you. As for delivering nothing - well, yeah - we can only deliver an update when it's ready, and until then all we can do is discuss it with people that say things like "it's all about the useless fluff", but I'm afraid that is a bit misguided as I elaborated above.
But, it's fair criticism, I hope you won't mind me sharing my perspective and thought process, along with my learnings.
1. IAEs closing in on being done. We switch from (most) work on the IAEs to work on the CFMs. Our outlook at this point is that CFMs will be 3-4 months of development, less time than the IAEs, but still quite far away. At this stage, releasing just the IAEs made sense. New CFM XEM tied to new visual model in animations, sounds, lookups, LVARs, etc etc from a core level (XEM requires fiddling around with a lot of this stuff, like FM etc too).
2. CFM moves rapidly thanks to the infra being easier to work with when building a whole new engine. Revised internal timeline is 1-1.5mos. IAE internally expected as announced. However, there is a catch. Deploying it to the public means supporting both engine infrastructures at the same time, something you don't want to do - because it is literally 2 _different_ Fenixes running in two completely different environments, right from FM, all the way to visuals/sounds, to FADEC, to ECAM, to Failures, and pretty much.. all of it. So, the logical conclusion I drew here is to delay the IAEs, and add the CFMs to the package with a +1mo delay to cut out the risk of something going wrong with the above.
Consideration:
+ Much faster release of the "package", you get both quicker than if you'd had one, then the other, as no support time in between to sustain the RTM version.
+ Simple packaging makes timeline predictions more reliable (that aged well..), derisking the potential of something serious going wrong with the IAE deployment and having to divert resourcing into fixing that if the need arises, better for long term objectives like A321/A319.
+ Less potential for mixed-infra to throw up problems to end-customer such as broken/mixed FADEC code (we checked for it, it was _fine_ - but scaling up 1000x from beta to RTM is a different ballgame)
- B2 art is not ready for CFMs yet, they'd need to finish it up.
- Obviously, finishing the CFMs is a prerequisite.
Some risk factors present, but managable for ultimately a better result with a net delay of circa 1mo.
3. Make decision to move release by 1mo to integrate and finish CFMs too.
4. Art team in the midst of finishing new CFMs, tracking OK. Then, as Dave explained some time ago (sorry - I'm not an artist, so I do not want to mischaracterise the issue - but he provided a deeper insight in public channels a couple of months ago) - they ran into an SDK issue that meant any _new_ exports were utterly trashed, and by this I mean completely broken. Not just "not pretty". No documentation from Asobo. We are using SDK features that are clearly perhaps not in widespread use - we are also working _around_ a lot of already silly SDK issues to begin with. Export not playing ball. Report to Asobo, no comment provided. Art team begins process of figuring out what is wrong with no documentation. Cannot find it. Continue attempting to find the issue, as B2 CFMs are integrated into the new art - we cannot roll back easily. 1mo of integration work (just for CFMs) to go backwards is likely a larger step back than trying to figure out what is broken in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 et al. But we now have unfinished CFMs, and finished IAEs, unable to actually be exported and used in sim.
The rest is more or less history. They attempted to fix it right up until the last day of October, where we would know if sorted, we had a week or two left to finish the CFMs. Maybe release just the IAEs and axe the CFM from the package for 7 days while they applied temp emergency patchwork "completion" or something like that. The calls were made on the ground at that point depending on what we found and how bad it was. Our end of October announcement did not have a timeline for that precise reason - we had no idea what we were dealing with. On that basis, how does one make a reasonable decision with a lack of information? But we were also ultimately _hard stuck_. We could not export anything save for the old model.
Ultimately, mid October, we figured where the issue was - and sadly, it wasn't really anything we could influence, it would be down to the provider of the SDK to do so - so the options were wait and hope the ticket gets answered (and answered positively), followed by an undefined period of waiting for a fix to come through (or the risk that they state they aren't fixing it at all) - and then carrying on - or just working around it. So we opted to work around it, requiring a substantial rebuild of a lot of core bits of the affected artwork which had already been produced. 2.5mos later, on the 1st of Jan, it was finally then put into wrap up phase after a _heavy_ amount of undoing/redoing our work using a _tonne_ of workarounds instead of touching upon the poisoned well, so to speak, that created our export issue in the first place. This wrap up phase is longer, of course, just by nature of the sheer amount of stuff that's been rebuilt that needs to be checked over and optimised for RTM. So, it worked out okay in the grand scheme of what is effectively the only two viable options available to us - given it could have been so much worse if we rolled back, then attempted a fix. You'd have gotten a sub-par quality update after a loooong wait, my timeline had it landing around about now if we opted for rolling back, followed by another 3 months or so to get the visual update + all the extras (not to mention adding 3 _extra_ months to the A321/A319 given they are exclusively on B2 art) - or you can get what we intended for it, in the coming weeks, with, yes, a delay to A321/A319 but damage mitigated to at least not be as bad as it could have been.
I realise looking back at it, yeah - the decision to delay the IAEs to include the CFMs caused a _sucky_ situation to turn even worse - and I'm not gonna blame luck, but really - we sit in a position where are liable to having a massive punch in the face when one of the other programs we use to build the airplane decides the SDK works differently today. Or an undocumented feature we're using is just going to.. stop working. I made my decision to delay the CFMs on the basis of the risks I saw in front of me, on my little risk matrix. What came and sucker punched me in the face wasn't even considered. But I did learn a valuable lesson from it, in that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Clearly, it was poor decision making on my part having seen the upside to doing it the "faster" way, and it ended up biting us in the word not allowed big time. I take ownership of that decision, but that is my perspective on it and what I've learned out of it.
Of course, re communication, update cadence, and a whole host of other stuff you mention - I know, we're making changes to sort that out.
francamente non ci ho capito una mazza o almeno non sono riuscito a quantificare l'ulteriore ritardo del rilascio del Fenix V2 part2 (4mesi, 1 mese...boh?), ho solo avvertito una grande frustrazione riguardante le SDK che cambiano le regole e delle mancate risposte da parte di Asobo oltre che frustrazione per scelte sbagliate.... che li porta ad essere ancora in alto mare.....
For whatever it's worth - it has literally nothing to do with MSFS2024, we know nothing about it - same as you. As for delivering nothing - well, yeah - we can only deliver an update when it's ready, and until then all we can do is discuss it with people that say things like "it's all about the useless fluff", but I'm afraid that is a bit misguided as I elaborated above.
But, it's fair criticism, I hope you won't mind me sharing my perspective and thought process, along with my learnings.
1. IAEs closing in on being done. We switch from (most) work on the IAEs to work on the CFMs. Our outlook at this point is that CFMs will be 3-4 months of development, less time than the IAEs, but still quite far away. At this stage, releasing just the IAEs made sense. New CFM XEM tied to new visual model in animations, sounds, lookups, LVARs, etc etc from a core level (XEM requires fiddling around with a lot of this stuff, like FM etc too).
2. CFM moves rapidly thanks to the infra being easier to work with when building a whole new engine. Revised internal timeline is 1-1.5mos. IAE internally expected as announced. However, there is a catch. Deploying it to the public means supporting both engine infrastructures at the same time, something you don't want to do - because it is literally 2 _different_ Fenixes running in two completely different environments, right from FM, all the way to visuals/sounds, to FADEC, to ECAM, to Failures, and pretty much.. all of it. So, the logical conclusion I drew here is to delay the IAEs, and add the CFMs to the package with a +1mo delay to cut out the risk of something going wrong with the above.
Consideration:
+ Much faster release of the "package", you get both quicker than if you'd had one, then the other, as no support time in between to sustain the RTM version.
+ Simple packaging makes timeline predictions more reliable (that aged well..), derisking the potential of something serious going wrong with the IAE deployment and having to divert resourcing into fixing that if the need arises, better for long term objectives like A321/A319.
+ Less potential for mixed-infra to throw up problems to end-customer such as broken/mixed FADEC code (we checked for it, it was _fine_ - but scaling up 1000x from beta to RTM is a different ballgame)
- B2 art is not ready for CFMs yet, they'd need to finish it up.
- Obviously, finishing the CFMs is a prerequisite.
Some risk factors present, but managable for ultimately a better result with a net delay of circa 1mo.
3. Make decision to move release by 1mo to integrate and finish CFMs too.
4. Art team in the midst of finishing new CFMs, tracking OK. Then, as Dave explained some time ago (sorry - I'm not an artist, so I do not want to mischaracterise the issue - but he provided a deeper insight in public channels a couple of months ago) - they ran into an SDK issue that meant any _new_ exports were utterly trashed, and by this I mean completely broken. Not just "not pretty". No documentation from Asobo. We are using SDK features that are clearly perhaps not in widespread use - we are also working _around_ a lot of already silly SDK issues to begin with. Export not playing ball. Report to Asobo, no comment provided. Art team begins process of figuring out what is wrong with no documentation. Cannot find it. Continue attempting to find the issue, as B2 CFMs are integrated into the new art - we cannot roll back easily. 1mo of integration work (just for CFMs) to go backwards is likely a larger step back than trying to figure out what is broken in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 et al. But we now have unfinished CFMs, and finished IAEs, unable to actually be exported and used in sim.
The rest is more or less history. They attempted to fix it right up until the last day of October, where we would know if sorted, we had a week or two left to finish the CFMs. Maybe release just the IAEs and axe the CFM from the package for 7 days while they applied temp emergency patchwork "completion" or something like that. The calls were made on the ground at that point depending on what we found and how bad it was. Our end of October announcement did not have a timeline for that precise reason - we had no idea what we were dealing with. On that basis, how does one make a reasonable decision with a lack of information? But we were also ultimately _hard stuck_. We could not export anything save for the old model.
Ultimately, mid October, we figured where the issue was - and sadly, it wasn't really anything we could influence, it would be down to the provider of the SDK to do so - so the options were wait and hope the ticket gets answered (and answered positively), followed by an undefined period of waiting for a fix to come through (or the risk that they state they aren't fixing it at all) - and then carrying on - or just working around it. So we opted to work around it, requiring a substantial rebuild of a lot of core bits of the affected artwork which had already been produced. 2.5mos later, on the 1st of Jan, it was finally then put into wrap up phase after a _heavy_ amount of undoing/redoing our work using a _tonne_ of workarounds instead of touching upon the poisoned well, so to speak, that created our export issue in the first place. This wrap up phase is longer, of course, just by nature of the sheer amount of stuff that's been rebuilt that needs to be checked over and optimised for RTM. So, it worked out okay in the grand scheme of what is effectively the only two viable options available to us - given it could have been so much worse if we rolled back, then attempted a fix. You'd have gotten a sub-par quality update after a loooong wait, my timeline had it landing around about now if we opted for rolling back, followed by another 3 months or so to get the visual update + all the extras (not to mention adding 3 _extra_ months to the A321/A319 given they are exclusively on B2 art) - or you can get what we intended for it, in the coming weeks, with, yes, a delay to A321/A319 but damage mitigated to at least not be as bad as it could have been.
I realise looking back at it, yeah - the decision to delay the IAEs to include the CFMs caused a _sucky_ situation to turn even worse - and I'm not gonna blame luck, but really - we sit in a position where are liable to having a massive punch in the face when one of the other programs we use to build the airplane decides the SDK works differently today. Or an undocumented feature we're using is just going to.. stop working. I made my decision to delay the CFMs on the basis of the risks I saw in front of me, on my little risk matrix. What came and sucker punched me in the face wasn't even considered. But I did learn a valuable lesson from it, in that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Clearly, it was poor decision making on my part having seen the upside to doing it the "faster" way, and it ended up biting us in the word not allowed big time. I take ownership of that decision, but that is my perspective on it and what I've learned out of it.
Of course, re communication, update cadence, and a whole host of other stuff you mention - I know, we're making changes to sort that out.
Thomas767
Utente
WTF 
simonedestradis
Utente
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk Pro
Hanno stancato tutti con sti annunci a vuoto per poi aspettare ...aspettare e aspettare... fanno più bella figura a stare zitti e quando escono escono.
Vedi aerosoft 330...vedi inibuilds con il 320... vedi fenix block2... vedi pmdg 777 e il fantomatico tablet .
Hanno veramente stancato.
Preferisco le SH che non danno ne date ne previsioni...dicono solo che ci stanno lavorando e stop.
Vedi aerosoft 330...vedi inibuilds con il 320... vedi fenix block2... vedi pmdg 777 e il fantomatico tablet .
Hanno veramente stancato.
Preferisco le SH che non danno ne date ne previsioni...dicono solo che ci stanno lavorando e stop.
stavo pensando la stessa cosa mentre guardavo le ultime risposte.... tanto poi se escono lo fanno pieni di problemi comunque che si devono risolvere con altre patch e il bello e che tutte le volte e per tutti la colpa è sempre di qualcun altro..... ogni progetto porta con se sempre delle difficoltà questo è certo ma oramai questa dello sventolare grandi prestazioni e simulazione di sistemi perfetta è diventata una pessima abitudine... della quale anche io mi sono stufato.
Sì diciamo che ci stanno facendo un po' penare con tutti questi rinvii, soprattutto dopo che ad inizi Gennaio avevano paventato fosse questione di settimane e non di mesi, avevo già l'acquolina in bocca per la V2 con gli IAE ma tocca farsela passare di nuovo, perlomeno abbiamo la consolazione del fatto che sarà sicuramente un upgrade di livello, come tutto quello che ha buttato fuori la Fenix ad oggi
Thomas767
Utente
Nel frattempo hanno rilasciato questo
Un lavoro straordinario speriamo sia di buon augurio sto video ed esca presto
Un lavoro straordinario speriamo sia di buon augurio sto video ed esca presto
Ultima modifica:
Sempre che alla fine esca e che sia quello che ti aspetti..... non ne sarei cosi sicuro, mi auguro di essere smentito
Mah è vera le regola del "finchè non vedo non credo" ma dato il livello del prodotto attuale con la Fenix posso dormire sonni tranquilli, l'Airbus è un aereo che in P3D ad esempio non ho mai considerato nemmeno di striscio ma su FS2020 mi ci hanno fatto innamorare, non vedo l'ora di poter mettere le mani sul 321!
Maddoc
Utente
- Messaggi
- 105
- Reazioni
- 58
Io l’ho provato oggi per la prima volta , di solito uso FBW . Ma è normale che in corto finale si lasci molto spostare dal cambio meteo che tipicamente msfs crea , ma soprattutto che cambi completamente la sensibilità e la zona morta del joystick fino al punto da rendere estremamente difficoltosa la flare ??
ci sono settaggi di sensibilità del joystick consigliati o raccomandati?
Grazie
Purtroppo si ed è una cosa che mi ha fatto parecchio innervosire tanto da abbandonarlo
Qualcosa avevo provato non ne ero venuto a capo, ammetto però di non essere molto paziente con queste cose tanto quello che regoli da una parte si sregola dall' altra e mi sono stufato di stare lì a fare mille prove con il bilancino del farmacista....
Maddoc
Utente
- Messaggi
- 105
- Reazioni
- 58
Io ieri ho ridotto la zona morta a -3 e portato sensibilità degli assi del joystick a 0 nonostante Fenix consigli di tenerla a -30, con i miei settaggi l’atterraggio e la flare sono andati molto meglio
absea
Bronze Supporter
- Messaggi
- 622
- Solutions
- 1
- Reazioni
- 394
io con questa impostazione dell'asse y non ho nessun problema col flare, il mio intervento sul joystick è minimo e agisco sulla manetta mettendola in idle a 20ft.
Non ricordo bene ma mi sembra che prima del FenixV2 pack1 il profilo consigliato fosse a curva con una zona morta, mentre dalla V2 Pack1 il profilo consigliato fosse lineare senza zona morta.
Non ricordo bene ma mi sembra che prima del FenixV2 pack1 il profilo consigliato fosse a curva con una zona morta, mentre dalla V2 Pack1 il profilo consigliato fosse lineare senza zona morta.
Maddoc
Utente
- Messaggi
- 105
- Reazioni
- 58
Anche io ho messo esattamente questa impostazione e ieri sera l’atterraggio è andato in effetti bene
Proverò grazie, ricordo che fu uno dei tanti esperimenti ma di sicuro qualcosa l'avrò sbagliato io.
Non ho capito cosa intendi con V2 pack1, non è quello che deve ancora uscire.......
absea
Bronze Supporter
- Messaggi
- 622
- Solutions
- 1
- Reazioni
- 394
La V2 è costituita da due parti, la prima rilasciata a settembre 2023, la seconda a data da destinarsi....
Edit: scusa mi ero espresso male, anziché Pack le due parti si chiamano Block, ricapitolando la V2 è costituita da Block1 rilasciato a sett e Block2 che uscirà prossimi mesi
Ultima modifica:
Allora avevo capito male io, pensavo che la V2 block 1 fosse quella in teoria di prossima uscita e poi a seguire un block 2...... grazie per il chiarimento.
simonedestradis
Utente
Proprio ora Amir
"Hi @everyone, time guidance has been updated from "weeks not months" to "hours not days", see ya tomorrow for B2 day - we'll be posting more tidbits and some info in the following hours, so don't panic if you see pings later today again, the build will come tomorrow. Thanks for the patience and I look forward to the last year and a half of work landing on your PCs shortly"
"Hi @everyone, time guidance has been updated from "weeks not months" to "hours not days", see ya tomorrow for B2 day - we'll be posting more tidbits and some info in the following hours, so don't panic if you see pings later today again, the build will come tomorrow. Thanks for the patience and I look forward to the last year and a half of work landing on your PCs shortly"
Quindi ci siamo quasi.. bene, spero di rimanere favorevolmente colpito visto che ero tra gli scettici.