Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN???

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN??? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=34626)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catseye (Post 465145)

Hi Chivas,
Beta patches are to test and correct issues - not to re-introduce already fixed issues. If you are implying that I do not understand the development process, let me clarify for you. I've been in senior IT management for many years at the corporate level, including the development of very large business programs from scratch. I know very well the issues involved with the technical side, the business side and managing customer as well as executive expectations. You should witness some of the inside SHOUTING that happens when deliverables are not met that impact the organizations bottom line.

As a client, I don't really care what issues the techs are having, nor is the client expected to. What I and clients expect is a deliverable on time and on or under budget. To that end, I've managed processes and lead teams establishing and following guidelines to measure, check and adjust issues to ensure that the deliverable is met. Ic apparently do not have these procedures in place as evidenced by the quality of their releases of beta patches wherein previously resolved show stopper issues are re-released.

Please don't expand my post to one of omg as you put it, or imply that I stated that , "I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE". because that was not stated not was it implied. What was indicated in caps was a very specific portion of a title and in my opinion justified. Note: the text inside was in upper and lower case. CAPS in a heading do not necessarily indicate shouting. It is an indication to draw attention. A complete posting in CAPS is shouting! Big difference. So to that end you have mis-interpreted or assumed an incorrect tone in the original post.

I also believe that open beta testing is not the way to go. Closed groups have been shown to be more efficient at producing timely and effective results. Having limited resources is not an excuse for a flawed deliverable. If the checks and balances are in place, it would mitigate the client reaction you are now seeing.

The good does outway the bad. But the bad is very bad. As for the Devs utilizing our resources as beta testers . . . . . there are a lot of issues put forth by the "testers" with many questioning if the Devs really look at them. I like the term "using" because that is exactly what is taking place. We are being used!

I sincerely hope for the success of this series. I do hope that they get the funding to proceed. I look forward to participating in online events with large groups. But my patience has run out! 1C is the team that has cried "Wolf" far too many times and made too many promises too many times for me to meekly accept what is being dished out.

I miss OLEG!

Good post Cat, unfortunatley they cannot see the wood for the trees that they can fly through. :-P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catseye (Post 465145)

If you understood the beta process you would realize that past issues can come back when the devs are constantly rewriting and adding code. Again its the whole point of releasing another beta test patch, and not the final patch.

I like Oleg as much as the next guy, and also wish he hadn't left, but highly doubt the project would be much further along. Oleg would let the community know what the development was trying to achieve far more than Luthier, with the caveat that this is a WIP and features would be added when system resources allowed during the series. People still don't seem to understand that, proven by all the "you promised" posts. Luthier has learned its better to say very little. Yes the development sold the sim without mentioning its still a beta, but that doesn't change the fact that its still a "Beta".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 465159)

Then surley if this is the case you would expect all be the most foolish to test that the same old problems haven't been reintroduced before releasing the patch, otherwise we just go round and round in circles like we have been doing for the last 19 months, I'm sorry Chivas but on this I completely disagree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 465159)

Oleg would let the community know what the development was trying to achieve far more than Luthier, with the caveat that this is a WIP and features would be added when system resources allowed during the series. People still don't seem to understand that, proven by all the "you promised" posts. Luthier has learned its better to say very little.

Ding..
Ding..
Ding..

And the ironic part of that is most of those who say "you promised"

Are the same ones that wonder why Luthier does not post here more often! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 465159)

Geeze Chivas,
"If you understood the beta process . . . . . "
I really think that you have a reading comprehension issue . . . . or a communication problem wherin you are not able to prepare a sentence or comment without insulting the intelligence of the other posters. You assume so many things about others without facts.

You just don't get it! The beta process is to eliminate problems. If problems are re-introduced, they are caught as a part of the process of evaluation of the changes made before giving it to the testers. You check your work!! It's not up to the testers to check the programmers work!

The startup issue is not just a minimal issue. It is a game-breaker issue! Who the heck was asleep at the wheel on this one?

If you are going to play around with the mixture settings, one would think that someone went through the process of checking to see if the aircraft would start or even fly and that the mixture settings really worked in action.

I'm putting this one to bed. The issues speak for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES (Post 465187)

Ding..
Ding..
Ding..

And the ironic part of that is most of those who say "you promised"

Are the same ones that wonder why Luthier does not post here more often! ;)

They don't wonder, they know why. It's hard to regain trust and credibility once it's gone.

is it possible they model flooding the carb? if hurry throttle now sets automatically to full rich when throttle is at zero position, but if you set it to like 50% throttle then it floods?

it's pretty funny. all these people buy new pc to beta test clod for 19 months. then when the patch finally gets done, their pc is obsolete and the hurry won't start. he, he. sorry, it's kinda funny at this point.:grin::-P

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 465195)

it's pretty funny. all these people buy new pc to beta test clod for 19 months. then when the patch finally gets done, their pc is obsolete and the hurry won't start. he, he. sorry, it's kinda funny at this point.:grin::-P

Hahaha, that is not an exaggeration too. What a f***** crying shame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 465159)

Chivas, this is not a Beta any longer. It's a "Release Candidate". Release Candidates are not supposed to have serious bugs.

Obviously it is YOU who does not understand the lifecycle of a piece of software.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force10 (Post 465090)

I guess I have been thinking of the developement process wrongly then. I was under the impression when you spend a month or two fixing bugs in the code...say fixing a mixture issue...you would then internally test your fixes by jumping in a plane and checking it. If someone had spent 1 hour to just jump in the planes and attempt to start them, they might have noticed a problem.

i think the whole context is a little different in this case

as was already stated over 9 months ago, work on CoD had/has essentially stopped, and their main focus was rebuild/create a new gfx and game engine while simultaneously working on BoM. if BoM is not released on schedule this time and proves to be a relative success, then the whole project and series is folded and they close their doors (have a guess at the amount of whining then, and the glee and joy from people like tree)

the last beta patch, and largely this current RC, are primarily the beta introduction of the major progress milestones of the new gfx engine, with a few critical fixes for CoD added (like the CTD's etc). the "comprehensive fix of major CoD problems" has/is not included in this, there are some partially tested and some quick hurried CoD fixes included, but most of that hasnt gone through an orderly in-house testing process (which the gfx engine fixes have by all indications)

my main concern is that the cluster of perpetually negative people here (not you specifically) and the disgruntled and frustrated newcomers swept up in that mindset, are so limited in only spewing out aggressive and rude "negative feedback" , that as a result it will collectively be responsible for missing the boat in getting the many badly needed fixes for CoD included in the final patch. what we should instead be focused on is to present the major bugs and missing features (AI not working etc..) in a way that makes it easier for luthier to deal with and setting priorities in their fixes (dont expect him to wade through long winded threads that are full of bickering and negative jibes, neither expect him to go looking at other websites to get "outside" input. its largely up to the russian and english CoD forum users to provide them with that information in a way that makes it easier for luthier, and at least for our forum it is obvious this does not exist (no idea what the russian forum is like)