Module updates from beta pushed onto stable

I can't speak on ED's behalf but think the answer is that different teams are developing the new content and trying to resolve the core performance issues. If fixes have been made to address bugs these can be tested internally and then released for OB users to try at the same time as core fixes related to the drop in performance.

Sent from my SM-T835 using Tapatalk

Also if rolling Open Beta 2.5.6.xxx into a stable release is ED'd priority...why does every Open Beta new version contain additional functionality and code, new features, new additions etc etc...why isn't ED making 2.5.6.xxx work sufficiently well to release to stable first BEFORE layering additional complexity and changes on top?

Have you looked at the last changelog? That's almost exclusively bugfixes out of ED.

Dude, just let it go. Multiple people have told you it doesn't work that way. Even an official ED person has told you. They're working to get a good OB build so stable can get updated. Nothing more we need to know.

Which was EXACTLY my point...software updates/fixes created for a January release into Open Beta can't possibly be "ONLY COMPATIBLE" with the current Open Beta release in April can they?

 

If they're compatable with January 2020 code AND April 2020 Code (written AFTER they were released - so impossible to have been tested against) why is so difficult to imagine they might be compatible with December 2019 code as well?

You don't get it. Testing against the current state of DCS is part of development, you have to do it anyway. When you want it to work against another version, that is additional work. In case of bigger features, it might be as much as doubling your workload. Something written in January got continuously tested and updated as part of every day development. Backporting it to an older version is not comparable to that.

You're saying that because something that was written in January still works in April, it should also have worked in December. But that is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. From January to April, the dev may have fixed a lot of problems that you never learned about.

You don't get it. Testing against the current state of DCS is part of development, you have to do it anyway. When you want it to work against another version, that is additional work. In case of bigger features, it might be as much as doubling your workload. Something written in January got continuously tested and updated as part of every day development. Backporting it to an older version is not comparable to that.

 

You're saying that because something that was written in January still works in April, it should also have worked in December. But that is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. From January to April, the dev may have fixed a lot of problems that you never learned about.

This!

Something written in January got continuously tested and updated as part of every day development

Really? I keep being told this but, are you really suggesting that say,

M2000C Red Flag by Baltic Dragon

• Mission 5: removed a truck that refused to move and blocked Chevy 12
  

(Added Jan '20) is continually tested & updated as part of everyday development as the 2.5.6.xxx openbeta evolves? Or was it a simple change to a .miz file dumped into the OB update back in January after being handed ED by a 3rd party dev?

If its the latter...what's the game-breaking reason ED can't bundle up all the other similar updates/fixes and release them across onto stable?

IF it IS being continually tested and updated...why is it not mentioned in the changelogs where it has been updated?

Jesus . Another one for the block list .

Jesus . Another one for the block list .

:megalol: Yeah, if he doesn't get it by now then he never will. Mods, please close this thread. I believe the OP has accepted the answer provided.

If its the latter...what's the game-breaking reason ED can't bundle up all the other similar updates/fixes and release them across onto stable?

Because mission files too are not always inter version compatible. Maintaining them is however not part of ED coder staff work, as such your argument simply makes no sense from a technological standpoint.

Maintaining them is however not part of ED coder staff work

ED has no responsibility for maintaining 3rd party modules CURRENTLY being sold actively via the ED website? And that ED has an active commercial relationship with?

It's quite literally caveat emptor and whatever 3rd party Plane, Terrain, Campaign you've just paid out your heard earned wages for could INSTANTLY stop working with any update or change to DCS World and you'd have ZERO comeback?

I can't help that ought to be displayed VERY prominently on the shop page of all Third Party modules...that $80 bucks for whatevver plane you're thinking of buying startsto look like a terrible investment if it could stop working tomorrow with no recompense!

A

The reason our squad decided to run a stable version of our dedicated server as well as the beta is because we understand that the beta is not really or should be used as a version of the sim considered to be stable.

While I accept the fact that we are helping ED with the testing on the beta, I also have the opinion that it shouldn’t be available to download from the main webpage right next to a stable release version. Rather the beta should be available through a dedicated area of the forum you can only gain access to after accepting the consequences of using it and how to correctly report bugs and crashes.

lots of disgruntled people start talking about bad performance and how it’s ruined their experience but fail to remember the uses of beta and what you are really accepting when installing it.

To stop threads like this from getting out of control ED need to have better control over managing the open beta and the flow of useful bug reporting over moaning and disgruntled punters airing their views.

Might be time to start moving the beta over to a closed version with a special forum set away from the main area.

This derailed thread and others is proof that confusion is real across the versions and I think it needs to change for the better.

ED has no responsibility for maintaining 3rd party modules CURRENTLY being sold actively via the ED website? And that ED has an active commercial relationship with?

As for airplanes, since VEAO has folded, ED require 3rd parties to transfer their assets in case that the company goes belly up.

As long as the company is in business, yes, they are themselves responsible for making their stuff work. Who would have thought?

The reason our squad decided to run a stable version of our dedicated server as well as the beta is because we understand that the beta is not really or should be used as a version of the sim considered to be stable.

While I accept the fact that we are helping ED with the testing on the beta, I also have the opinion that it shouldn’t be available to download from the main webpage right next to a stable release version. Rather the beta should be available through a dedicated area of the forum you can only gain access to after accepting the consequences of using it and how to correctly report bugs and crashes.

 

lots of disgruntled people start talking about bad performance and how it’s ruined their experience but fail to remember the uses of beta and what you are really accepting when installing it.

 

To stop threads like this from getting out of control ED need to have better control over managing the open beta and the flow of useful bug reporting over moaning and disgruntled punters airing their views.

 

Might be time to start moving the beta over to a closed version with a special forum set away from the main area.

 

This derailed thread and others is proof that confusion is real across the versions and I think it needs to change for the better.

so now you are contradicting your initial request to have new modules released on stable version.

You now want new modules to be only released on closed beta??

As for airplanes, since VEAO has folded, ED require 3rd parties to transfer their assets in case that the company goes belly up.

 

 

As long as the company is in business, yes, they are themselves responsible for making their stuff work. Who would have thought?

It was a good move of ED to do this, though it only applied to new cotracts signed after the VEAO disaster, so everything pre this is still "if they go under too bad"

As long as the company is in business, yes, they are themselves responsible for making their stuff work

So a third party developer could work on updates/additional functionality/bug fixes for a paid for module customers have purchased and release it to them?

Or do they have to pass it onto ED who'll release it to a tiny minority of Beta testers...but sit on it with regards to the vast majority of their customer base who CAN"T GET ACCESS to this his even though the 3rd party have (in your own words) "made their stuff work" ?

This is getting boring. You've had enough fish for today.

Module updates from beta pushed onto stable

Your post makes no sense. You claim the OB version is unplayable but you want it uploaded to the stable version?

He is talking about modules updates and not core sim updates.

For example the Jf-17 is not in the release version despite being released in openbeta last December.

Unfortunately I don’t think what he asked will be possible, I imagine that a lot of code is dependent from other parts...so you cannot just copy/paste a module

so now you are contradicting your initial request to have new modules released on stable version.

Yes after getting a response from BIGNEWY explaining how things work, I guess you missed that bit.

You now want new modules to be only released on closed beta??

:wallbash:Nope.

Not sure how this all works as I'm not a coder, but how do these modules work, My idea of a module is it just plugs in to the core gaming system and gets calls and sends out requests for data. But, I see every release breaks something somewhere and sometimes it has nothing to do with the system in question. So, I am curious. Doesn't have anything to do with EA, or OB or stable, just how does this all work together? I think an explanation in general terms would enlighten people and hopefully their intelligence will kick in.

DCS was never designed from the start to be modular - in the early days the aircraft were their own standalone games.

In fact it's the fact that DCS wasn't designed from the start to be what it is now which is causing some big, hard to solve problems moving forward - and that's coming from Kate Perderko

Every official aircraft release coincided with an update to the base client be it OB, stable or whatever. I don't know whether or not said update was required to provide compatibility but I'm not aware of any official aircraft (3rd party or otherwise) that wasn't released without an update to the base client.