Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN???

[RickRuski]

Ace,

Don't know if you expect us with multi card setups to have to turn off what we consider a good feature with our systems or not, but this patch is as Tree says is porked. It reveals one major thing to me that no one in house is doing any pre-release testing. If they were, a feature like Sli causing CTD would become obvious. So I see it as this, they have given us a plane that has no relevance to the Battle of Britain years and once again crashed Sli/Crossfire, and given us a patch for us to find their mistakes. My god patiance is running pretty thin for most of us now. For me this patch is a dog, I've gone back one step with patches. At least I have Sli working with that. If the development team haven't got red faces by now then maybe they all carry white sticks and wear dark glasses.

Just seen this from Luthier in his replies to questions asked, typical evasive answer.


4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.

Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

[planespotter]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Its your right to disagree, but that doesn't make you right. I don't know why people can't understand the complexity of the task. If the game was "finished" and it was just a matter of fixing bugs it would be an easier task, BUT they are not just fixing bugs, they are also optimizing code, and adding code to further refine features. ANY code change whether its to optimize, fix bugs, or finish features, can cause bugs in related and unrelated ways. The developers obviously sent out another beta patch to the community, not an RC to Steam, to help test and find bugs, why people are incredulous when they do find them is beyond me. Its frankly quite disconcerting, you gotta hope they are just trolling.

This debate just silly. You are all fleas on the back ofccdog debating why the dog took a dump.

The fact: the dog took a dump.

The reality: if this patch was candidate for release, it is a stinky dump.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by furbs

Chivas, i find most of your posts pretty fair and reasonable, even if a little "rose tinted" but on this issue i think your just being blinkered and stubborn.

Its ok to say the devs made a mistake, they wont cry.

In the process of coding the mixtures and start up procedure, the person making the changes must of a some point said "its done, finished Luthier"

How did they know they had "finished" with out testing the changes he/she made?

You make changes to the start ups but dont try and start the planes yourself in game?

Come on Chivas...

Anything could have happened after/if the guy tested the start procedure, the lead programmer may have optimized code in one feature, and that change could have porked another feature. Thats the whole point of releasing another beta patch for the community to test. If they could test everything, they wouldn't bother sending the beta to the community, they'd just send it to Steam when they finished, but we'd be waiting alot longer for the Steam RC.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, sent some crash dumps to them if that is of any help. Had first crash for ages now and it actually generated a dump file.

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Its your right to disagree, but that doesn't make you right. I don't know why people can't understand the complexity of the task. If the game was "finished" and it was just a matter of fixing bugs it would be an easier task, BUT they are not just fixing bugs, they are also optimizing code, and adding code to further refine features. ANY code change whether its to optimize, fix bugs, or finish features, can cause bugs in related and unrelated ways. The developers obviously sent out another beta patch to the community, not an RC to Steam, to help test and find bugs, why people are incredulous when they do find them is beyond me. Its frankly quite disconcerting, you gotta hope they are just trolling.

Chivas, they won't send "an RC to Steam" at all. That will be the actual release, not a release candidate. Alpha > Beta > Release Candidate > Release. Pretty straightforward.

A plane that doesn't start in a flight sim is about as obvious an error as it is conceivable to think of whether it be beta, RC or a final release. Starting the planes is kind of the point of a flight sim, isn't it?

But this is just pointless semantics. It will (hopefully) be fixed so what does it matter? I doubt anyone is shocked by the ineptitude of the dev team so the discussion will have little impact.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, look at the coding issue from another standpoint too. How many ORIGINAL coders are working on the game code at the moment? Weren't the team pretty much renewed at some point? So if the new coders come and work on another person's code it can be a nightmare if it has not been documented well. Maybe has taken the team some time to figure out the coding first IF the previous coder has not left any info what and how..what do you think?

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by MadTommy

Incorrect.. Release Candidate.. is just that a candidate. Not a release version.



The patch released was released under the title " Friday, September 28 - Patch Release Candidate and Su-26!".

You are just making an assumption to suit your own ends.

Why you feel the need to defend the presence of glaring bugs is not easy to understand. Let the bug be reported and move on.

If you understood software development you would know that development starts, then an alpha build is generated, this progresses to a beta build. In both these stages the developers know bugs will exist. But to a lesser extend in beta than alpha. Then when the developer hopes has has solved all the bugs a RC is released to receive feedback and to catch any bugs that remain. The bugs in a RC are normally hard to find and only located when the software is put out to a very number of users.

I'm sorry but not being able to start a plane in a plane simulator is NOT an bug that should be in a RC or even a beta patch. That is something that should not make it out of alpha stage.

I could care less what they call it, the point is its "STILL A BETA" that "required further testing" If they were confident there were no bugs they would have sent it directly to Steam. Now they will gauge their testing and ours, fix what can be fixed, and depending on the amount of code changes, either send out another test RC beta, or send it directly to Steam.

[MadTommy]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I could care less what they call it, the point is its "STILL A BETA" that "required further testing" If they were confident there were no bugs they would have sent it directly to Steam. Now they will gauge their testing and ours, fix what can be fixed, and depending on the amount of code changes, either send out another test RC beta, or send it directly to Steam.

Actually it is the other way around. It only matters what they call it.

But this is tiresome.. clearly you have your own agenda that is not governed by the facts.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by jimbop

Chivas, they won't send "an RC to Steam" at all. That will be the actual release, not a release candidate. Alpha > Beta > Release Candidate > Release. Pretty straightforward.

A plane that doesn't start in a flight sim is about as obvious an error as it is conceivable to think of whether it be beta, RC or a final release. Starting the planes is kind of the point of a flight sim, isn't it?

But this is just pointless semantics. It will (hopefully) be fixed so what does it matter? I doubt anyone is shocked by the ineptitude of the dev team so the discussion will have little impact.

Again like you say it doesn't matter what its called. The developer sent out the patch for further testing by the community. I've never said that the engine management faults aren't a huge problem, but my point was, why are people so surprised to find bugs, when the development is continually fixing/changing/adding code.

[MadTommy]

LOl sorry, you think we are surprised to find bugs? Classic