Why is the patch taking so long?

[TDK1044]

You want "stirring?"....How about it's possibly the last patch that Ubisoft is going to authorize for this game, and the Devs want to make sure it works correctly because they won't be allowed to fix it if it doesn't.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

You want "stirring?"....How about it's possibly the last patch that Ubisoft is going to authorize for this game, and the Devs want to make sure it works correctly because they won't be allowed to fix it if it doesn't.

Based on previous releases, meaning 3 & 4, I don't see that happening. Anyway, let them take their time with the patch, we don't need anymore rush jobs

[doomlordis]

Originally Posted by Susexx

Single core work OK ! I am testing ! Wait patch in Europe.

So explosions and splashes etc do not run in slow motion with 1.2 ?

Cool! Great news

[Boats]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Because they work at the code level.

But to follow your logic, if all of the flaws you are concerned about are fixed by existing mods, why do you care about the patch?

And implying that the Ubisoft Romania team is so ethically bankrupt that they would steal someone else's work and claim it as their own is really a cheap shot.

If they were that morally insane they would be working for Goldman Sachs and making a lot more money.

JCC

Sorry but I'm not niave enough to trust everyone, especially those I don't know. And they really haven't given us a chance to know them through the wruitten word, now have they? It's my training. And I didn't accuse them of anything really, just throwing out a hypothetical question, like evolution.

And to keep that thought at the forefront, you really believe Goldman Saches is totally and exclusively at fault for making money? The governemnet had nothing to do with setting up the scenerio for them to fall into? They are, after all, in the business of making money through stock deals. I don't play the market myself, it a lot like gambling. I think the gov. dealt the cards and they played the hand. You accusing them of some underhanded deallings is sort of like what you accuse me of. Of course YOU may think that those high and mighty representatives have clean hands. I don't.

[The General]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

You want "stirring?"....How about it's possibly the last patch that Ubisoft is going to authorize for this game, and the Devs want to make sure it works correctly because they won't be allowed to fix it if it doesn't.

Originally Posted by doomlordis

its simple , one or more of the promised fixes is causing issues, my moneys on the single core fix.

I have it on good authority that neither of these guesses is correct.

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by The General

I have it on good authority that neither of these guesses is correct.

Care to elaborate?

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by The General

I have it on good authority that neither of these guesses is correct.

Who said it was a guess?

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by Boats

Sorry but I'm not niave enough to trust everyone, especially those I don't know. And they really haven't given us a chance to know them through the wruitten word, now have they? It's my training. And I didn't accuse them of anything really, just throwing out a hypothetical question, like evolution.

Judging by your registration date you have been around long enough to remember SH4, if not SH3. They were very communicative and responsive throughout both of those projects and came through with almost every comittment they made. That is enough for me to trust them this time.

As to Goldman Sachs that is better left to the General Topics forum, and I just can't be bothered.

And I didn't "accuse" you of anything. I purposely used the word "implying", which is exactly what you did. That you did it in a Fox News type of manner ("Some people say that you eat puppies Senator... what do you say to that") doesn't change the implication... it just gives you cover.

JCC

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by John Channing

As to Goldman Sachs that is better left to the General Topics forum, and I just can't be bothered.

That's why you can't beat the basic car analogy.

[PurpleCity]

Originally Posted by Boats

Sorry but I'm not niave enough to trust everyone, especially those I don't know. And they really haven't given us a chance to know them through the wruitten word, now have they? It's my training. And I didn't accuse them of anything really, just throwing out a hypothetical question, like evolution.

Don't want to get off topic - but evolution is not a theory - it is a fact. The term "theory" in science means "accepted as fact", not to be confused with the term "theory" in mainstream language which means "hypothesized explanation".

There is no debate about evolution among scientists.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by PurpleCity

Don't want to get off topic - but evolution is not a theory - it is a fact. The term "theory" in science means "accepted as fact", not to be confused with the term "theory" in mainstream language which means "hypothesized explanation".

There is no debate about evolution among scientists.

If your are going to correct someone do it with facts. Evolution as it applies to the human origins, isn't accepted as fact. Although nearly so.

You make it sound like this but it is not.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Of course what you are trying to argue against is that it belongs here.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

It is actually better defined by this.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Science class dismissed!


Rip

Hm, I came in here to discuss the upcoming patch......Did I hit a wrong button?

[Kapitanleutnant]

Originally Posted by John Channing

And implying that the Ubisoft Romania team is so ethically bankrupt that they would steal someone else's work and claim it as their own is really a cheap shot.

lol wut

[lynx]

I do not understand! , the messages set out here do not have anything to do with the thread; scale model airplanes here?.
Speaking on the subject of the thread; I do not believe that we have new patch until the end of June, the workers of Ubisoft take it with tranquillity, I hope to be mistaken

[Placoderm]

Originally Posted by Kapitanleutnant

lol wut