Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   DX9 / XP discussion (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=32712)

Volksieg 06-17-2012 11:52 AM

All the above said... I have read, understood and assimilated your post Blackdog and I do see that DX9 users are not holding us back..... my above post is addressed to the DX9 users who seem to think it is excusable or acceptable for them to do so. :D

41Sqn_Stormcrow 06-17-2012 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 435577)
I agree with the sequence you describe: optimize for the majority first, then optimize for the minimum requirements. Releasing the updates separately however is not possible because of Steam. If you release a final patch that doesn't support DX9, these people simply can't fly online. If they are among the people who make the mistake of letting Steam auto-update everything without asking, then they can't fly offline either because their game will be updated to a DX10 only patch.

Releasing a pre-final patch as release version with DX10+ does not change anything right now to DX9 users. Either they can play it now with all the patches already released or they cannot. They'll have to wait anyhow.

However releasing the patch in two steps would allow those 85% of the users with DX10+ support benefit from the improvements. I cannot see one slight inconvenient for the DX9 users if they have to wait a couple of weeks longer just because the others would not have to wait.

Madfish 06-17-2012 12:05 PM

It's not as simple as that. Anyone who's done some mildly advanced project management knows that sometimes branching off is a bad mistake. Especially if it's about core features.

If you look at the quality of bug reports you'll quickly understand why. Even oldtimers are sometimes just posting rubbish like "the game isn't faster for me". Wow, what great detail. I bet that really helped finding the cause.

Personally I don't mind waiting a bit longer. It's a damn small game and I expect longer development cycles. Now that they try to post some updates I'm content with what they do. Based on the extremely low income they have from selling the game I guess we can't expect more anyways.

That said - did any of you think of how they actually monetize the game so they can keep developing? Maybe DX9 support is very much needed for a different project. And yes, delaying or slacking on that front could mean going bankrupt. The few tiny sales to IL-2 freaks DO NOT keep this game alive.

philip.ed 06-17-2012 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 435577)
It seems like you are half-right, half-wrong:

1) Yes, a test, non-mandatory patch can skip a feature or two and focus on what it wants to test.
2) The final patch however cannot and must work towards the inclusion of all features stated/advertised.
3) These feature too have to be tested before release, with a test patch of their own.

That's what the next patch is probably going to be: finalize and test DX10 optimizations, test DX9 optimizations, test FM changes.

It's still going to be a test patch before it goes final.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that many people treat alpha/beta patches as final ones and expect them to be gameplay changers like the final patch is supposed to be, when in fact they are meant to test the final patches. That means possibly doing things in a couple of different ways on each patch and watching for feedback to decide which is eventually best.

In that sense, saying DX9 users are holding us back is totally untrue. It's not them who are doing it. It's the choice of initial user requirements advertised and published that do so, because these requirements have to be satisfied:implemented, tested, finalised and released.

Blackdog, you can appear to be quite condescending at times. This is called wasting ten minutes of your life to regurgitate the poster you were quoting from. At no point did Baron indicate that DX-9 users were holding the patch back. In fact, releasing the DX-10 patch for testing would suggest a beneficial move forward in clamping down DX-10 issues, thus being a positive move forward (especially on the premise that the team's 'minor issues' tend to take weeks to sort out)
The fact that the team already released a Beta patch just for DX-10 users negates any suggestion that the two can't be released (in Beta form) separately.

You're right that all the features will need to be tested together

Blackdog_kt 06-17-2012 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed (Post 435635)
Blackdog, you can appear to be quite condescending at times. This is called wasting ten minutes of your life to regurgitate the poster you were quoting from. At no point did Baron indicate that DX-9 users were holding the patch back. In fact, releasing the DX-10 patch for testing would suggest a beneficial move forward in clamping down DX-10 issues, thus being a positive move forward (especially on the premise that the team's 'minor issues' tend to take weeks to sort out)
The fact that the team already released a Beta patch just for DX-10 users negates any suggestion that the two can't be released (in Beta form) separately.

You're right that all the features will need to be tested together

True, he didn't accuse them of holding us back. Someone else suggested so at a previous point in the thread and there seemed to be such a vibe from that point on. Maybe i should have clarified it better.

Anyway, i was referring to the final patch when i said it's impossible to release it separately depending on DX version. As far as testing ones go, we got a DX10 patch already and now we'll be getting a DX9+DX10 one. From where i'm standing it doesn't seem like DX9 is gobbling up that much of their resources, especially if we take in account that the sim has been semi-playable on DX10 for months, but nearly unplayable on DX9 ever since release.

Another thing to note is that most if not all of the effects in the sim are already coded in DX9. Ammunition impact flashes, hit decals, etc...that's the reason they were disabled in the recent test patch: they are DX9 and the patch was DX10 only.
It's probably cheaper and faster to just optimize them than redo them for a different DX version from scratch.

What i'm trying to say is, not many people think about these things and their ramifications. Complaints are justified in a lot of cases but many don't really take the time to actually see if what they are writing is true or even reasonable, or when they do they don't clearly separate truth, personal speculation and logical deduction, they usually just clump them up altogether in a package of arbitrary, personal truth and expect others to accept it.

That makes it hard to convince others, because honestly the first thing that pops to my mind in such a case is "User X doesn't care enough to present his case, so why should i take it for granted without doubting it? Maybe he's just ranting or maybe he's got something, but i'm not convinced either way."

I'm not referring to you by the way, you're generally a reasonable guy to debate with. I'm referring to the same kind of posts madfish (i think it was him?) describes a few posts up.
Cheers ;)

41Sqn_Stormcrow 06-17-2012 04:14 PM

No, we got a DX10 BETA patch. Not a DX10 release patch ...

Pudfark 06-17-2012 04:34 PM

IMHO: I, along with others, have asked the dev's to post their computer spec's. We were ignored. This leads me to believe, that their systems are
probably XP operated and DX9 based. Which, would explain some of the problems and speed in repairing them, not to mention the necessity, of having DX9 fully functional. This is just my opinion and I mean no harm or insult to anyone.

Chivas 06-17-2012 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudfark (Post 435676)
IMHO: I, along with others, have asked the dev's to post their computer spec's. We were ignored. This leads me to believe, that their systems are
probably XP operated and DX9 based. Which, would explain some of the problems and speed in repairing them, not to mention the necessity, of having DX9 fully functional. This is just my opinion and I mean no harm or insult to anyone.

If the developers systems were DX 9 based, you would think DX 9 would be working better than DX 10. I highly doubt they're using DX9 based systems. Although I wouldn't doubt there are still a large portion of the Russian market still using DX9 systems.

philip.ed 06-17-2012 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 435654)
True, he didn't accuse them of holding us back. Someone else suggested so at a previous point in the thread and there seemed to be such a vibe from that point on. Maybe i should have clarified it better.

Anyway, i was referring to the final patch when i said it's impossible to release it separately depending on DX version. As far as testing ones go, we got a DX10 patch already and now we'll be getting a DX9+DX10 one. From where i'm standing it doesn't seem like DX9 is gobbling up that much of their resources, especially if we take in account that the sim has been semi-playable on DX10 for months, but nearly unplayable on DX9 ever since release.

Another thing to note is that most if not all of the effects in the sim are already coded in DX9. Ammunition impact flashes, hit decals, etc...that's the reason they were disabled in the recent test patch: they are DX9 and the patch was DX10 only.
It's probably cheaper and faster to just optimize them than redo them for a different DX version from scratch.

What i'm trying to say is, not many people think about these things and their ramifications. Complaints are justified in a lot of cases but many don't really take the time to actually see if what they are writing is true or even reasonable, or when they do they don't clearly separate truth, personal speculation and logical deduction, they usually just clump them up altogether in a package of arbitrary, personal truth and expect others to accept it.

That makes it hard to convince others, because honestly the first thing that pops to my mind in such a case is "User X doesn't care enough to present his case, so why should i take it for granted without doubting it? Maybe he's just ranting or maybe he's got something, but i'm not convinced either way."

I'm not referring to you by the way, you're generally a reasonable guy to debate with. I'm referring to the same kind of posts madfish (i think it was him?) describes a few posts up.
Cheers ;)

Very reasonable, Blackdog, and sorry I snapped at you before! :grin:

In regards to your last points, the problem with an internet forum is that the moment you take a line (in many cases people see it as black and white; fanboy against 'whiner') the average person's mentality will be to stick to their guns. You have a computer screen as protection and it's very easy to maintain a level of stubbornness within debate. That's what we see everyday on these forums: unreasonable debate from people that, in real life, would most likely understand your own point of view if you were to partake in direct conversation. The element of 'I'm right, you're wrong' underpins all of these topics, and really it is getting repetitive now.

The ambiguity of the game's future and current standing doesn't help, either.

Bottom line is that if the final patch isn't released within a few weeks, and any exciting news isn't published within a month, I can't see there being much interesting debate at all around here.

Mysticpuma 06-17-2012 08:08 PM

Another patch update and this came to mind:

http://www.glutenfreecat.com/wp-cont...s-1024x681.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.