|
Black Six & Luthier
Please can you get into the habit of testing your work first before releasing it, yet again you have released a patch that has broken as much as it has fixed, you clearly are not beta testing your patches before you throw them to us. Even better would be if someone on your team actually played the game, or if someone on your team read the bug tracker. This RC patch must be fixed and then given back to us first before you put it through Steam, we simply cannot trust your 'fixes', and as it will be the last official patch for sometime then we need to make sure its a good one. I know the game is frustrating but we have to put up with it, the least I would expect is the people who created it to 'try it out' once in a while.
|
I just wish they would utilise the community and make a 20-30 player beta test group that had their own closed forum section that could give valuable feedback.
Wouldn't cost anything and would be a god send. I'm sure their are people willing to dedicate some time to help. |
And who would be incorporated? Given the amount of nitpicking, personal feuds and the habit of dismembering every single FM-related post to pick out the parts that don't fit one's personal agenda I don't see a common ground to base such a close beta group on. Too many overgrown egos, too little willingness for constructive discussions.
|
Quote:
|
It's called a release candidate for a reason. It's not the finished patch, from what I understood.
|
Quote:
|
Not really, no. A release-candidate is not the final product, and may or may not be the final product. It may still be pulled and redone at this stage.
Don't get me wrong, I seriously hope this isn't representative and I know you're giving them feedback, but don't skin your bears before they're shot. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Closed beta is an excellent idea. The moderators could easily nominate a selection of the relatively impartial (or at least truthful) forumites. Get them to sign an NDA if necessary (most wouldn't even read it in my experience) and pass betas through the testers before RC stage.
The devs clearly don't have time to test thoroughly so why not? It would certainly save on the more embarrassing errors like planes that don't start... |
It's lip service, nothing more. If this patch is crap I'm just going back to 1946. I've already parked one foot into HSFX.
|
Of course they won't do it. This is apparently the last patch so no point even discussing it for CoD. And I doubt they will do it for the sequel due to a mixture of pride and confidence about their progress. Hope I'm wrong, though.
|
Quote:
You can't seriously suggest that not being able to start something as major as the Hurricane is due to this patch being a RC. Rubbish - it's nothing more than sloppiness with a dash of nochalance thrown in for good measure. For sure there are some positive aspects of this latest patch, but the issues that have been missed (or rather, reintroduced) are just, well .... http://www.tacteam.org/epoch/rsz_1double-facepalm1.jpg |
Quote:
@Luthier, take a break and do the same to see how easy life could be. Return back to the roots of this great product and refine it without ruffle or excitement. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hopefully the next release will be more controlled. |
Fellas am I missing something here?RC released has bugs, bugs get reported and they are worked on and fixed before the final Steam release..
I don't see what people are hyping on about? If they checked the patch for every bug known and listed then what would the point of a RC be? It would be official rules right? Granted if you fly the hurri your be a bit pissed but its a bug, this isn't the final released patch... Do some of you actually think they do this on purpose? Release and re release bugs into the game to pi#s everyone off..? |
first of all, re-introducing bugs you've already solved in previous versions shows very, very bad code knowledge, programming or versioning control. most probably all of them.
secondly, they does not look like they weren't testing anything, they were simply not tested anything. they've just thrown them together the last version they had on their subversion, and that was it. as a third point, don't you imagine CoD is a different branch in the code than BoM. Considering they will work together, it is the same base code, which means what we see right now in CoD is exactly the state in which BoM is too. Which is nothing short of disastrous. Their "pace" of fixing things, more than one year and a half after release is almost zero. For God's sake, other companies are making a whole new product, from the scratch, within this period of time. they were not able to just fix some simple things. I can not see how this might work for BoM, no matter how hard, or from which angle I'm trying to look at it. At this point, a realistic expectation would be to expect them fixing anything they can at this crawling rate (with many previously working things getting broken) until they'll have to close the business for good, most probably at the time the BoM sale results will come in. And the optimistic one would be to have them release the code, so that we can work on it by ourselves. As MJ said, this is it! |
Jamz, everyone expects bugs in a Release Candidate -- no question. But HUGE, GLARING, ones? We rightly figure that this Release Candidate means the devs are getting towards the end here, and they need all of us to find the type of bugs that are subtle and easily missed. After all, this is it. No more added features or improvements to CoD until maybe "the sequel" --- a long time away (we're still waiting on the June announcement for THAT).
Instead of a near-finished product that needs some tweaking and some bugs to hunt down, we get a sloppy patch with aircraft that won't even start (:confused:), and others that can barely get halfway to their service ceiling before they start shaking and spluttering. Other longtime missing/broken features such as AI and Comms haven't even been addressed. Even the long-awaited readme hadn't even been edited to remove previous beta items -- such as the nerfing of the Spitfire 2a and Hurricane Rotol. Sure, NBD except it points to astonishingly sloppy and careless work by a dedicated, hardworking development crew. Was there no leadership at all for someone to say, "OK, look guys, before we release this let's just fire up a few PC's and run a few quick missions -- let's focus on some of the known problem areas". To be sure, some "oopsies" would've been spotted right away, tweaked or fixed, and then at least that would permit the rest of us to work on spotting the less obvious bugs. At the very least, Ilya could have taken 10 minutes to proof his readme file, delete the old stuff (which gave more than a few of us a bit of concern), and deliver a more polished, professional summary of the hard work done on beta 1.09. If the glaring bugs had occurred at the last moment, then a quick mention in the readme would at least acknowledge these are known items to be squashed. We have no assurances these obvious bugs will be fixed, based on established track record. It's a darn shame, as some aspects of this beta 1.09 show real promise, but get obscured by the overall sloppiness exhibited. Hopefully, Ilya will make good on his intentions to answer some of our questions and render all of our concerns and exasperation moot. |
:rolleyes:
A Release Candidate means the product is 99.5% complete and bug free. It's released to have some final last-minute public testing so just in case some very very rare bugs pop out. I fail to see how this applies to CloD and the current patch? Unless of course in Russia RC means something else? |
Quote:
I also agree that they should release the beta to a chosen few to let them test the patch for a week before releasing it to the public. BUT problem is that since they are barely working on CLoD they will take forever to fix the bugs. Its pretty obvious that CLOd patches are made the last hour on a friday afternoon with a few quick changes of coding anf then just released as s patch.. Then its up to us to tell them. But since they dont listen or even read here its a bit of a one way discussion.. Sorry for spelling mistakes. This is written with my phone and its small keyboard! |
Quote:
Its like repairing a customers car that did not run well and telling the customer that you now have think you have fixed the problem and you have taken the car for a testrun and it now should run well. And when you as a customer get the car it doesnt start at all. And then you realise that there isnt even an engine inside. That will of course make you question how they could have taken the car for a test ride when there was never an engine inside.. Then you try to get hold of the guy at the garage and he is simply is impossible to get hold of and doesnt reply when you call him. |
Quote:
|
The wiki definition of release candidate:
"Release candidate A release candidate (RC) is a beta version with potential to be a final product, which is ready to release unless significant bugs emerge. In this stage of product stabilization, all product features have been designed, coded and tested through one or more beta cycles with no known showstopper-class bug." Not sure they are there yet, by this definition anyway. |
Quote:
|
I have to agree, the patch appears sloppy and far from finished. First thing I noticed was the ships that are clearly visible through cloud. In fact, they are easier to see with cloud cover than without! OMG, how is this possible. How could the development team not to have noticed such a glaring error. It's almost beyond belief. If they can't get something as basic as that right after months of burning the midnight oil, what confidence can we have that they've got anything right. This is just so disappointing.
I always assumed that I'd be getting the sequel but seriously, who in their right mind would stump up hard earned cash for something that in all likelihood will be yet another frustrating cock-up. Actually, I wouldn't really mind if it was a cock-up if I could actually have some faith that these people would put the necessary effort in to fix the thing. But what evidence do we have of any real commitment to fix things. The latest patch, like the patch before it is half-arsed at best. They have a community that would bend over backwards to help them polish this product and yet here we are, 30 seconds to midnight and all we have is yet another example of apparent contempt. |
I don't think the clouds/weather modelisation is complete/finished.
|
TreeUK
Real men don't test their code. The do it in production. |
Quote:
|
I just can't understand why so many people still spare no effort to blindly defend for the developers when even a 5 years old can see the poor quality of the so-called RC patch. I can't help wondering whether they are doing this in order to receive some kind of (financial) benefit.
|
S!
Last patch we did not have cloud shadows = no dots seen thru clouds etc. Seems that this patch re-introduced some older bugs again when they changed lighting etc. Also the LOD area around your plane, where terrain is higher res, can now be seen easier as the lines bordering it are visible. I have made no changes to drivers or settings before patch. Just cleaned cache, reverted to last official and applied the patch. |
Jermin said:
Quote:
1. Habit, and limited social life. Many seem to revolve around this forum/online gaming. Remove it or threaten it, and you get a sort of defensive aggression. They feel personally threatened. If you question aspects of the game, ditto. Hence the visceral personal attacks. 2. Lack of perspective. See above. It means a lot to them, to the point of blurring their objective faculties. 3. Limited experience of competent code. They accept the marginal or think of it as routine/normal. Hence endless benefit of the doubt/future optimism. 4. Irrational fear that their hobby is dying out/under threat. 5. Self-loathing and extreme bitterness, perpetuated by the above. 6. The simple need for community, at any cost. See 2 and 3 and 4. 7. Sport. At some level they know large swatches of the code-base are at best poor, at worst, incompetent. The sport is derived from goading perceived opposition in spite of this. 8. The plain idiotic. They spent more time hunting enemy dots online, than enemy aircraft. 9. Don't know any better, in terms of prior/previous gaming. 10. Have no idea of the technical steps, and project management required for this sort of endeavor. Mistakenly assume it is a black art revealed only to the very few, aka a mystical process. Have not yet realised it is not. Project management is routinely mundane and forensic, as are the testing and revision processes. This is not ignorance, they are simply unaware of the processes that lie behind it, and perhaps willing to turn a blind eye for the various reasons given above. 11. Perhaps, above all, loneliness. The game is perhaps one of their main links to the outside world. Hence the weight and pressure brought to bear on believing it to be sacred and/or under attack. Many seem to have found a home on this forum, for reasons best known to themselves. Once that pattern is established, it is hard to break, and provides a feeling of normality for those who might otherwise feel marginalised. They are the 'sad cases'. They pick up on the criticism, but not the reasons for it, and do not recognise the situation that lead to and from it. The emperor's new clothes, and all that. 12. Those who think the developers are their friends and/or deserving of their encouragement. A good emotion and motive, even if misplaced. There are worse causes to attach yourself to. This is the ace-in-the-hole. Gaming does not really come into it. If not here, they would back something else in similar fashion, be it frozen pea production or leasing properties on Mars. See 6. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.