Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN???

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I apologies for any confusion I caused with my poorly chosen words "Beta/RC", but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was the "Patch" was sent out to the community, not Steam, for further testing, and I was surprised when people got so uptight about finding bugs. They will fix the start procedure, and whatever bugs they can, and release another "Patch" for testing, or send it directly to Steam. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the sim isn't finished yet, and will continue to evolve thru the life of the series.

A release candidate is code that is considered to be in "final state" and is a candidate for release, hence the name.

A release candidate says "Here is what we want to release, is this okay?" and if nobody has a problem with it, they release it.

By that logic it's likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record of actually listening to the community.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

A release candidate is code that is considered to be in "final state" and is a candidate for release, hence the name.

A release candidate says "Here is what we want to release, is this okay?" and if nobody has a problem with it, they release it.

By that logic it's likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record of actually listening to the community.

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.

[Catseye]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Logic isn't one of our strong points.

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.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Catseye

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 don't believe the majority are logically dysfunctional, and hope there is a silent majority, waiting with more patience and understanding of the difficulties. Like I've said many times before the development deserve alot of heat for the unfinished release, and the problems are significant enough that its certainly not necessary to misinform, exaggerate, to make a point. How the recent code changes that caused a different engine start problem can be extrapulated into the devs not doing any patch testing is not very logical. Possible but not logical.

We bought an unfinished product without doing our due diligence, relying on past history. That won't happen again. That doesn't make it right, but the developer made an apology and appeared to have every intention to make it right. They've rewritten and provided patches for the sound and graphic engine, and are in the process of rewriting the GUI, AI, SDK, etc. Unfortunately they can't do that forever and survive financially, so they will be releasing a paid Sequel with hopefully many of these fixes included. I will buy the Sequel only after doing my due diligence this time, and make sure the fixes/features I want are working and they apply to the Channel Map as well as the Russian Maps.