We need to present our information better

[Rattlehead]

Hi guys

Something I have noticed time and again when reporting on patches is that some people are often very vague with their information, or that the info is not presented in a decent manner.

For example, someone might say something like "AA is working now I think", but that's not very helpful at all. Is it 2x, 4x, or 8x AA? Is it actually working or not?

Another example may be "I get 30 fps over land" but at what height, and at what settings? Is it over a town or a forest?

Or they may just say that the latest patch is better or worse than the last one. Okay, but in which way exactly is it better or worse?

We need to present the info in a logical and orderly manner, so that the devs don't have to rummage through vague posts that don't offer anything really useful.

Imo, we need to set up a standardised format of reporting back on beta and official patches, and maybe include results from a particular benchmark as well. (Like the black death track.)

What about something like this:

Positives
Blah blah blah

Negatives
blah blah blah

Benchmark for black death track

blah blah blah.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Agree in a way, but there are so many variables involved, it'd be pretty difficult to standardise everything.

Graphics card settings in detail? Overclocked or not? Ati Overdrive enabled/disabled?
Plus system specs and screen res? In-game video/audio settings in detail?
As you say, height, speed, boost, pitch, aircraft, info boxes, mirrors, clickable cockpit?
Minefield.

Agreed on us all using a standard track for testing although 'The Black Death' pains me to watch and listen to, with its gravity defying bouncing bombs and no external sound!

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Agree in a way, but there are so many variables involved, it'd be pretty difficult to standardise everything.

Graphics card settings in detail? Overclocked or not? Ati Overdrive enabled/disabled?
Plus system specs and screen res? In-game video/audio settings in detail?
As you say, height, speed, boost, pitch, aircraft, info boxes, mirrors, clickable cockpit?
Minefield.

Agreed on us all using a standard track for testing although 'The Black Death' pains me to watch and listen to, with its gravity defying bouncing bombs and no external sound!

I hear you. I agree it's not easy to present every last detail, but I'm sure we can iron out a basic format that we can all present.

Even if for now it's just a positives/negatives format.

I just think at the moment that it makes for difficult reading...usually not info about what is actually wrong or right is given.

I'm also keen on one of the benchmarks being used, whichever one it is, is something people can decide on. At least the devs will have a better idea about performance that way.

[TonyD]

Good idea. Also, system specs are obviously necessary. Using a single benchmark would cut down on the variables. Maybe one of the devs could propose a format that would make it easier for them to assess.

I also don’t think it’s very helpful to list additional features someone would like to see in a post specifically addressing findings with a beta patch (keep it on topic).

[Ivan Fooker]

I would like tzo link you to my opened thread "Bug Ticket System".

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by Ivan Fooker

I would like tzo link you to my opened thread "Bug Ticket System".

Ah, I must have missed it. I'll have a proper look when I get in tonight.

[TonyD]

Ivan, that seems to be a very good system for bug tracking, but in this case it may attract a lot of posts that don’t relate specifically to the beta tests. I think it would be a good system to implement in an additional (sticky) post, but for purpose of assessing a beta patch, what Rattlehead proposed with the inclusion of hardware specs, and possibly gfx driver version, would provide a quick overview for the devs to peruse.

What do others think?

[Ivan Fooker]

I guess u misunderstood me.
That kind of system is a complete own php website/modul.
I dont wanna collect anything in a thread.
Furthermore sorry for hijacking your post.
Of course my intention was just to canalize same opinions.
Presentring our info better would fit fantastic in a ticket system, as u also post your HW spec,evidence for your bug (screeshot e.g.) and patch ID.

[KG26_Alpha]

Hmm

What you need to do is test your pc's outside of CoD environment to set a standard.

This way non CoD related PC problems could be identified as due to the complex difference between everyone's systems,
some common ground could be found in the hardware specifications be it over-clocked or normal.

Otherwise it will be a waste of time trying to be too precise in identifying CoD errors.

Finding a software program to use as a "control" shouldn't be too hard

Once the control software has been run then CoD test can be reported.


.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Rattlehead

I agree it's not easy to present every last detail, but I'm sure we can iron out a basic format that we can all present.

I hope we can too.

As it happens, as each new patch comes out, I've kept all in-game video settings on max deliberately, even though my set-up doesn't really cope too well.
Also when new features such as V-synch and the shader one ( I forget the acronym) are added, I've switched them on, so I get an idea of how my set-up copes 'maxed out'.
I've done this in the hope that the results I've posted aren't too confused by personalised settings.
If we all did this, together with fraps benchmark analysis of 'The Black Death' track and a system spec plus card settings summary, things might get more meaningful. We could also standardise the card settings by using the 'basic' 3D in ccc set to 'balanced' or whatever the Nvidia version is.

If we use that approach together with Alpha's system analysis idea, would we be getting somewhere?

i7860@2.8ghz, 6 gig ddr3, ati 5770