Thursday Update, April 19, 2012

[Jatta Raso]

this patch has to come out right this time; rushing will do more harm than good, so 2 more weeks after this wait is rather bearable IMO

[CWMV]

Oh man...had me going that's for sure.
Regardless thanks for the consistent updates.

[Jatta Raso]

B6 please can't you get us a Spit 1a graph? i only fly Spits, the blues have their graphs and reds are left to wonder..

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Jatta Raso

B6 please can't you get us a Spit 1a graph? i only fly Spits, the blues have their graphs and reds are left to wonder..

I too would like to see such graphs.

Although i fear they would just be Copies of the 109E3 with minus 5% in all criteria

Hayward, for God's sake belt up.

Tree's comments at least have their roots in reality.

Yours are merely Haywire rent-a-reaction stuff. Plus ca change, as is seldom said in Russia.

As for that old canard about 'write your own game or be quiet'...

Buyer: I bought a faulty car/stale loaf of bread/fridge that doesn't work

Seller: Well make your own, or we wont listen to your complaint, ner ner ner ner ner.

What utter piffleydom. As for the rheotrical drivel about code being posted, and looked at, well, piffle puffle....

[smink1701]

Hopes dashed once again. It must be a BIG issue or else they probably would have let it out the door. My biggest fear (figuratively speaking), is that when it does arrive, most will be able to tell the difference. Luthier has already stated that the look will be the same. Maybe it will run better on some machines but probably not all. Nothing about the new, glorious sounds Luthier mentioned months ago. After all this time the patch should really exceed our expectations to avoid the "We've waited six months for this. My fingers are crossed for team Luthier that this puppy blows us away, everyone (most everyone ) starts drinking the 1C Kool-Aid once again and starts saving for the sequel.

Hayward said:

>>Yes, his comments that the devs should fill him in on the details of the problem are totally realistic.<<

Of course not, he is merely continuing down your rhetorical path with a hop,skip, and a jump. As you well know.

It may not the sanest suggestion, but it's a fair dinkum to link several supposedly minor errors, and ask what's up. As you well know.

>>That's why I'm supporting his demand to see the code. After all, you can't get more detailed than that. I'm sure we'll see a fix right after Tree_UK evaluates the code. <<

Well let me evaluate your code: Fails at run-time. Stack overflow.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

>>Yes, his comments that the devs should fill him in on the details of the problem are totally realistic.<<

Of course not, he is merely continuing down your rhetorical path with a hop,skip, and a jump. As you well know.

He's not continuing anything I said. He accused them of lying. There's only 1 way to solve that problem. Give Tree the code.

Hayward said:

>>Nothing rhetorical about it. Tree has accused them of lying about problems with the update. <<

Your posts remind me of the creepy kid always trying to get someone in trouble in the classroom. Consistently.

>>I have no idea why they'd lie about it, but I'd definitely like to see Tree's evaluation of the code. <<

Oh you little saint you. Butter wouldn't melt. Rhetorical is exactly the right word.

Tree may go a little far at times, but at least his reaction stems from a palpable sense of shock over the realse, and what has happened since. It is an honest, emotive reaction, and good for that.

Infinitely better than your squealing yelps of 'teacher, did you see that...?' and cursive stubborn high-horse questioning.

Frustration is allowed, and sometimes to be vented. Smarmy snide cheap-shots are generally to be avoided.