Will do the same! :)

You're amazing, buddy. Keep doing what you do.

I know what a Release Candidate is, I just chose the wrong words for testing the release candidate, I chose the phrase beta testing, which is a common phrase for testing software. When I should have just used Patch testing so people couldn't deflect the point I was trying to make.

Your logic "its likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record" doesn't ring totally true. The development would have released the RC directly to Steam if it didn't consider they might have to make a few more fixes. I agree that the standalone COD future is nearing an end for economic reasons, but it could still have a very strong future, with years of improvements with the release of the Sequels, not to mention third party, and community mods.

Its interesting the conclusions the community makes.

MG track record for instance.

MG supports and builds a series to very good reviews for years, but struggles building the new game engine and somehow their track record is bad.

MG Patch testing.

MG releases patches to the community to help speed up the beta testing process. The community finds bugs and immediately assumes the MG aren't testing the patches or reading the community test results.

Engine start failed again.

MG makes improvements to the engine management feature, but introduce another bug that makes the Hurricane difficult to start again. Some in the community immediately assume its the same bug as last time, and roll their eyes in contempt.

Logic isn't one of our strong points.

Wilco!

So in summary..

Thus far..

NO ONE has been able to come up with one valid 'broken promise' (where valid = doing step 1 and step 2 of the challange)

Strange when you stop and consider how many references are made to 'broken promises' on a daliy bases in this forum..

You would think someone could provide one!

I mean if it was true.. And there were dozens upon dozens of 'broken promises' than it should be a simple mater to list at least one if not a half dozen

But I digress!

All in all thanks for proving my point! S!

+1

In the meantime, we just "observe and report" ;)

"Tell him what he's won Bob!"

The same faulty broken game as before he started his "promise" wasn't used campaign. I don't see why Ace gets so hung up on the word "promise". They showed videos of things used to entice people of features that "possibly" might be in the game.

The dev has admitted to everyone their disappointment with the game and apologized for it. No need for you to whitewash and try to cover for Luthier anymore Ace, that cat's out of the bag.

Chivas,
I don't think you should be too quick to denigrate the "community" in general terms of lacking logic.

Looking back over the posts on this thread, I find some well placed, erudite and very logical points or comments in general from all sides.

What I am seeing though, is the arguments being placed from two different perspectives. One perspective is that of a Beta tester. The other perspective is one of a client who has purchased a product.

Both perspectives have their valid points. However and regrettably, the process that 1C has chosen to improve on Cliffs and prepare for the next release, is to dump Beta versions into the community and expecting coordinated and factual results.

This would be similar IMHO, to having a community leader present a scenario to a town hall meeting. You surely will see a mix of logic, emotions, passions, variations, suggestions and outright insults ensue.

A solution that comes to mind eminates from managing customer expectations and implementing procedures in a more streamlined approach. To me, the solution is the process of formal inside and outside beta teams. I've had the good fortune in the past to be on the Falcon4 outside beta team and the Flanker outside beta team.

Flanker IMHO was the best because: Testers had to apply, give their credentials, be chosen and issued passwords and protected download opportunities. The Flanker Devs had beta test documents on their site to be accessed directly that had to be filled out accurately. They had version control. NDA's were signed. Text was issued detailing changes made to the previous version, problems to be specifically checked for the current one and other information. Testers could access a list of issues identified previously by testers with specifics so as not to report the same already identified issue. The inside team was an exclusive group of about 10 Beta testers with specific qualifications. (They were really in the outside world - not at the Devs location.) After they had first crack at the latest version and adjustments made, that corrected version was sent out to the outside team of about 30 or so testers for verification. After that go around several times, the patch or update was issued publicly.

The reward for being on the testing teams was: Too be a part of the development of a product that I and others passionately cared about; recognition with names of all the testers printed in the manual; a GREAT T-shirt entitled - "Flanker Testing Team" with a super imprint of the Flanker in flight. To me, that was enough.

So here we are arguing amongst ourselves with our passions about a sim we all care about while approaching the arguements from different perspectives. While you may consider yourself to be a beta tester for Cliffs, I and others at this time do not. Therefore, the perspective of what is being released to the community is very different indeed.

I would consider applying to be on the tester team if that option was made available by 1C. But as it is now, I'm just a paying customer. I think that: if we all took time to be aware of the mish-mash of opinion, our own perspectives and the source of the opinions in the community that is generated by what I consider a flawed Beta system it certainly would be better for all.

I respect the opinions that you and other's more inclined to be beta testers put out. I also urge you to understand that headings in the forum that are not within the beta testers report section should not be subject to a beta testers perspective but rather should be considered to be that of the general client base instead. To that end, they are not IMHO subject to the same criteria that you or a passionate beta tester would expect to be appropriate.

Our enthusiasm and passions in the forum world will naturally foment into what we are experiencing now. Unless you belong to a specic group ie., heart specialists, plumbers, farmers, quilters or . . . . qualified beta testers - and have the same credentials, education, training, language nuances, goals - then the discourse is disjointed, dysfunctional, non-productive and generally decays to the lowest common denominator . . . . . which is personal insults.

I think we are all better than this.

I am hung up on the word?

Don't confuse me repeating what you and yours say as an indicator or proof of me being hung up on a word

I am simply repeating what you and yours are saying on a daily bases..

As for luither admiting this or that..

Note I never said he didn't

My only point you and yours are missing is that there are not as many broken promises as you think there are

Hope that helps! S!

PS I noted that you didn't offer up an examples of a 'broke promise' either

I agree....people would have a valid argument for using a "Promise" for features listed on the BOX cover, or official release website, but there are few of those listed. The vast majority of the posts that proclaim broken promises in the forums were never made by the developer. The developer has stated that this is a WIP and features would be added as game and system resources allowed thru the life of the series.

The developer has just now made the sim playable with minimal features working, and it will be sometime before we see all the features working as we would hope. COD for obvious reasons hasn't been financially successful enough to support further work, but the good news is the investors still seem to be willing to support the series at least until the Sequels release.

The standalone COD is almost dead, but the Channel map should live on with "promised" feature improvements and additions by the devs and community through the life of the Sequels, "IF" the next Sequel is successful enough to help support further development. There is still a chance we will eventually see a much improved IL-2 1946 on the new game engine.