Jump to content

Radar Performance


Recommended Posts

I think it means they have it fixed in their current branch of development but it hasn't been released to open beta yet. In other words, it's in the next patch.

 

 

It's bad development practice to push individual fixes to open beta or production because of the overhead and the chance you introduce other bugs. The usual cadence is you have a sprint, get a bunch of fixes and new features together in a patch, then send that through QA (quality assurance) and if it passes, then you push.


Edited by Xavven
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 ore fa, Xavven ha scritto:

It's bad development practice to push individual fixes to open beta or production because of the overhead and the chance you introduce other bugs. The usual cadence is you have a sprint, get a bunch of fixes and new features together in a patch, then send that through QA (quality assurance) and if it passes, then you push.

Also, I assume this is a considerably work heavy fix which probably needs more testing than usual. Give the devs time, I can assure you from personal experience that rushing them and cutting corners will 99% result in a disappointment on our end. Spent over a year at my job dealing with a particularly "difficult" customer who kept demanding "hotfixes" over "hotfixes" and single bugfix releases skipping QA. Lost count of how many regressions we introduced, how many hours of overhead and how many late nights "emergency releases" we had 'cause he couldn't wait a week for proper release cycle...


Edited by BamJr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We as customers should not be involved with any internal process of the company. For those of you that are devs, these are "implementation details" that should be "hidden away inside the interface of the object", which is in this case ED.

 

Otherwise what would be next, customers demanding to do code reviews? When you go to a bakery do you get to participate in the cooking of the making of the dough?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, SFJackBauer said:

We as customers should not be involved with any internal process of the company. For those of you that are devs, these are "implementation details" that should be "hidden away inside the interface of the object", which is in this case ED.

 

Otherwise what would be next, customers demanding to do code reviews? When you go to a bakery do you get to participate in the cooking of the making of the dough?

 

 

I pay money for these full fidelity modules that I want to be as accurate as possible. I want mine and everyone else's voices to be heard and influence decisions that ED makes. We are the customers after all. Because of the community demanding realism, ED reversed their unrealistic decision to allow the F-16 to employ all 4 HARMs onboard. It's a good thing for us to have influence if we are paying. Nothing should be "hidden away" everything should be transparent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2021 at 3:26 PM, Jack1nthecrack said:

I pay money for these full fidelity modules that I want to be as accurate as possible. I want mine and everyone else's voices to be heard and influence decisions that ED makes. We are the customers after all. Because of the community demanding realism, ED reversed their unrealistic decision to allow the F-16 to employ all 4 HARMs onboard. It's a good thing for us to have influence if we are paying. Nothing should be "hidden away" everything should be transparent.

 

My post is more directed to people that want to be unofficial spokerspersons of ED, claiming "here is how their development process works" or "that's why they tagged this post as this" or "they didn't fixed this because <insert reasons>".

 

Besides that, I agree with you that customers should have a voice, but whether the company listens or not to their customers is their decision, not ours.

 

Are the customers that did not wanted that HARM change less customers than you?

 

Ultimately they did because they wanted to do it. And even though there are polls, these are inputs, not agreements. Again, you are within their rights to express your concerns here or wherever else, but they are also within their rights to do whatever they want with that, as long as both sides are within the EULA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2021 at 8:26 PM, Jack1nthecrack said:

I pay money for these full fidelity modules that I want to be as accurate as possible. I want mine and everyone else's voices to be heard and influence decisions that ED makes. We are the customers after all. Because of the community demanding realism, ED reversed their unrealistic decision to allow the F-16 to employ all 4 HARMs onboard. It's a good thing for us to have influence if we are paying. Nothing should be "hidden away" everything should be transparent.

You pay money and you will get the product once it Is complete. 

You bought an early access product, aka still in development, aka not working as expected yet, so it is. 

Buying f16 you didn't join the board of ED, therefore there is no obligation from ED to share any internal stage of development, if they do it is well appreciate of course but it's up to their decision. 

Sometimes share too much starts never ending flames and demands and mess... 

Let's keep internal development as is and wait for (hopefully) frequent updates like Wags and BigNewy are doing 😉

By the way internally fixed is reeeeeally close to push on next open beta release. 

I also can't wait to fly a complete viper, mate... 


Edited by SkHiTech
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wags locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...