View Full Version : Hey SH4 devs- who's testing these patches?
The thought occurred to me, the SH4 devs released a patch with additional issues, are giving interviews right and left on the add-on and talking about it being moddable, but who are the beta testers?
Did they have anyone outside of the developers put the patch through it's paces? And who's testing the add-on?
I bring this up because of some of the comments about not buying the add-on by a few of the more prolific modders here.
Sometimes people don't say anything because they've signed a non disclosure agreement and can't. But when they start saying things like "I probably won't buy it", you can pretty much bet they're NOT in the development loop.
If you want someone to test the game that can break it so you can get things fixed, who better than people like Ducimus, tater, LeoVampire, Kriller, Lurker, Capt. Cox, LukeFF, and other's who've been modding this game for several months. These are the kind of people who WANT to see the sim succeed and who, instead of just playing it will actually TRY to find problems. If anyone understands the game- these guys do
Players as testers is ok, but few players are willling to run the exact same scenario many times over to help give an accurate report as to what the problem is. Or create a mission where they can make something happen to see if it's been fixed, or deliberately try to create an adverse situation to break the program.
C'mon devs/ubisoft. Don't be so cheap that you are unwilling to use people like the ones mentioned above and then give them a copy when it's released. The dozen or so copies you give away will be more than made up for by the positive press you'll get from a solid release.
There are some really good books (like Introduction to the Team Software Process) on software development processes using a team approach for the alpha and beta stages. A lot of the problems experienced with SH4 would hve been eliminated if the ideas in such books had been followed.
ReallyDedPoet
11-29-07, 10:36 AM
I bring this up because of some of the comments about not buying the add-on by a few of the more prolific modders here.
With regards to the above, I think folks not wanting it relates more to U-Boats, that type of theatre, than the game itself.
RDP
I bring this up because of some of the comments about not buying the add-on by a few of the more prolific modders here.
With regards to the above, I think folks not wanting it relates more to U-Boats, that type of theatre, than the game itself.
RDP
Missed the point RDP. Which is- would someone be saying that that was actively testing it for the developers?
ReallyDedPoet
11-29-07, 10:53 AM
I guess I was commenting in that way because I have seen a couple of your posts regarding the patch and some displeasure with certain aspects of it, if that makes any sense to you.
I may be wrong, but I think some members here have been testers in the past, but you could imagine if they admitted to it, the would be questioned , personal messaged to death by folks.
RDP
This is all theory; with scant resources or time I can see how the patch could be released with minimal testing; except for what ever issues are at the top of the list for repair.
Not proof positive but in 24 hours post release, there are plenty of new issues that have cropped up. Then again this community is very good at finding the Boo Boo's.
Gift horses.....teeth....should we really look. The laundry gets sorted out eventually. The fun is in the chase right......
Wilcke
Ducimus
11-29-07, 11:12 AM
I bring this up because of some of the comments about not buying the add-on by a few of the more prolific modders here.
With regards to the above, I think folks not wanting it relates more to U-Boats, that type of theatre, than the game itself.
RDP
Since i said i have no intention of buying the add on, i may as well also state that it has NOTHING to do with the developers work, or anything in any relative terms to quality control of patch, or release state of the game or whatever.
Complaining about the state of the game, or the patch, is probably one of the last things id conciously do. Im an avid fan of the pacific theater, and i realize that this, is all there is. So rather then complain about it, i just graciously and thankfully take it as it is, deal with it, and see if i can't make it better.
My inclination to not wanting to buy the expansion deals primarly with.
a.) after 3 or 4 years of SH3, Im not interested in uboats in the slightest.
b.) I've already bought Sh4, twice now. Once from the digital download, and again when i saw the DVD on the shelves. So it becomes a point of principle, ive already payed a little over 100 dollars for a video game. Im sure the expansion will range anywhere from 30 to 50 dollars, and i think ive spent enough money for one game as it is already. Considering point a, why would i buy it?
I do not think that my decision will effect the developers livelyhood in the least. Im deeply appreciative of the SH4 development team for producing the game ive been waiting for, for a number of years now. I'm also quite sure there are enough Das Boot fans who, love their U-96, almost as much as they love their eyecandy who will pick up copys of the expansion.
SteamWake
11-29-07, 12:15 PM
Did they have anyone outside of the developers put the patch through it's paces? And who's testing the add-on?.
1.) Yes
2.) There under a non disclousure one would assume.
Not proof positive but in 24 hours post release, there are plenty of new issues that have cropped up. Then again this community is very good at finding the Boo Boo's.
Wilcke
Bingo- you just pointed out what I brought up, their current testing system has a lot of holes in it.
And Ducimus, I mentioned you because if you aren't on their beta test team, the devs have their heads stuck where the sun doesn't shine.
BTW, I posted this because I've been on beta test teams for some pretty heavy duty commercial products in the past and know what's involved. (from about 1990 to 1997. things like 3D animation and rendering with real time physics engines was one of them- even demo'd the software and some hardware at a few shows all expenses paid- that's how far into the process I wound up. Had to quit when my job atarted needing me to travel, and was working 12 hour days) But even with that, I wouldn't put myself on the list above as I'm pretty new to the game.
I've seen someone blabber after signing an NDA, but they were kicked off the team and work continued. The results are well worth it.
The reason I brought up the people above is they have a track record of keeping their mouths shut while working on a project. They work on features in their mods at times w/o telling people until it's ready for public testing because they know the headaches blabbing ahead of time can cause.
Modders have at least a basic understanding of the development process, know the game's intricate details, and know the value of good hard testing . . . because it's the one thing they have a hard time getting for their mods. Many of them have a depth of historical knowledge that's absolutely invaluable that the dev's would have access to.
The devs have the core for probably one of the best beta teams you could hope for- yet they don't utilize them in a way that would be most beneficial and that's a "cryin' shame".
Did they have anyone outside of the developers put the patch through it's paces? And who's testing the add-on?.
1.) Yes
2.) There under a non disclousure one would assume.
I'm not testing. That should narrow your search a little. ;)
I guess I was commenting in that way because I have seen a couple of your posts regarding the patch and some displeasure with certain aspects of it, if that makes any sense to you.
RDP
Hmmm, as far as I lnow i only made one post about issues and that was the collisions one. Even in that one I lead of with "although much was improved in the 1.4 patch,"
Otherwise, I answered some posts to help out with installation issues. So no, I have not been slamming the patch. What I'm spouting off about here is their process, which because of as Wilcke said " but in 24 hours post release, there are plenty of new issues that have cropped up", shows it needs improvement.
If there are problems with the patch, that could have been caught ahead of time- is it the patch that's at fault, or the process that's at fault?
I understand the deveopers have much time , effort, and sweat invested in these changes, but why have all that effort be short changed because the process of testing is missing a few pieces? Their hard work needs to be backed up solidly by an adequate testing/feedback system.
The book I mentioned in the first post is considered almost the "bible of development" by some developers. I have a friend that's now a senior programmer / project leader at EA who worked his way through several development companies getting raises and promotions each time because he tried to stick to what that book taught- and it worked. He wouldn't even let me be a tester for him w/o reading it.
ReallyDedPoet
11-29-07, 01:05 PM
I guess I was commenting in that way because I have seen a couple of your posts regarding the patch and some displeasure with certain aspects of it, if that makes any sense to you.
RDP
Hmmm, as far as I lnow i only made one post about issues and that was the collisions one. Even in that one I lead of with "although much was improved in the 1.4 patch,"
Otherwise, I answered some posts to help out with installation issues. So no, I have not been slamming the patch. What I'm spouting off about here is their process, which because of as Wilcke said " but in 24 hours post release, there are plenty of new issues that have cropped up", shows it needs improvement.
If there are problems with the patch, that could have been caught ahead of time- is it the patch that's at fault, or the process that's at fault?
I understand the deveopers have much time , effort, and sweat invested in these changes, but why have all that effort be short changed because the process of testing is missing a few pieces? Their hard work needs to be backed up solidly by an adequate testing/feedback system.
The book I mentioned in the first post is considered almost the "bible of development" by some developers. I have a friend that's now a senior programmer / project leader at EA who worked his way through several development companies getting raises and promotions each time because he tried to stick to what that book taught- and it worked. He wouldn't even let me be a tester for him w/o reading it.
I stand corrected :oops:, the collision issue post is what I saw.
At the end of the day I am not sure what game(s) out there are ever bug-free. We are lucky to get the patches we have, and to have a game that is so moddable and well supported by the community .
At the end of the day do I wish it was totally bug-free, yes, who doesn't, but in its current state I am quite happy with it. With the add-on the horizon, I am sure there will be more fixes at that time as many of that stuff will pertain to the SH4 game as a whole.
RDP
The jury is out on the add-on for me. It would require having content I care about. I don't care in the least about u-boats, but I am interesting in capability to switch navies easily in general (IJN subs? RN subs? Dutch subs?) even if the subs need to be modded in.
The calling help stuff... not sure it was done much if at all in the Indian Ocean by U-boats, and it was certainly almost never done by US subs, if at all, least in the way they hint at. Of all the "strategic" stuff they could have added, this is the least likely and least important. Far more useful would have been to make the roster list of ship names actually meaningful. Meaning that When Yamato is sunk, she's GONE, never to be seen again. When Musashi is gone, too, then all generic BB calls, or even explicit calls for a Yamato would be NULL. Oh well.
Added ships would also tend to lure me—added JAPANESE ships. German ships? No. Picking ships to add should be entirely based on number produced, and numbers that saw action in the theater in question. 1 or 2 german raiders that saw rare combat is a total waste of effort compared to dozens of kaibokans that saw daily combat for months, or coastal shipping that was produced in the hundreds or thousands (sea trucks).
Their choice of the 2 least likely to ever be seen subs as the only IJN sub produced is a case in point. It's like the devs made a statement, "we're going to put 2 IJN subs in SH4! and we're taking suggestions for the least useful subs to produce for y'all, which should we pick?" The answer? The Sen Toku and the midget. Huzah!
(^^^^ They had em both lying around, so my above statement is BS, ignore it)
tater
Ducimus
11-29-07, 03:21 PM
Im not sure i would make a good beta tester with this game. I have chronic CTD... Compulsive Tweaking Disorder. I can't involve myself with this game, and not pop the hood open and start wrenching on the nuts and bolts, or start souping things up to my liking before i sit in the drivers seat. I may start the engine, rev it a few times and listen to it, but if i hear or smell something i don't like.. i pop the hood, i can't help it. Its compulsive. lol.
elanaiba
11-29-07, 03:58 PM
Their choice of the 2 least likely to ever be seen subs as the only IJN sub produced is a case in point. It's like the devs made a statement, "we're going to put 2 IJN subs in SH4! and we're taking suggestions for the least useful subs to produce for y'all, which should we pick?" The answer? The Sen Toku and the midget. Huzah!
We had the Sen-Toku laying around and the midget sitting on the Chitose. We could either put them in, or NOT. And that was that.
Ah, well then I apologize regarding the sub choices. Mea culpa.
I've been waiting on S3D doing 3D stuff so I can make variant DDs with a couple midget subs aboard, myself.
<S>
tater
MONOLITH
11-29-07, 04:05 PM
C'mon devs/ubisoft. Don't be so cheap
Certainly an excellent posture to take when asking the devs for something.
elanaiba
11-29-07, 04:15 PM
Ah, well then I apologize regarding the sub choices. Mea culpa.
I've been waiting on S3D doing 3D stuff so I can make variant DDs with a couple midget subs aboard, myself.
<S>
tater
I think midgets could be loaded through eqp files onto DDS. On what node, that's a trick question... And then of course there's the issue of loading a ship onto a ship, which I HOPE creates some problems. So you would probably need a clone of the midget.
Do I make sense?
P.S. Nice avatar Mono ;)
The Chitose has the midget in the dat I think, it's not in the eqp file (I just checked again to make sure).
Maybe it's this one in the dat:
CVS_Chitose_Barca_SS
tater
elanaiba
11-29-07, 05:28 PM
Of course its in the dat, I was talking about instantiating the separate submarine.
Having done Beta testing in the past (long past and not for Ubisoft) I can say I never want to do it again. And those who mod games are about the least likely to be beta testers of the same game. Why? They've spent so much time reporting bugs and trying to do things that create problems--well--by the time the game hits the shelves thay may never want to play it again :nope:!
Writing software that gets summed up by Gigabytes of information is a daunting task even if you have unlimited time and resources. There's always going to be some kind of problem or glitch (consider thousands of potential hardware and software configurations)--and it's the human factor as well. One person writes this and another writes that and both parts work fine. Put then together and they don't. Fix the problem and move to the next thing on your list. Multiply that by 100's of little modules and it becomes nearly impossible to forsee all the possible issues.
Programming is a b***h and that's why I dropped out of doing it years ago. But since I do have some experience with trying to be a programmer, it makes me appreciate all the more, what a daunting task a team under dead-line pressure, Financial limitations and consumer demand truly faces.
I for one, will lean toward cutting them some slack. In fact...
I Salute Them!
:up:
THE_MASK
11-29-07, 05:50 PM
Even a nutter like me can see that this is an extremely complex game .
Ducimus
11-29-07, 06:01 PM
Programming is a b***h and that's why I dropped out of doing it years ago. But since I do have some experience with trying to be a programmer, it makes me appreciate all the more,
This sounds familiar. Amongst the wallpaper I have an AS degree in IT with a certificaiton in C++ programming, which means precisely, dick. I fondly remember pounding my head for hours trying to figure out why something woudlnt work. ( with moments of inspiration acutally hit me in the oddest of places, shower, toilet, taking a jog, etc).
Took the advanced course in coding TWICE. Not because i failed, but because i wanted to stay on top of my "game." (SDI, MDI, Doc/view arcitecture) These days the motivaion isnt there anymore, and my current job has NOTHING to do with coding, but, i appreciate the devs work, all that much more because i have an idea (and just an idea), of the pain they go through.
Of course its in the dat, I was talking about instantiating the separate submarine.
Well, the float planes on Chitose are inserted with the eqp files on the X nodes, so it would have been a cool way to add the midget, too (cause you could have a loadout with them, and without).
Your suggestion is interesting, however. Does this mean you could point an eqp link at ANY object in the game? Fascinating... I might need to try that. Wonder if a clone of the sub with the collision node deleted would do the trick (to keep it from smashing the ship :) )
Wow, I just got a new idea, too.
tater
elanaiba
11-30-07, 03:46 AM
You don't have to delete the collision model, all aircraft have it but its not activated till the object is detached (destroyed).
At the end of the day I am not sure what game(s) out there are ever bug-free.
IL-2 Sturmovik, also published by (gasp!) Ubisoft, comes extremely close to being considered a bug-free game. It's an example of a game, no less a military sim, being thoroughly tested by those in the community swdw hails as the best people to test such games. Most of the disputes you see crop up with the game deal almost entirely with flight modeling and AI issues, which are not bugs but rather interpretations of the historical resources being used.
And yes, I was a tester and a third-party developer for the game at one time. I'm in the credits under Artists.
Far more useful would have been to make the roster list of ship names actually meaningful. Meaning that When Yamato is sunk, she's GONE, never to be seen again. When Musashi is gone, too, then all generic BB calls, or even explicit calls for a Yamato would be NULL. Oh well.
I agree with you on that a thousand times over. That right there would make a major improvement to the campaign system. It could even be rigged with a "commonality" switch, where a ship with a value of "1" would be generated repeatedly, while a value of "0" meant the game would keep track of how many have been sunk and how many have been generated, based on the /data/roster folder.
ReallyDedPoet
11-30-07, 09:49 AM
At the end of the day I am not sure what game(s) out there are ever bug-free.
IL-2 Sturmovik, also published by (gasp!) Ubisoft, comes extremely close to being considered a bug-free game. It's an example of a game, no less a military sim, being thoroughly tested by those in the community swdw hails as the best people to test such games. Most of the disputes you see crop up with the game deal almost entirely with flight modeling and AI issues, which are not bugs but rather interpretations of the historical resources being used.
And yes, I was a tester and a third-party developer for the game at one time. I'm in the credits under Artists.
Nice info LukeFF, nice to hear that you were involved :yep: Still that is one example of countless games that have been and are being made today.
Maybe part of my feelings here are also driven by the fact that in the end it is just a game and I have enough challenges in RL, so I try not to get to caught up in this stuff or take is too serious. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all of the hard work that folks put into doing this, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Again, just my opinion.
RDP
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.