waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They were working on a P-40 at one point, though I didn't know they actually put up preorders for it (there definitely was a "box cover" for the store).

 

It always struck me as odd that they chose such a low-run variant of the P-40. Especially when other marks of P-40 were so prolific in European use.

19 minutes ago, bfr said:

No one said it did wear out. Maintaining backward compatibility can be a huge millstone though and its unfortunate that those modules are reaching a tipping point of not being able to be supported in their current state and can't be improved to a new standard either.

Very true, but, given that there exist modules older than even the Mirage 2000C, it's going to be stuck in a lot of craws. Magnitude 3, despite the bumpy road it took to get out the Corsair and its assets, remain clearly committed to supporting the Fishbed. I think the comparison to cars or any other piece of machinery is a bit flawed simply because scarcity impacts physical products much more acutely than digital ones.

[bfr]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

My comment was directed at comments about 'decade old DLCs' in general, and the suggestion that somehow ED would be justified in no longer supporting them in 3.0. 

I would suggest its eventually inevitable. They've deprecated stuff before and taken it off sale to new users (albeit after offering upgrades to actively supported modules for a fairly nominal fee) and one day even just keeping the lights on for those deprecated legacy modules won't be worth it any longer to them either.

[bfr]

6 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Very true, but, given that there exist modules older than even the Mirage 2000C, it's going to be stuck in a lot of craws. Magnitude 3, despite the bumpy road it took to get out the Corsair and its assets, remain clearly committed to supporting the Fishbed. I think the comparison to cars or any other piece of machinery is a bit flawed simply because scarcity impacts physical products much more acutely than digital ones.

Fortunately those modules are in the hands of active developers who have the means and motivation to address whatever breaking change is going to come up. The Razbam ones are not.

[Tank50us]

17 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It always struck me as odd that they chose such a low-run variant of the P-40. Especially when other marks of P-40 were so prolific in European use.

it could just be that THAT was the version they had easy access to. It'd be like wanting to do an early P-47 (with the Razerback cockpit), but you could only find the D versions. Sure, if you looked around enough you could find the version you want to do... but at some point... money becomes an issue.

[Horns]

2 hours ago, Lucidus said:

Can you have two installed versions with same license in the one computer? That could be a solution. 2.9 for razbam and newest for others.

I remember that I did a long time ago, I think you could have two versions if they were on different hard drives back then, but maybe that was when OpenBeta and Release were separate streams

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

Software doesn't have a shelf life

It does not wear out like a real life product

Not true, in software development there are a whole lot of reasons for software to have a shelf life, including:

• The environment changing and code needing to be adapted or rewritten to just remain working in the new environment. For example, to keep working on a new version of Windows.
• Increasing or changing expectations. For example, visual quality that was acceptable in 2000 often isn't considered acceptable anymore. But also things like FFB becoming popular again and players expecting support. Or things like DLSS and related technologies.
• The software being built on obsolete libraries or with obsolete technology. Then it may become impossible to find developers who can work on the code and you will import the software rot of these libraries.
• People leaving who understand the code, and people making increasingly uninformed changes to the code (putting hacks on hacks), due to a lack of understanding, until the code becomes a bowl of spaghetti.
• Decisions having been made in the past that no longer fit the new requirements/environment/etc, but so much having become dependent on these changes, that attempts to change it are like pulling bricks from a Jenga-tower. With every additional change, the tower becomes less stable. And the cost of making changes can become enormous, for example, when you would have to alter every mission already made, to accommodate a change you want to make to the code.
• Vestigial code that just gets in the way and can cause bugs.

These things often intermingle and compound on each other.

One of the main parts of the job of software developers is to try to minimize these issues, but also making the hard choice between continuing on an ever more difficult struggle with ever more deteriorating code, versus making a partial or full clean start.

Edited 57 minutes ago by Aapje

[freehand]

I think you will find if the remaining RB modules do not work in the future the **** will hit the fan big time.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

4 hours ago, spacefox said:

I mean is anyone using Windows XP these days

You'd be surprised... Home users probably moved on but I suggest you step into your local government building and look over the shoulder of the people working at their work PCs.
Many companies also still use Windows XP even to this day.

[Shibbyland]

Just now, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

You'd be surprised... Home users probably moved on but I suggest you step into your local government building and look over the shoulder of the people working at their work PCs.
Many companies also still use Windows XP even to this day.

Off topic but I operated an air transport aircraft not that long ago that used an EFB with Windows XP.

[Nightdare]

9 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Not true, in software development there are a whole lot of reasons for software to have a shelf life, including:

• The environment changing and code needing to be adapted or rewritten to just remain working in the new environment. For example, to keep working on a new version of Windows.
• Increasing or changing expectations. For example, visual quality that was acceptable in 2000 often isn't considered acceptable anymore. But also things like FFB becoming popular again and players expecting support. Or things like DLSS and related technologies.
• The software being built on obsolete libraries or with obsolete technology. Then it may become impossible to find developers who can work on the code and you will import the software rot of these libraries.
• People leaving who understand the code, and people making increasingly uninformed changes to the code (putting hacks on hacks), due to a lack of understanding, until the code becomes a bowl of spaghetti.
• Decisions having been made in the past that no longer fit the new requirements/environment/etc, but so much having become dependent on these changes, that attempts to change it are like pulling bricks from a Jenga-tower. With every additional change, the tower becomes less stable. And the cost of making changes can become enormous, for example, when you would have to alter every mission already made, to accommodate a change you want to make to the code.
• Vestigial code that just gets in the way and can cause bugs.

These things often intermingle and compound on each other.

One of the main parts of the job of software developers is to try to minimize these issues, but also making the hard choice between continuing on an ever more difficult struggle with ever more deteriorating code, versus making a partial or full clean start.

 

When we have century+ old locomotives on the tracks, I fail to see the merit of your defense for the software industry

If anything, it shows how little initiative there is to upkeep the most sustainable industry humanity ever came up with

[bfr]

3 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

When we have century+ old locomotives on the tracks, I fail to see the merit of your defense for the software industry

If anything, it shows how little initiative there is to upkeep the most sustainable industry humanity ever came up with

Century old locomotives that are basically a labour of love and rely on armies of volunteers and donations to be kept running for the most part.  There is very good reason that those locomotives are now all on heritage railways or running the occasional enthusiast mainline day trip and not in day to day use.

What Aapje describes is pretty much spot on. Software often can and does eventually become uneconomic to maintain and/or unsupportable through a multitude of reasons.  Sometimes sustainability is throwing something in the bin after you've come with a more efficient replacement.

[bfr]

19 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

You'd be surprised... Home users probably moved on but I suggest you step into your local government building and look over the shoulder of the people working at their work PCs.
Many companies also still use Windows XP even to this day.

And quite a few got royally bitten on the backside for continuing to use it. The UK NHS for example (who were also paying a substantial sum for some level of continuing support after it was originally retired by Microsoft).