Due to the latest update not one of the multiplayer missions in my inventory is functioning properly. Either they crash at start or crash mid way through. The few that still played at all no longer responded to the triggers within the mission. I have a sinking feeling that a solution will be hard to find and many hours of hard work given by the mission designers will end up in the recycle bin. The only solution I see at this point would be to update back to 1.2.4, find the problem and try to update again. If one has a pre-update back up copy of the missions available then perhaps they would still be viable. I have been disappointed in ED's foulups in the past but this one really causes me to lose faith in them. After all.....how hard would it have been to test the new build with a few user created missions before hand. The results would have been obvious within minutes.
ED is aware of the issues with old missions and this update and are working to correct. Remember us testers are volunteers, we do the best we can but we can't find everything.
As a matter of fact a handful of us tested MP this past weekend and many of the issues that appeared with this update we didn't see (green explosions is one example).
The latest update is quite a big one so its no surprise that some bugs slipped through but its still good that they fix the issues with patches and continue to support the sim. I just flew a mp mission and did not see any issues if its related to a mission then you should open it in the Me and see if you can find which part of the mission is the problem.
I dont think 1.2.5 has a "fiasco". The incoming today hotfix can resorve some important bugs, and the next week others more. DCS: W has a big program and need very careless programing to maintanig working, and the future (EDGE, 3rd Parties, etc), make them more biggest and get more and more problems to maintaing fixed, expected ED optimized them with the time. Today has a "hotfix", wait to see them.
Fiasco? Pull your head in, Princess. I don't like sounding like a Troll, but DCS World and all it's modules is amazingly complex software. I didn't write a line of code for this but I'm a professional Software Engineer and I'm in awe of this product. ED put out a new update and you lost some functionality which is always disappointing to the user, but believe that the devs are 10 x disappointed, as I know the feeling. But you jump up and down throwing a tantrum using words like "fiasco". How about acting like an adult and submit the defect to the devs and move on with life.
Fiasco? Pull your head in, Princess. I don't like sounding like a Troll, but DCS World and all it's modules is amazingly complex software. I didn't write a line of code for this but I'm a professional Software Engineer and I'm in awe of this product. ED put out a new update and you lost some functionality which is always disappointing to the user, but believe that the devs are 10 x disappointed, as I know the feeling. But you jump up and down throwing a tantrum using words like "fiasco". How about acting like an adult and submit the defect to the devs and move on with life.
If you think that was a tantrum then check REAL RANT out. I think they need some of your wise counseling as well. Thank God we have wise, mature, level headed folks like yourself to correct us in our moments of weakness. I am humbled by your greatness and grateful that you have brought me back to my senses. What was I thinking??? How did I dare wander from the role of complacent and loyal soldier? I hang my head in shame.
@Blooze: Not mean to defend JayB, he's big enough... But I followed your link and you sound exactly like those guys... What's your point?
Absolutely not wanting to patronize anyone, but ED clearly stated they are looking into it. Chill, you surely have other things to do. Wait for the fix and then we'll all see where that does lead.
Seen this so many times over the years in every game and sim etc - basically the only thing to understand is that if they spent months/years testing every possible scenario before release:
1. There would still be bugs in it. 2. they'd be going out of business.
So its a compromise - and just the way it is..............
@Blooze: Not mean to defend JayB, he's big enough... But I followed your link and you sound exactly like those guys... What's your point?
Absolutely not wanting to patronize anyone, but ED clearly stated they are looking into it. Chill, you surely have other things to do. Wait for the fix and then we'll all see where that does lead.
It's just a game and we're all humans...
I agree. The reason I posted the link was to highlight yet more foolish, pointless and immature rants similar to mine. I have already conceded to that. What more can I do? I will consult with both you and JayB before posting in the future. That way I can be sure that whatever I post will be agreeable.
..Working incessantly on patches/bugs etc., .. means they might all be out of a job pretty soonish.
Cheers Tom
Maddox/1C easily springs to mind.
Blooze, I'm sure there are more of us seeing what you see but one isn't really supposed to say it out loud In the scientology church of E.Dynamics only pure thoughts are to be said.
I remember before that with every new version, I would go through my missions, open them up in the new editor, then rename and save them with the new version number, that way I know what's what. I do the same with my BMS missions. So are the old missions not working even if saved in the new editor?
In any case, this is nothing new for ED. You'd think they'd test for something like this, include it in the "do this before we release something new" checklist, but nope. Same issue with tutorial videos.... how can an update "break" a tutorial?
I also used to go through the controls page after each update to make sure things were set up as they are; a few updates before would bork a controller setup. Such is life, I guess.
EDIT: I wonder if they've fixed that "hiccup" yet wherein FPS would slideshow when bomb explosions occur?
I'd think that from your experience, you should know better than to assume that whatever you're doing is applicable to every project. You should also know better than to accuse people of incompetence or cavalier attitudes.
Perhaps you should experience running a small software shop with a big, very complex, niche, but not very high income product before you try to play blame games?
Originally Posted By: dcs_has_stopped_responding
Speaking from experience (as in doing load builds and software testing as a full time job for 6+ years)
ED are terrible , they seem to have a cavalier attitude at best or are taking incompetence to dizzying new heights
They should hire proper experienced and qualified software testers and rely on the volunteers for backup
I used to do QA, I do complete build cycle supervision/administration/management or whatever else you'd like to call it.
Proper methods and procedures are fine and dandy, but at the same time proper methods and procedures might not always be implementable, for any very large set of reasons.
No one likes to see a broken build go out the door, and ED sure as heck didn't like seeing that happen either. Compared to what I do at my day job, ED faces challenges that are quite a bit different in terms of QA control from the perspective of resources than you would in most software shops where the product is either simple, or the process really well engineered with the combination of enough money going into it to be able to afford a proper level of QA.
They have internal testers - as many as they can afford. the beta testers (aka 'us beta testers') are the second pass, and then the build is released.
Certainly things can always be improved, and people within ED, some of who you may have heard of, some not, are always looking to smooth things out.
They're not stupid, they understand they need backwards compatibility and to not break things with a release. How that is going to be fixed, I don't know, but they'll figure something out.
I think blooze's passion for this sim just got in the way of his tact. I know from experience that he loves the sim and each update gets in the way while sometimes initially bringing less to the table than it takes away.
I've learned to express or tolerate this disappointment differently (I've had my rants- believe me!), and I admit that slow and steady ED does have a habit of fixing what it breaks.
Blooze- we're all in the same boat my friend. All we can do is keep plugging away at it. Don't lose heart!
I used to do QA, I do complete build cycle supervision/administration/management or whatever else you'd like to call it.
Proper methods and procedures are fine and dandy, but at the same time proper methods and procedures might not always be implementable, for any very large set of reasons.
No one likes to see a broken build go out the door, and ED sure as heck didn't like seeing that happen either. Compared to what I do at my day job, ED faces challenges that are quite a bit different in terms of QA control from the perspective of resources than you would in most software shops where the product is either simple, or the process really well engineered with the combination of enough money going into it to be able to afford a proper level of QA.
They have internal testers - as many as they can afford. the beta testers (aka 'us beta testers') are the second pass, and then the build is released.
Certainly things can always be improved, and people within ED, some of who you may have heard of, some not, are always looking to smooth things out.
They're not stupid, they understand they need backwards compatibility and to not break things with a release. How that is going to be fixed, I don't know, but they'll figure something out.
I used to do QA, I do complete build cycle supervision/administration/management or whatever else you'd like to call it.
Proper methods and procedures are fine and dandy, but at the same time proper methods and procedures might not always be implementable, for any very large set of reasons.
No one likes to see a broken build go out the door, and ED sure as heck didn't like seeing that happen either. Compared to what I do at my day job, ED faces challenges that are quite a bit different in terms of QA control from the perspective of resources than you would in most software shops where the product is either simple, or the process really well engineered with the combination of enough money going into it to be able to afford a proper level of QA.
They have internal testers - as many as they can afford. the beta testers (aka 'us beta testers') are the second pass, and then the build is released.
Certainly things can always be improved, and people within ED, some of who you may have heard of, some not, are always looking to smooth things out.
They're not stupid, they understand they need backwards compatibility and to not break things with a release. How that is going to be fixed, I don't know, but they'll figure something out.
I have to agree with GrayGhost here. I have been doing software build/test/release tasks for about 10 years (and counting) and I have come to realize that software development is a nasty and complex beast and it problems usually rear their ugly heads around about release time.
It's pretty easy to quote test and deployment methodologies but until you sit in the seat of the person/team doing the work, you don't know what pressures (financial/time/etc) that they are under. It's too easy to arm-chair quarterback as assume that what you have experienced maps correctly to what they are experiencing. Too easy to second guess someone else.
I'm not going to second guess your experience. How about we not second guess theirs? At least they are prompt on addressing the issues immediately after release and working their butts off to get the fixes out the door for their customers as fast as they can.
Maybe it's not as fast and flawless as we would like but it's what we have.
Really this looks more like a software engineering/configuration management issue then a testing issue. First you need to look at the structure of the code base so different modules are encapsulated from one another. My guess is the code base is messy and needlessly intertwined. Second, ED programmers need to beef up configuration management procedures so any two programmers are not overwriting each other when trying to work on the same section of code.
Black box testers on the back end of the process are not going fix this. Rigid classical test procedures would slow down production to a painful crawl.
Also...how many of you work on software that sells for ~$50? That then gets discounted down to $30, $20, or even $10? How many work on vastly more expensive products, and how many work on iOS apps that go for $9.99?
Your experience may be typical for your type of software, but if you've not worked on a product with a similar marketing challenge (small market, strict limits on what the customer is willing to pay for it), it may not be applicable.
A bit of column A, a bit of column B. Some things won't be easily caught without testing, and even with testing is can be a problem.
You can take a few steps back too, go back from software engineering/config management and look at process, and step back even more and look at how you can fund/staff that process.
Think of it as living within your means - and you are right, if we tried to regress everything, nothing would get done. Practical automated regression testing would be nice, but this also costs effort. Whether it 'pays off in the long run' might be somewhat irrelevant if creating new features in that time pays off more.
Originally Posted By: GrimLeo
Really this looks more like a software engineering/configuration management issue then a testing issue. First you need to look at the structure of the code base so different modules are encapsulated from one another. My guess is the code base is messy and needlessly intertwined. Second, ED programmers need to beef up configuration management procedures so any two programmers are not overwriting each other when trying to work on the same section of code.
Black box testers on the back end of the process are not going fix this. Rigid classical test procedures would slow down production to a painful crawl.
A lot of people's experience comes from SW shops that are paid a certain amount in a contract to create/support etc that SW. This money usually includes the QA part, as well as time and effort for automated unit testing and other fun things. If it doesn't, things are more likely to go south. If it does, things are less likely to go south, but they are certainly very capable of doing so.
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Also...how many of you work on software that sells for ~$50? That then gets discounted down to $30, $20, or even $10? How many work on vastly more expensive products, and how many work on iOS apps that go for $9.99?
Your experience may be typical for your type of software, but if you've not worked on a product with a similar marketing challenge (small market, strict limits on what the customer is willing to pay for it), it may not be applicable.
Hate to say it but, I can relate to those that are a little upset/disappointed about the update "fiasco." I would assume most people are expecting an update to FIX issues, not so much ADD more issues.
Pretty simple really. But it seems when people express their disappointment here on the forums, it comes to "How dare you EXPECT patches to work perfectly," or "They are a small team give them a break."
I doubt ED would be apologizing if everyone were content about the broken build.
FACT: The build was broken.
FACT: People are upset about the build being broken.
Stop acting so surprised when someone expresses that disappointment.
Stop acting so surprised when someone expresses that disappointment.
I would say it is not their expressions of disappointment but rather how they present them.
Prepare for more of the same
"Due to some "cryptical issues" reported by the team today, the update will be delayed a bit. We are working to have this hot fix released as fast as we can.
Its pretty darn good compared to some companys we are very lucky to have such a cheap yet complex sim to fly. Back in the 90s people made sims, released 1 or 2 patches and that was it. With DCS we have a really good sim and addons are being made for it while at the same time patches are being made to constantly improve it. With the patches we are also getting new features so overall its very good.
How to get the best results is use a PC that runs the sim well, if you are trying to use an old PC on a sim like this then you will run into problems.(@DCS_has_stopped_responding) IMO I have not come across any major show stopper bugs with 1.2.5 aside a green explosion once.
Its pretty darn good compared to some companys we are very lucky to have such a cheap yet complex sim to fly. Back in the 90s people made sims, released 1 or 2 patches and that was it. With DCS we have a really good sim and addons are being made for it while at the same time patches are being made to constantly improve it. With the patches we are also getting new features so overall its very good.
How to get the best results is use a PC that runs the sim well, if you are trying to use an old PC on a sim like this then you will run into problems.(@DCS_has_stopped_responding) IMO I have not come across any major show stopper bugs with 1.2.5 aside a green explosion once.
Yes indeedy we are lucky to have someone trying to still make flight sims, but they are also lucky to have customers willing to put up with faulty goods.
I mean , could you imagine buying a car that had this many weird and wonderful flaws in it ? Only in the software industry could you get away with selling something so many flaws in it
90's , yeah but back in those days, there was less show stopping bugs in the software so they didn't need so many patches/fixes
They need to keep updating stuff to remove the massive amounts of bugs that dwell therein so they can sell us more DCS modules.
Missions not working right and triggers not working I describe as show stopping as it ruins playing the game.
Funny, I post my complaints in this thread, check back on ED forums only to be banned despite not having posted anything since, ooh, Tuesday? How dare I complain on another forum!
Thanks for the ammunition, ED, I'll spend it wisely.
I enjoyed your reply :-) I'm not normally so aggressive in forums and hardly post to them as the majority of posts are neither intelligent, well thought out or constructive. Maybe I'm just venting as a developer myself, who has written some pretty cool stuff, but all you get back in return for your hard work is criticism and heartache for the small defects in your work. Your program can be 99.99% correct but all the focus is in the 0.01% that is wrong. Ok, I know it's the role I've chosen, but it still peeves me. So here I am defending the amazing work of these people and I think it is unfair that some small defects are supposed to reflect on the developers and their product.
I have absolutely zero qualifications related to quality assurance so I'm just going to give thanks to ED for the good work this patch has brought and patiently await the next.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted By: FlashHeart
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.
There's also patches for the Strike Fighters series, those are usually good.
...
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.
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.
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'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 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.
Yeah, SF isn't a good counter example. Sometimes there's a year without a patch...and then it comes and BREAKS perfectly working stuff before without adding anything significant...and it doesn't even have MP. However, there's usually a "patch for the patch" soon after.
Even ROF, which probably has the best record of patching of any still current sim, has had to release a "b" hotfix patch every 2nd or 3rd patch because something slipped through. However, ROF has a newer code base. ED is still culling legacy LOMAC code from DCS World, and there's a chance that one of those bits has ramifications elsewhere they didn't count on or notice and when "new module" replaced "old" something seemingly unrelated broke because "old" was involved and "new" is not.
In an ideal world, DCS would've started off with a brand new code base with little to no LOMAC code reused. But this isn't an ideal world for ED. It is what it is. You either accept that this is what DCS World will be for the near future, or you give up and go elsewhere.
I seriously doubt posts of "this should not have happened!" are any news to ED. That's like saying "that plane shouldn't have crashed!" It's not constructive, it's just criticism.
Talking about what modules or features ED should focus on making is at least constructive, even if it's done in a non-helpful way. Whining about the poor state of a patch is just crowning yourself Capt Obvious. To presume that without your complaints the company would think bad patches an acceptable practice is pretty naive.
Yeah, SF isn't a good counter example. Sometimes there's a year without a patch...and then it comes and BREAKS perfectly working stuff before without adding anything significant...and it doesn't even have MP. However, there's usually a "patch for the patch" soon after.
Even ROF, which probably has the best record of patching of any still current sim, has had to release a "b" hotfix patch every 2nd or 3rd patch because something slipped through. However, ROF has a newer code base. ED is still culling legacy LOMAC code from DCS World, and there's a chance that one of those bits has ramifications elsewhere they didn't count on or notice and when "new module" replaced "old" something seemingly unrelated broke because "old" was involved and "new" is not.
In an ideal world, DCS would've started off with a brand new code base with little to no LOMAC code reused. But this isn't an ideal world for ED. It is what it is. You either accept that this is what DCS World will be for the near future, or you give up and go elsewhere.
I seriously doubt posts of "this should not have happened!" are any news to ED. That's like saying "that plane shouldn't have crashed!" It's not constructive, it's just criticism.
Talking about what modules or features ED should focus on making is at least constructive, even if it's done in a non-helpful way. Whining about the poor state of a patch is just crowning yourself Capt Obvious. To presume that without your complaints the company would think bad patches an acceptable practice is pretty naive.
The Jedi Master
It is obvious to me that ED does indeed think that bad patches are acceptable or they wouldn’t keep doing it. IMO the reason they are so careless is that they know they have no viable competition that offers a comparable product and in essence they are saying “take it or leave it” and it’s that kind of arrogance that makes my blood boil.
Bad releases are not just bad PR, they're bad for efficiency. Efficiency is money gained/money spent, and time equals money, at least if you want to believe that ED does things the way it does because there's no competition and they don't care about PR.
Any way you slice it, you make more money by being more efficient.
Unless you want to claim that they also don't care about money, that is.
Will your blood boil more if I told you that you're wrong?
Not at all. I am not one of those that claims to be the keeper of universal truth. I have only expressed my opinion and you are certainly entitled to do the same.
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.
To compare to Arma, DCS is a aircraft combat sim and is very complex. Also it is in the process of going to a new graphics engine. The demands on a PC by something like DCS is a lot more than any FPS because of the weapons being modelled and systems/AI etc. The ME has had a lot of improvements recently and these are IMO heading towards a DC in the future. Of course when the ME gets new features it effects missions and so those missions have to be fixed to be compatible with the latest patch. Remember as well as patches to fix stuff we also are lucky to get new content in these patches like newer better 3d models etc. With the Autoupdater it makes patches very easy compared to most other sims/games and it is very good that ED has already released an update to the latest patch rather than having to reinstall the whole sim and roll back to a previous patch.
I've modded ARMA from top to bottom almost, and the engine is quite capable, I assure you. Complexity is no excuse for bad testing, but that's not what I want to address just yet. I'm willing to speculate the majority of the "complexity" comes from relying on a legacy code base that is nearly 10 years old. We all know the lesson of building a house on the sand.
Regardless, this is all bread and circuses. You can skirt around the issue as much as you like, but poor testing is a clear problem. I'm not the first to raise this issue and I wont be the last; why wont people acknowledge it?
these marks are only visible when looking toward the sun
Even if the sun is behind an object eg a mountain you see these marks , they kinda shimmer I dont think its cockpit scratches but some sort of graphics bug (but I could be wrong)
Regardless, this is all bread and circuses. You can skirt around the issue as much as you like, but poor testing is a clear problem. I'm not the first to raise this issue and I wont be the last; why wont people acknowledge it?
[admin edit: no personal attacks]
Who said testing was NOT the problem? That more testing would NOT have found the omissions before the patch was released? Perhaps some people are making excuses for it, perhaps not, but no one said "no, the level of testing is adequate" or "they should test less."
Your highlighting of the obvious does not remedy the problem at all. Pointing it out will offer no changes whatsoever because ED already knows even if they didn't take out a full page ad in the NYT proclaiming "bad patch result of inadequate testing." Especially because as the quick hotfix demonstrated, it wasn't actually missed. They pushed out the wrong patch, which is a pretty simply matter of clicking on the wrong things. This wasn't a patch that they thought worked that actually didn't and needed more coding time to work out. They just needed to make a quick patch to take the one that WAS pushed out to the level it should've been, that's all.
Regardless, this is all bread and circuses. You can skirt around the issue as much as you like, but poor testing is a clear problem. I'm not the first to raise this issue and I wont be the last; why wont people acknowledge it?
[admin edit: no personal attacks]
Who said testing was NOT the problem? That more testing would NOT have found the omissions before the patch was released? Perhaps some people are making excuses for it, perhaps not, but no one said "no, the level of testing is adequate" or "they should test less."
Your highlighting of the obvious does not remedy the problem at all. Pointing it out will offer no changes whatsoever because ED already knows even if they didn't take out a full page ad in the NYT proclaiming "bad patch result of inadequate testing." Especially because as the quick hotfix demonstrated, it wasn't actually missed. They pushed out the wrong patch, which is a pretty simply matter of clicking on the wrong things. This wasn't a patch that they thought worked that actually didn't and needed more coding time to work out. They just needed to make a quick patch to take the one that WAS pushed out to the level it should've been, that's all.
Yes, because the world is black and white, and if I disagree with any stupid old anti-ED statement made, I MUST therefore be a blind sycophant. Congrats, you get TWO SimHQ Forum Dollars for your ability to see through this cleverly hidden (but not from you!) disguise.
Guess you weren't around when I was arguing with EvilBol and some others about how upset I was over the direction ED was going with its products? Back when it seemed like their path was Black Shark, then 3 yrs later A-10, then 3 yrs later SOMETHING, and they were never going to touch any platform they couldn't get extensive data access to ie old platforms or ones they had military contracts on. I was very tough on them for what I perceived as a narrow perspective on the market and what I felt was a recipe for failure. Just ask them, some of them even claimed I was "bashing" ED because I simply thought their business model was stupid. Not the products, mind you, but their marketing strategy and direction they were taking the series.
Fortunately, ED went with DCS World, 3rd parties, and the Flaming Cliffs-level plane modeling ideas that meant DCS was not going to be limited to one uber-modeled product every 3 years with little to connect them. Now we're going to get a real electronic battlefield simulator that we've been waiting for since 1991. I claim no credit for this perceived change in direction. As we all know, ED makes decisions all the time that they don't make public, so they could've been planning this even while I was ranting they were headed to nowhere. Likewise, I'm sure that even if they weren't it was simple money realities that dictated their change. They can't afford to make just one high-resourced product every 3 years, not unless they sell Call of Duty numbers.
So it wasn't my amazing highlighting of their mistakes that caused them to alter course, it was their own management looking at what needed to be done.
[admin edit: no personal attacks]
Some day I will figure out why people think that if you disagree with them at all, you must be against them.
"Some day I will figure out why people think that if you disagree with them at all, you must be against them."
Call me crazy but when I receive personal attacks like the following statements I tend to think that in addition to a statement of disagreement the author is indeed against me.
Your highlighting of the obvious does not remedy the problem at all. Pointing it out will offer no changes whatsoever because ED already knows
Highlighting the point isn't an attempt at fixing the problem though....forums are for opinions, whether you like them or not and pointing something out - in this case one of the flaws might not be obvious to some people. It does however lend an argument to an ongoing issue with ED's releases. Your release doesn't 'help' anything either, the only thing it does do when people see the forum shouting with capital letters etc is make you look like an infant in an adult discussion.
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
They pushed out the wrong patch, which is a pretty simply matter of clicking on the wrong things.
Err, not really.....not unless QA watched them 'click the wrong things' and not check and double-check the processes that should be in place for what is quite an important element of their interaction between developers and consumers.
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Some people act like they deserve some reward for pointing out the obvious.
Some people are remarkably defensive of a company....to the point where discussions can turn into the same state as threads with fanboys arguing about Sony/Microsoft consoles. I've never really understood why people can't accept that all systems/games/sims have their good/bad points, and advantages/disadvantages. It's certainly a bad state of affairs when everyone can happily discuss the 'good' points of a sim but it all turns ugly as soon as something negative is brought up. ED's products does seem to have many fans who are unable to discuss the negatives.
I would assume it's right they appear also if the sun is behind an object because as long as light hit's them there's going to be refraction...
I will have a look later on to see if the appear at night
Refraction ? hmmm light refracting through a solid mountain made of rock ?
To be clearer , there is the sun , then a mountain (made of rock) and then the helicopter window , the mountain is fully blocking the sun out
No, you got me wrong. What I mean is that even if the sun is behind a mountain there still is light around. So that light would still be refracting on the scratches on the canopy. The world doesn't immediately go to pitch black night as soon as the sun descent behind a mountain.