Q&A, July 25, 2012

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Force10

You mean the fix for the trees that they broke with the last patch? Quite an accomplishment....groundbreaking even.

When people understand the beta test process where they rewrite code to fix and optimize, it almost "always" creates other issues. The developer releases the "beta patch" for people to help them find all the issues this rewrite has created. The process of testing, rewriting, testing, goes on until most of the issues are addressed. Its a necessary process, that most here understand, but it provides fertile ground for anyone who can't see the Forest for the Trees, or they just haven't gotten over the unfinished release, and can't help taking a shot every chance they get.

[Force10]

Originally Posted by Chivas

who can't see the Forest for the Trees

This saying of yours is really getting old Chivas. Any chance you can come up with another one as your "go to" catchphrase when someone isn't thrilled that they haven't fixed anything with the patches? I understand the whole beta patch philosophy. Most patches for flight sims manage to break something at some point, but what they fix generally overwhelms what was broken. That's not the case here. Here we get a patch that doesn't really fix anything, but breaks disables a bunch of stuff. Then, when they announce they fixed what they broke everybody is supposed to say "WoooHoo...we got the trees back"

The latest revelation from the dev team is that they tweaked the engine so when you turn the effects down from high to low you pick up a couple of frames. Hasn't this been a standard for every game ever made for the last 15 years or so?

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Force10

This saying of yours is really getting old Chivas. Any chance you can come up with another one as your "go to" catchphrase when someone isn't thrilled that they haven't fixed anything with the patches? I understand the whole beta patch philosophy. Most patches for flight sims manage to break something at some point, but what they fix generally overwhelms what was broken. That's not the case here. Here we get a patch that doesn't really fix anything, but breaks disables a bunch of stuff. Then, when they announce they fixed what they broke everybody is supposed to say "WoooHoo...we got the trees back"

The latest revelation from the dev team is that they tweaked the engine so when you turn the effects down from high to low you pick up a couple of frames. Hasn't this been a standard for every game ever made for the last 15 years or so?

"Forest for the Trees" saying will be with us forever as its highly unlikely peoples average intelligence will improve. The fact that people can't see why the developer would downgrade some aspects for the moment, so they could move forward proves my point.

The developer is concentrating on the fps, and stability issues, without this fix there is no point in addressing the game play issues. Whats the point of fixing game play issues when a large portion of the base can't run the sim. If the stability patch is relatively successful, the developer will probably be able to stay in business long enough to address the game play issues and upgrade visual aspects as the sim is optimized and computers improve. I'm hoping they survive long enough that we are basicly down too "my favorite aircraft is porked more than your favorite aircraft."

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Chivas

When people understand the beta test process where they rewrite code to fix and optimize, it almost "always" creates other issues. The developer releases the "beta patch" for people to help them find all the issues this rewrite has created. The process of testing, rewriting, testing, goes on until most of the issues are addressed. Its a necessary process, that most here understand, but it provides fertile ground for anyone who can't see the Forest for the Trees, or they just haven't gotten over the unfinished release, and can't help taking a shot every chance they get.

That's it in a nut shell

And it cannot be said enough! In light of how many still don't get it.

But I think you give most of them too much credit by saying they 'don't understand the process'!

The fact that this process has been pointed out many times proves that many here 'choose to pretend they don't understand the process'.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

That's it in a nut shell

And it cannot be said enough! In light of how many still don't get it.

But I think you give most of them too much credit by saying they 'don't understand the process'!

The fact that this process has been pointed out many times proves that many here 'choose to pretend they don't understand the process'.

A good example is the Friday update thread where people are slamming the devs for a screenshot of 8 FPS, not realizing that is the before picture.... lol... its comical at times...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

A good example is the Friday update thread where people are slamming the devs for a screenshot of 8 FPS, not realizing that is the before picture.... lol... its comical at times...

Yup

It is clear that there are a handful of members here that look for ANY OPERTUNITY to slam 1C.. Granted those who frequenty this forum realise who they are and don't pay them much att.. But for those who don't frequent this forum.. It could be very missleading.. All in all these handful of members will not be happy until CoD get cancled.. That is thier mission that is thier goal

[Force10]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

A good example is the Friday update thread where people are slamming the devs for a screenshot of 8 FPS, not realizing that is the before picture.... lol... its comical at times...

I notice you are only focusing on the cloud before and after. That is an impressive jump...the one that shows the particles for the ground attack is what we are talking about. Not much improvement for the difference in loss of image quality. I would be more stoked if they were able to fix more on the particles end than the clouds. Attacking and shooting stuff is more of what combat sims are about.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by Force10

I notice you are only focusing on the cloud before and after. That is an impressive jump...the one that shows the particles for the ground attack is what we are talking about. Not much improvement for the difference in loss of image quality. I would be more stoked if they were able to fix more on the particles end than the clouds. Attacking and shooting stuff is more of what combat sims are about.

The tough part here is we have no idea of the specs of their test machine. I am fine waiting to see how the patch works on my machine. My averages are much higher, as are my Max FPS than shown in those shots. My machine is modest at best. Also it would be good to know what settings these shots were taken at. I see an improvement, I dont see enough info to warrant trash talking the devs.

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

A good example is the Friday update thread where people are slamming the devs for a screenshot of 8 FPS, not realizing that is the before picture.... lol... its comical at times...

what it is also comical is that the developers give us images saying before and after when the average fps doesn't change...

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

what it is also comical is that the developers give us images saying before and after when the average fps doesn't change...

Average hasnt meant much in this game when most times the game is pegged at 0 when its loading at start, specially viewing a track...