They're known issues that will be resolved shortly...what's the big deal? Can't people go a couple days w/o playing if it irks them so much??

They will be fixed...that's my main issue.

Now other major companies that release titles with well known issues, yet they determine it isn't a profitable solution to fix them (i.e. they weigh the cost/man hours to the potential revenue it could bring in), now THAT'S what irks me!

I think what gets to people is the disappointment.

Dare I say - repeated disappointment, after the anticipation of the proposed improvements and the download at tortoise-like speeds, then to find it's bust.

So what does it matter if they vent a little on the forums? No need for them to be crucified.

Ed is in a tricky situation here they are adding more content (and who doesn't want more content) to existing code ... when ever you do that there is a chance of breaking something, but that being said simple things like checking that existing missions still work (Surely the ED testing team ran some old missions) should be done.

The larger connected issue is that the large software company's seem to be under such pressure to release games then treat the customer as unpaid QA .... the number of new games that have to have day one hot fixes is now getting ridiculous

Well I'm obviously a member of the lucky bugger camp then, because every upgrade has by and large been an improvement for me so far. Knock on wood though...

Looks like I'm now unbanned, so you have my thanks for that. In light of this, I would like to clarify my opinion on this subject somewhat.

My problem is that it seems that the majority of fixes that come with patches are fixes for something that was introduced in a previous patch. What I'm trying to say is that it seems we're stuck in perpetual motion of patches patching patches rather than the game itself. Each patch introduces more problems that the next patch has to fix; surely this speaks volumes?

I would much rather wait until the patch is bug free (nearly impossible, I know, but the sentiment still stands) than have to put up with another set of problems introduced by fixing the previous set. See what I'm getting at here?

Sure, but in order to be certain of them having been stuck in a rut you'd have to know the ratio of users having no (or little) problems to those who do, no?

hotfix 1 available now for those interested

Realistically, this sort of situation is expected (just my opinion) when particular factors in software development combine. No one likes it, it's just one of those things that happens.

ED is still looking for ways to make all this work out better, no one really wants releases like that.

Meanwhile, how many patches or updates have we gotten from other sims lately?

I would also point out, for free...

So why don't they do small releases at a time?

Releasing masses of stuff together is a recipe for trouble if it hasn't been thoroughly checked over for a long period.

I thought the whole idea of this auto-update thing was so they could release bits and pieces as they were ready? Yet it seems that we only get super-duper-fatboy patches and in-between fixes to fix the issues found in the patches.

This 1.25 patch could easily have been released as separate, small updates over a period of a month - if they did one a week, thus giving each update a week in the public domain for bugs to be reported and isolated.

At least it would be easier to narrow down problems and if they released stuff for one module at a time, even more so. Then at least any problem would only affect that module. If it was a World base update, then there should be a way to reverse the update sorted out before it is released, so that if it has a show-stopping problem, people are less likely to feel as frustrated.

It's easy to say "well everyone moans because they want it all - and yesterday", I think if this was done as described and people were told the what, where and why about it, they would see that it is in their best interest as it gives them the best option of having working updates or being able to at least fly something when there is a problem.

That's my idea, anyway.

Anyone else?

Well there's almost one every day for ARMA3 if you're on the development branch, but that usually introduces new problems too. The difference is, I opted in for using the dev branch and taking the risk. If I don't like it I can pick the stable branch.

There's also patches for the Strike Fighters series, those are usually good. Then there is ARMA2 beta patches which are mostly problem free. In the RTS/Sim section we have Wargame:ALB which is getting regular patches that do not introduce new problems. Oh, and don't forget Rise of Flight.

It seems that ED is the odd one out here, and it doesn't seem to be so special that patches are delivered for free either. If these other developers can manage it, why can't ED? Why does it happen consistently as well?

Everything points to a lackluster testing program.

This is generally a great idea in most SW development, but it's all about the process and tools you have for releasing builds. If ED isn't comfortable with small releases, then that's the way things are.

There's a lot of 'this is good' and 'that is good' in SW development, but it doesn't apply to all situations. The size of the team, time constraints, other resource constraints are all a factor.

Wha...? Every SF patch that introduced any sort of significant improvements or content usually had 1 or 2 hot fixes associated with it as well to fix game breaking bugs.

Every SF2 Patch seemed to disable something instead of fixing it and peeved the modding group.


Imagine if ED just disabled all the stuff that was broken instead of fixing it.


I still play SF2, but not as much as I used too.

Yet they never managed to stop the entire game working on an OS or seemingly forgot to add in a feature. C'mon, a child could've told you the A-10A's AFM wasn't in. The point still stands.

I love all you Monday Morning, Holier than though, Quarterbacks. Flight Simmers are own worst enemies. Especially the loud mouth few that can't seem to criticize with some restraint and class.

I'm pretty sure there were a few like this over the years - but TK always gets a quick patch out which is all you can ask. in that case there is no real alternative so you just have to put up with it.


In the case above its probably they did the majority of the testing but had to fix something late in the process which caused the above to be missed.

I love you too man

Bro-Hug