| 41Sqn_Banks |
04-09-2012 07:57 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista
(Post 407035)
there are some problems with how this bug tracker is implemented at the moment, and this makes it less likely to become a productive tool:
1) the site needs an easy way for non registered people to vote on issues, similar to the poll system used on the 1c forum. many casual visitors who want to quickly provide some constructive feedback wont bother registering. if you want to force people to register to post a new bug, or comment on solutions implemented, fine, but this should not be the case for people voting on the priority importance of certain fixes
|
Voting without registration will give wrong results as the same person could vote the same bug multiple times.
A report written by a "casual visitors" unfortunately will not be constructive. Right now most bugs are reported as a single line that contains something that he reporter feels is wrong. That will not help the devs. We need a report that contains as a bare minimum:
- Steps to reproduce: Helps the devs to find the bug and rule out handling errors by the user
- Actual result: Helps the devs to understand what is wrong and what they have to look at to find the bug
- Expected result: Helps the devs to implement the fix correctly
- Additional information: Screenshots, mission files, tracks, excerpts from aircraft manuals, ...
We need this to take away the workload from the devs. E.g. It doesn't help of the dev tries 2 hours to reproduce a bug just to find out that it works as intended and the user that reported it simply pressed the wrong button. Thus we need this even for the simplest bug. Thus, writing just one good and constructive report will take a long time, maybe 1 hour for a dead simple bug. Registering to the system will take 3 minutes.
We need quality and not quantity.
Quote:
2) there is no classification system or categories for bugs and problems reported, and as people post a mix of minor specific bugs and others that are major problems, it just becomes one giant mess that people like luthier will NOT spend hours on sifting through to find a few important snippets that might be relevant for them. categories need to be used for:
- broken important elements that affect normal gameplay and "normal use" of the sim (eg game crashes under specific conditions etc, like the multiplane formations and dreaded 30 min play bug some experience, constant micro-freezes and stutters that prevent normal gameplay for some, etc..)
- missing or incomplete important features that affect gameplay and "normal use" of the sim (lack of dynamic campaign engine, lack of cloud and weather changes, missing coop features, etc..)
- aircraft performance issues (a prolonged technical debate with for/against information that can go for months or years)
- minor specific bugs and omissions, eg landing gear, lights, flaps, control bugs on specific plane models
- general improvements in "ease of use" issues and making it more intuitive and user friendly to use ( like improvements in the mission builder, control setup, the need for the release of a SDK so fans can start working on a dynamic campaign themselves if this is not forthcoming by 1c, etc..)
|
There is a "priority" field for this and separation between "bug" and "feature". Also we have different categories to group bugs for FM, Graphics, FMB and so on.
Quote:
3) there also has to be some weighting and prioritizing in importance of feedback. with the threaded listing of responses by date of contribution, right now people posting their "opinion" is not differentiated from a detailed factual list of information posted by a more knowledgeable person
however well intentioned, in its current form it is unlikely to a productive tool to inform luthier and Co of the fixes that are most urgently needed.
|
Only reports that were reviewed by the managers and are considered to be complete and of enough quality and content will be reported to the devs. |
