Status [TAG]s of reported issues - how to interprete them?

[Flagrum]

When an issue is reported, they are tagged by Elmo to assign them to a certain category. Most of those tags are self-explanatory: [REPORTED] = a bug is acknowledged and is scheduled for fixing; [uSER ERROR] = this is not a bug in the module, but the user was using the feature in a wrong way or under wrong assumptions. And so on.

 

But there are a few others where I am not so sure that I understand them the same way as Razbam. Specifically I struggle to understand the difference between [NO BUG], [AS INTENDED] and [FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION]. NO BUG seems obvious: the reported problem is not caused by a bug, but the feature is working as in the real aicraft - which might be very well be a bit quirky. And FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION means for me, the reported problem is due to the fact that the feature is not finished, yet. It is WIP, but will be working as in the real aircraft at some point in the future. But now, how does AS INTENDED fit in-between(?) here?

 

How I read it: the feature is working the way Razbam want it to work. But it might not be the way it works in the real aircraft. Otherwise it should be tagged NO BUG. But as it is also not tagged as FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION, I am now worried, that it might never be working as in the real thing. Which, for certain type of problems, may be very well be acceptable of course. For example when it comes to certain technical (or legal) limitations of what can be done in DCS. But there are many problems reported and tagged like that, where I struggle to see any valid reason.

 

So, is my interpretation of what the tags mean correct? And if it is, can we have at least a brief explanation of the decision to not implement a feature, as it would be in the real aircraft, in the respective problem report threads? Or did I get it all wrong and AS INTENDED is just a different wording for WIP/FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION?

 

Some clarification from i.e. Elmo, would be greatly appreciated!

[Flagrum]

tagging@RAZBAM_ELMO - could you please chime in? Thanks.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Youve got them all correct. I made sure they are as simple to understand and interpret as possible. If a large majority are confused I can change it but for now everyone seems to comprehend and interpret their meanings.

[Flagrum]

 

51 minutes ago, RAZBAM_ELMO said:

Youve got them all correct. I made sure they are as simple to understand and interpret as possible. If a large majority are confused I can change it but for now everyone seems to comprehend and interpret their meanings.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

But the main reason for my question was that I am worried that my interpretations were correct, specifically in regards to the differentiation between "As intended" and "No bug". Unfortunately you now seem to have confirmed my worries.

 

To summarize:

[AS INTENDED] means, the feature works as Razbam want it to work and does not plan to change it's behaviour. It does not mean, that the feature necessarily works as in the real aircraft. Different reasons for this could be: technical limitations, (lack of) available documentation, and probably many more ("comercial business decisions"?).

 

There are quite a few bug reports tagged as "As intended" - and that is, what worries me. It means, that those features most likely are not working as in the real machine. A better understanding of why Razbam deviates from the DCS gold standard (most realistic sim, etc.) in these cases would help a long way to mitigate such worries.

 

Therefore I politely suggest, that you explain in the respective bug report the reason of tagging it as "As intended". (Quite similar to, for example, cases of "User error" where you explain what the pilot did wrong.)

 

Thank you!