ATC is and probably always will be on the roadmap for new features but we have to balance our focus in the same way you don’t work on only biceps in the gym or you’d end up with giant arms and skinny legs. It’s a lot like the scenery system too in that it will continue to evolve and grow in realism over time but what’s next and when it’ll be here is still unclear at this moment.

We haven’t seen any news on the ATC since February. I was wondering if you guys might have any commentary on the ATC? I’m not asking for a features roadmap or anything of the sort. It’s just really fun to follow the little updates on scenery as the process roles on, it would be fun to see the same thing with the AI development in ATC…

Hi Nick,

90% I agree re: keeping bug and feature dev separate. The one exception is: beta gives us a rare opportunity to rapidly iterate with users and third parties. So for a feature where I want a lot of user feedback I might put a prototype in beta 1 and then revise quickly, taking advantage of the beta to easily get new builds to lots of people. But that kind of thing shouldn’t be happening in late beta, and it’s not an excuse to not have features done.

As I have said approximately 300 times already, I am making NO statements regarding the future dates of ANY releases. Please do not ask again, either directly or indirectly.

does that possibly mean 10.20 wont show till november? if based on 8 week dev, 4 week beta

Injecting a QA person with the resulting shorter betas would certainly disrupt “the way things are™.” 😉 Frankly, I know it would be like moving to Mars! And we don’t want to do that. Not just yet. No criticism intended, by the way. Just being an olde farte. I’m really looking forward to 10.3 – 4 or so. You’re dancing as fast as you can right now, and you’ve got a really big lady on the card for 10.2x. But in the middle of the run is where you guys really seemed to hit your stride in 9, and I’m optimistic for the future of 10. 😀

The flip side of shorter betas is that in each cycle we only get fraction of that time to put up real features without the circus of a beta. So for 10.00 -> 10.05 where we were doing bug-fix patches it was really hard to get anything done. 10.10’s cycle ran longer than I wanted it to, but not by a lot. I think an 8-week dev cycle followed by a 4-week beta isn’t a bad aspiration.

A “department” here? No. A dedicated dude? Yes…well, maybe. Open beta’s are not regression tests. The frequency with which something unexpected comes along with something new and good is part of X-Plane lore. I think the key advantage would be a shorter beta cycle, allowing the more fun stuff – the new stuff – to get coded sooner. No one likes fixing bugs, and not many users enjoy finding them, especially when they slip through the open beta. I’m not arguin’ here, just raising a timely point at a timely time. At some point QA will be affordable, especially when Laminar is not in the middle of being sued. 🙁