File list for 1.3

[Jace11]

Can someone work out a list of the files that are new in 1.3...

Not all of them, just those that have been changed or added since 1.2...

This will help modders and maybe I will get round to releasing my supermod...

[Bando]

You're doing a supermod??
Tell us something about it please?

Reg
Bando

[TheSatyr]

I would wait for the official patch before doing anything. Rumor has it that the official patch will be a little bigger than the beta patch and with a few more fixes. But like I said,that's just a rumor from a German site.

(I suspect that a beta tester is going to get reamed by violating the NDA by putting that beta patch out).

[III/JG26_Freddy]

I ve tested this beta patch , very good , the compass now works in the interior fore , the dive gauges too !
The sounds are better ...
But it s not finished , now the periscope doesn t go up and down in 3D view in the conning tower camera
I ve not seen all ....

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

I would wait for the official patch before doing anything. Rumor has it that the official patch will be a little bigger than the beta patch and with a few more fixes. But like I said,that's just a rumor from a German site.

(I suspect that a beta tester is going to get reamed by violating the NDA by putting that beta patch out).

You got that right. Much more importantly, the ability of the Devs to have patches Beta tested in the real world has now been compromised. It will now be almost impossible to allow selected members here and at other respected forums to Beta test Ubisoft patches and games. So, while everyone jumps for joy at downloading a patch that is weeks old and out of date, the bigger picture is very worrying.

You mean UBI might have to start beta testing their games themselves?!!!

Heaven Forbid!!!!

[TDK1044]

I think Ubisoft's problem is production schedule duration. If you don't allow sufficient time for a game to be developed then your Beta tests are of little value. Such was the case with SH4. if this game had been given the additional 3 or 4 months of development that it needed, then it would have been released in the state that patch 1.3 will now put it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

You mean UBI might have to start beta testing their games themselves?!!!

Heaven Forbid!!!!

Testing with your own controlled conditions is valuable. Testing in the real world is more valuable. TDK is simply pointing out the fact that this will be more difficult for Ubi in the future. That, of course, does not pan out well for the player, nor for the desire of further completed games out of the box.

@TDK and Takida

Your points are both valid and well versed. But if UBI insists on releasing a game before its completed then what value is beta testing to the player, in house or public ?

The player still ends up with a duff game regardless.

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

@TDK and Takida

Your points are both valid and well versed. But if UBI insists on releasing a game before its completed then what value is beta testing to the player, in house or public ?

The player still ends up with a duff game regardless.

I understand your point, but I think a more fair statement would be "The player ends up with a game that requires serious patching after release" This leak fiasco just makes things a lot harder.

[dean_acheson]

This one has kinda already gone OT.

It's kinda bad, I think, that the patch got slipped out. I don't know how it happened, but it did.

I don't think that it is that troubling. I mean, the game did get out in some countries before you could even do a digital download here in the states.

I guess somebody let this slip out on a server.

It ain't the end of the world. But it ain't official either. I am very very happy that UBI decided to put the efforts into making the patch, I hope that this doesn't cause them to quit all work on the game, but also, I don't think we fans should be blamed for it.

I hope, for one, to get back to SH4, I kinda put it down, despite the fact that I love it, because I got tired of CTDs after sinking a few ships and getting through chunks of a patrol. Now, that is partly my fault for using TC and mods, but without the mods, somethings didn't work right.

So, there it is, at least my .02 cents. Maybe this thread needed to wait, or needs to wait, until the patch is official unless we find out that there ain't going to be many changes in the offical patch.

[tater]

Similar discussions have happened every single time Il-2 patches have been leaked. Which is to say every time there has been a patch. The interesting thing is that it is usually not some nefarious source, but ubi (or 1C for Il-2 a couple times) putting the bloody thing on a public server (perms on the file and the directory all set for the world to see it). My rant here is really that they don't pay attention to the most basic rules of running a website.

Putting something on a public server IS releasing it by definition. Having a readable directory on ANY machine on the net is no different that putting a magazine on a shelf in a public place. You might not mean or want it released, but if you make it possible for someone to grab it, you have no right to complain when they do.

So every time (with il-2) this happens, they throw the thing on some server, then someone in a forum they also own finds it and posts the link, and they have a hissy fit. They could have saved the trouble by simply typing "chmod 700 patch.exe", but I gather that was too much trouble.

This isn't even a security issue since by definition, if the owner published something in an insecure way, it's not the end user's fault if they go out and get it, that's the point of publishing publically.

So yeah, we should wait for the real thing, but there is no moral high ground here assuming what I read (that it came off ubi's site) is true.

I said something on the il-2 forums each time this happened (they NEVER learn): fire your webmaster, and or hire a sysadmin who has 1/2, even 1/10th a clue.

If what I read was wrong, and it was published by someone else other than the owners of the file, ignore the above.

tater

[Hitman]

Putting something on a public server IS releasing it by definition. Having a readable directory on ANY machine on the net is no different that putting a magazine on a shelf in a public place. You might not mean or want it released, but if you make it possible for someone to grab it, you have no right to complain when they do.

So every time (with il-2) this happens, they throw the thing on some server, then someone in a forum they also own finds it and posts the link, and they have a hissy fit. They could have saved the trouble by simply typing "chmod 700 patch.exe", but I gather that was too much trouble.

This isn't even a security issue since by definition, if the owner published something in an insecure way, it's not the end user's fault if they go out and get it, that's the point of publishing publically.

I disagree

Some days ago I was in Vienna and I could notice a detail I remembered well from my first visit already 15 years ago: The newspapers are on shelves near boxes where you put the money. People pick freely their newspaper and put the coin in the box, and NOBODY controls that. Yet it seems to have worked for at least the 15 years I remembered. Why? Education. Principles. Sure, UBI could have been more careful, but it's the IDIOTS with lack of education and principles that go around trying to find leaks who ruin the scene for the majority of educated and responsable ones.

[tater]

That doesn't make a good anaology to the web.

There is not "honor system" on the web and there never has been. Publishing on the web means putting something someplace where "other" (in unix terms) can read it. Period.

If this was not the case, how would you know ANY page you visit isn't beta? I view a story on an online newspaper—is it the real story, or an internal version waiting for fact checking or editing? How would I possibly know?

The owner has 100% control of who can see what files. In this case they CHOSE to publish it in the hopes no one would find it I guess.

I guess the magazine analogy would be this. You have a magazine with a big graphic on the front that says "FREE! Take me!" on it. You don't put it on the front shelf, but put some other magazines that cost money on top of it hoping no one notices it.

tater

[Hitman]

That doesn't make a good anaology to the web.

The analogy was not about newspapers. It was about education and principles. I guess that does (or should) also translate to the web as it is after all a matter of the people, be them in the street or at their PCs.