Ver 1.2.3 News

zaelu, the issue is one of management. Fully "open" beta tests require a lot of administration, where you have "testers" whose main job is to sort through test reports - this becomes a problem since most people in the general public do not know how to make a "good" bug report. At present, this is achieved through the pre-order beta products (currently Combined Arms and FC3). So in a sense, everyone can already be "betatesters", although they do not use the same code as internal beta testers in these cases. (And don't kid yourself, neither Gaijin nor CCP - the latter I have been involved in before, even played alpha code before release ;) - don't have the same code for general public and internal test.)

I agree. So the game has to generate the bug reports automatically and send them home. This also eliminates subjectivity in bug/crash reports.

And sure... alpha code is to be first tested inside house. But still... look at the FFB bug issue... many of us wait for that little change inside a single file probably that takes more than building a house to have it in game. I am sure is not the cause of Network Code bugs but we have to wait months with the game basically crippled because such thing was discovered and accepted as a bug with difficulty and then placed behind netcode bugs as priority.

Having large betatest pool of players can fasten up things and shift priorities into reality. Having problems on betatest with 16+ players will automatically imply that stable code for 16- players will go into production and the pressure decrease enough to see the FFB bug and other minors as next priorities.

Zaelu, I assume you've never done source management?

FFB issue is already known and worked on, but it depends on 1.2.3 code (it's not the same people doing that as is working on netcode, obviously!). This code cannot simply be copy-pasted into 1.2.2. That bug has been a priority, but you cannot simply fix it in one code branch and copy-paste to another.

My point is: things are way more complex than they might look on the outside. Your description is on the level of fixing an automobile through "simply doing some stuff with a wrench". Except the nut you tightened with the wrench might not even exist in the car YOU have, so the "fix" cannot be given to you until you have the new engine...

Current system is proven not perfect. Some patches were released with some showstopper bugs (fc3 brought some devastating crashes such ia engine stop and ladder bug). I don't think that open alpha test to everyone will help, but a few more testers should be trained and involved especially for mp environnment. How many testers are you nowadays ?

She can say whatever she wants :)

 

:thumbup:

Today a new 1.2.3 installer is being tested. Assuming testing of the installer goes well, it should not be long after that. As to exactly how long, I really don't know and that decision is made in Moscow.

thank you for infos and headsup Matt :thumbup:

Matt, you ought to change your avatar to an F-4 Phantom to get people off your back about 1.2.3. :D

IMHO that is an excellent idea :thumbsup: :pilotfly: :joystick: :bounce: :music_whistling: yeah let's talk about next DCS modul: DCS: Phantom :thumbup: :P

Perfection? I'm glad to see you're not setting your expectations too high! :D

hey John, glad to see your optimism :rotflmao:

Let's get back on topic now, please.

No more undressed women. I won't say it again.

Was a different issue.

 

 

Looking at v1.2.2 servers doesn't necessarily help with v1.2.3.

Testing is a targeted process. QUOTE]

The point wasn't to use the 1.2.2 servers but to use the people that write missions in them during an open beta. There are several that run now with very little crashes because they figured what was causing the crashes. When 1.2.3 is released attention should be given to the settings and objects that those servers use to help isolate the causes of bugs.

I know it's been beat to death in other forums, but wouldn't a dedicated server setup minimize some of these instabilities and disconnects that are currently going on? IIRC the main problem is the amount of new information being shared. A true standalone server with sufficient hardware and the dedi setup and we may not be talking about this wait we are having.

At the same time though I believe this is why ED is trying to be as thorough as they can with this update. Sifting out as much as they can in the multiplayer code NOW to go towards a quality dedicated server setup down the road.

Just another way of looking at this. :pilotfly:

ED has working on a Dedicated server

Let's get back on topic now, please.

 

No more undressed women. I won't say it again.

:cry:

IIRC Raven, the dedicated server thing can't happen without EDGE.

I thought I read a thread where instructions were given for setting the current server without graphics etc enabled. Am I dreaming and if not where was it?

IIRC Raven, the dedicated server thing can't happen without EDGE.

I believe I have read a post from Matt mentioning something along those lines also. I know there are plans to implement a dedi-server, but if it were in place now I wonder if some of the current problems would likely exist. I am aware they are working on it and I understand certain things have to be in place, such as EDGE, for it to happen.

It's just curious thoughts I am having. You know...should have, could have, would have?? Again I do believe the work that is going into the multiplayer code now can only benefit the dedi-server feature down the road.

Zaelu, I assume you've never done source management?

 

FFB issue is already known and worked on, but it depends on 1.2.3 code (it's not the same people doing that as is working on netcode, obviously!). This code cannot simply be copy-pasted into 1.2.2. That bug has been a priority, but you cannot simply fix it in one code branch and copy-paste to another.

 

My point is: things are way more complex than they might look on the outside. Your description is on the level of fixing an automobile through "simply doing some stuff with a wrench". Except the nut you tightened with the wrench might not even exist in the car YOU have, so the "fix" cannot be given to you until you have the new engine...

I understand. The FFB was fixed just on the "new engine". OK... I am sure that many of us wanted that "small screw" fixed on both engines but... is too late now.

:joystick:

I'm not a computer expert, so i may be wrong.

I read that CA and all other modules increase network charge. However I don't see where the increase is ? Before CA arrival, network had already ground war to handle and dispatch over network (ie. unit pos, vector, amunitions...), the only difference is that a player can give a few orders now. And in that domain, i don't think a CA client has much data to send/receive to/from server than a full A10C with AFM.....

I'm not a computer expert, so i may be wrong.

 

I read that CA and all other modules increase network charge. However I don't see where the increase is ? Before CA arrival, network had already ground war to handle and dispatch over network (ie. unit pos, vector, amunitions...), the only difference is that a player can give a few orders now. And in that domain, i don't think a CA client has much data to send/receive to/from server than a full A10C with AFM.....

I'll give one example, previously waypoints were read at mission start. Now they are Dynamic and have to be transmitted over the network. This communication needs to be tested and verified as functioning correctly. This happens for most new features.

So for every function added most of them need corresponding net code and lots of testing.

Nate

The modest jr software engineer can look at any random file and realize its lucky things are even playable in its current form.

/End Armchair software engineer in the film industry.

New podcast with Matt (deleted) Skip to 0:10:30 for Matt. Ok so more like 0:17:20 :)

Edit: Video has been taken down.

Cliff notes? What did he say?

I'll give one example, previously waypoints were read at mission start. Now they are Dynamic and have to be transmitted over the network. This communication needs to be tested and verified as functioning correctly. This happens for most new features.

 

So for every function added most of them need corresponding net code and lots of testing.

 

Nate

That IS awesome. Take your time testing (working your ass off) so then we can amuse yourselves ;)

New podcast with Matt http://www.twitch.tv/fsbreak/b/370539889 Skip to 0:10:30 for Matt. Ok so more like 0:17:20 :)

Highlights, mostly nothing new

• Mid range DCS ACFT closer to FC level detail (around 0.26.00)
  
• F-86(:thumbup:) & Mig-15 in development (don't remember these two being mentioned before) (around 0.34.00)
  
• New Maps, ED & 3rd party (0.34.50)
  
• Maps (EDGE), Nevada (delayed a "bit"). When done should allow new maps being developed "quicker" (0.41.08 )
  
• After release of 1.2.3, finalize FC3, UH-1 will be released, work "diligently" on new modules (1.02.00)
  
• Dedicated Server in works, hand-in-hand development with EDGE....on hold currently (1.05.25)
  
• Eventually see a dynamic campaign. Not a question of "if" but "when" (1.10.00)
  
• F/A-18C & F-15C internal ED developed (not 3rd party) :thumbup: (1.11.40)
  
• "Probably" APG-73 radar (F/A-18C)
  
• "Probably" APG-63 Version 1 (F-15C)
  

thanks paulrkiii!

"We are probably HOURS...(laughs)..or maybe days away from next update 1.2.3" 1hr 1min in.

I love the chuckle after he said hours. I can only imagine the instant thoughts of rage he could foresee if he didn't add onto that comment :D :megalol: :pilotfly:

New podcast with Matt http://www.twitch.tv/fsbreak/b/370539889 Skip to 0:10:30 for Matt. Ok so more like 0:17:20 :)

No vids..:huh: