TheGuardian Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 As someone who has worked as a machinist and as a software dev I understand where you are coming from but think of it this was. As a software dev you are making the prints and also machining the parts so it’s not a one to one comparison. If the event of a change they would change the design, update the design document and change the implementation all themselves. Completely different then sending plans back for a revision to someone else because they don’t understand tolerance stacking for instance. What I can say about software is they every feature or bug fix I do has a date on it and is tracked on a board. Missing dates happens but only internally. Missing dates to a customer is very bad and in a business software world is usually accompanied by monetary penalties. We would never tell a customer that a feature is in until its merged into the release branch and through QA testing. Oh no I get ya man. It's not a true 1:1 for sure. I was just spewing a little. Recent years have seen me doing more of the designing myself so I totally get where you are going. It wasn't ment to put down software devs (engineers, well that is a different story), more of a push to understand that it it isn't as simple as making (horrible word I know) the code and pushing it out. It has to get in the hands of those that can see it, test it, and try to make it break. XP helps in those matters and I have always found having someone else check my work always finds more flaws than me doing it and that is important.
fmedges Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 It’s good according to their statement that they found issues with the new implementation and pulled it. I think they they are in a bad position in that they are always working to these two week releases seemingly right up until that date. They should modify their process so that there is a buffer between when work is completed and when it gets released into the beta branch. This would give them time in their planning to fix issues and also to hit their target releases more consistently. Once implemented for instance the work that gets released tomorrow would of actually been completed a month ago. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Allied Air Command Website | Allied Air Command Discord
Airhunter Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 I find it funny how the guys at the IL2 studio very rerely give out dates for their updates and still manage to post roadmaps and "community updates" on an almost weekly basis, keeping the community in the loop. Very little "disapointment" there. No "Early Access" either, although a different business model.
fmedges Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) I don’t believe that they need to expose their dates but more so their roadmap and what they are currently working on to have the community feel in the loop. Honestly just don’t say something is done and coming out until it’s 100% solid and tested and is actually going to come out. Most people here want them to succeed, but hate that they feel constantly duped. Edited May 19, 2020 by fmedges [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Allied Air Command Website | Allied Air Command Discord
Harker Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 I don’t believe that they need to expose their dates but more so their roadmap and what they are currently working on to have the community feel in the loop. Honestly just don’t say something is done and coming out until it’s 100% solid and tested and is actually going to come out. Most people here want them to succeed, but hate that they feel constantly duped.I agree here. It'd be better to have a buffer for the released builds, as in the version that is releasing in OB on the 20th would need to be finished by the 13th, for example. And that should include internal testing. That leaves them time to fix minor issues, address incompatibilities and be sure that whatever is supposed to be out on the 20th, is actually out on the 20th. And only when that internal OB build is complete, they should announce things coming in it. It'd save ED a lot of grief and the fans a lot of disappointment. The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord. F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3 - i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro
TheGuardian Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 I don’t believe that they need to expose their dates but more so their roadmap and what they are currently working on to have the community feel in the loop. Honestly just don’t say something is done and coming out until it’s 100% solid and tested and is actually going to come out. Most people here want them to succeed, but hate that they feel constantly duped. Agreed and with what Harker stated as well. I'm less concerned with dates and more with pipeline stuff anyway, well that and just communication in general. I do agree that giving dates without properly testing is not a good idea. That being said I'm sure someone will chime in with wanting dates like so and so game. Either way, if they are catching problems before release I think we should all consider that a win. No need to add anything into the sim that will just cause more problems.
Airhunter Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 I don’t believe that they need to expose their dates but more so their roadmap and what they are currently working on to have the community feel in the loop. Honestly just don’t say something is done and coming out until it’s 100% solid and tested and is actually going to come out. Most people here want them to succeed, but hate that they feel constantly duped. Exactly that. Rigid release dates should only be published when said feature or module has been tested and is very certain to be released on that exact date.
Recommended Posts