Any ETA on next patch?

[TheSatyr]

The Steps needed for a patch to be released:

1)Devs create a patch build
2)Beta testers test patch build...crunch some bugs
3)Devs create a new patch build
4)Beta testers test new build...crunch more bugs
5)Rinse and repeat steps 1-4 till Devs and Beta testers are satisfied
6)Devs send patch candidate to Publishers QA
7)Publisher QA passes the patch and patch is released and sent to download sites or:
8)QA finds problems and sends patch back to Devs where steps 1-6 are repeated until Publishers QA is satisfied. Then patch gets released and sent to download sites.

Which is why you get "when it's done" as an answer. It's not the Devs call on when to release a patch. It is almost always up to the Publisher. (Unless the Devs ARE the Publishers).

Finally,the more bugs that are on the "to fix" list,and the more features that might be added means longer testing times. And if (which is a real big IF) they also intend on adding more video cards to the "supported list" than that will take even more testing time. (Though that might get it's own specific patch down the road).

I doubt even the devs could give you an honest answer on when the patch will be done. There are just too many variables involved.

(Now watch them prove me wrong and have the sucker out next week...*lol*).

[Razman23]

Ok, I need some help here.

I just cant seem to find 'soon'.

I found April, May, June, and July but I just cant fine Soon on my calendar.

[modisch]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

The Steps needed for a patch to be released:

1)Devs create a patch build
2)Beta testers test patch build...crunch some bugs
3)Devs create a new patch build
4)Beta testers test new build...crunch more bugs
5)Rinse and repeat steps 1-4 till Devs and Beta testers are satisfied
6)Devs send patch candidate to Publishers QA
7)Publisher QA passes the patch and patch is released and sent to download sites or:
8)QA finds problems and sends patch back to Devs where steps 1-6 are repeated until Publishers QA is satisfied. Then patch gets released and sent to download sites.

Which is why you get "when it's done" as an answer. It's not the Devs call on when to release a patch. It is almost always up to the Publisher. (Unless the Devs ARE the Publishers).

ah, you used the proper method. You need to revise this for UBI...


1)Devs play golf.
2)Loser of dev golf makes a patch build.
3)Intern checks that the patch build doesn't crash his computer immediately upon installing.
4)Devs play more golf. Interns caddy.
5)Loser of golf game sends patch to UBI for release.
6)Intern at UBI puts it on the intarwebs.
7)Gaming community beta tests, discovers newly added bugs, complains in forums
8)Return to step 1.

That's more like it.

-m

[davejb]

13 April, 1145 in the morning.
(Not gonna specify timezone though).
I reckon they want to get a few major gripes fixed, but won't cure anything like the majority... 'A' crash will take 5 minutes, mission/signals clipboard a few hours once they learn to edit the contents down to size when it's updated.
Round off with a few things the modders here already fixed - battery life, fuel consumption, aircraft numbers and lethality. Maybe (shock horror) type a quick readme up that makes up for some of the missing info from the manual - finito! If I were a dev/UBI and wanted to boost my rep at this point, I'd probably fix the 'A' crash and similar (give that to the trainee) whilst I had the major effort on upping the graphics - personally that's not my preferred option by a long way, but I think running at 'true' res and with AA working (and all that other video 'fluff' that so many under 30's deem essential) will do UBI more good than ensuring the 'fast' torps run as advertised, or fixing the stad.

[Nats]

Originally Posted by davejb

13 April, 1145 in the morning.
(Not gonna specify timezone though).
If I were a dev/UBI and wanted to boost my rep at this point, I'd probably fix the 'A' crash and similar (give that to the trainee) whilst I had the major effort on upping the graphics - personally that's not my preferred option by a long way, but I think running at 'true' res and with AA working (and all that other video 'fluff' that so many under 30's deem essential) will do UBI more good than ensuring the 'fast' torps run as advertised, or fixing the stad.

Im not interested in graphical enhancements. I want a sub I can surface and not get endless planes attacking, one that I can get damaged and repair the flooding, a game that does not CTD in the campaign every few minutes, and finally one that does not slow to a snails pace at random intervals in the external view. Its not much to ask.

[Hitman]

I want a sub I can surface and not get endless planes attacking, one that I can get damaged and repair the flooding, a game that does not CTD in the campaign every few minutes, and finally one that does not slow to a snails pace at random intervals in the external view.

At San Francisco, Pier nº 45 is exactly what you are looking for. Only problem is it isn't for sale, as far as I know :hmm:

[donut]

Originally Posted by Hitman

At San Francisco, Pier nº 45 is exactly what you are looking for. Only problem is it isn't for sale, as far as I know :hmm:

Buy a twin 20,run flank,man the flack gun,fire @ will.Took out 19 bees, closeing on Carrier Task Force,to intercept in Jawa Sea.450 renoun right there!

Originally Posted by Nats

Im not interested in graphical enhancements. I want a sub I can surface and not get endless planes attacking, one that I can get damaged and repair the flooding, a game that does not CTD in the campaign every few minutes, and finally one that does not slow to a snails pace at random intervals in the external view. Its not much to ask.

I am interested in Graphical enhancements, as I don't get CTD every few mins, if planes attack I dive for 2 hours, no problems there, and NO real slows downs either, however with a 26" widescreen monitor trying to run 1920x1200x32 with FSAA is a real problem and looks crap.....

Simon

[simpulon]

I KNOW this is OT,

but for any of you Futurama fans out there, the earlier posts in this thread reminded me of:

Bender: "Aww, this is the greatest nanosecond of my life! No, this one is! No, this one. Wait! That one was... slightly worse. Ah! So for so good on this one!"

[SinisterDexter]

Originally Posted by davejb

...but I think running at 'true' res and with AA working (and all that other video 'fluff' that so many under 30's deem essential) will do UBI more good...

Originally Posted by shmall

I am interested in Graphical enhancements, as I don't get CTD every few mins, if planes attack I dive for 2 hours, no problems there, and NO real slows downs either, however with a 26" widescreen monitor trying to run 1920x1200x32 with FSAA is a real problem and looks crap.....

Tomorrow is my 42nd birthday and I also happen to enjoy my eye candy - so don't lump me in with those whippersnappers. I didn't spend good money on a 20" monitor and x1900xtx to play a game in 1024x768 (in the year 2007, no less). Sure, they need to fix the showstopper bugs but, for me the graphics is equally important to my gameplaying experience. - I want to be able to identify those ships at a distance through the scope dammit, instead of trying to guess if some pixel is a stack or an antenna or what.

[codmander]

Originally Posted by modisch

ah, you used the proper method. You need to revise this for UBI...


1)Devs play golf.
2)Loser of dev golf makes a patch build.
3)Intern checks that the patch build doesn't crash his computer immediately upon installing.
4)Devs play more golf. Interns caddy.
5)Loser of golf game sends patch to UBI for release.
6)Intern at UBI puts it on the intarwebs.
7)Gaming community beta tests, discovers newly added bugs, complains in forums
8)Return to step 1.

That's more like it.

-m

lol

[Sulikate]

Originally Posted by codmander

lol

Good one:rotfl:

ps: it seems to be true, so...

[jmjohnson36]

So is it 2 weeks yet ....

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

The Steps needed for a patch to be released:

1)Devs create a patch build
2)Beta testers test patch build...crunch some bugs
3)Devs create a new patch build
4)Beta testers test new build...crunch more bugs
5)Rinse and repeat steps 1-4 till Devs and Beta testers are satisfied
6)Devs send patch candidate to Publishers QA
7)Publisher QA passes the patch and patch is released and sent to download sites or:
8)QA finds problems and sends patch back to Devs where steps 1-6 are repeated until Publishers QA is satisfied. Then patch gets released and sent to download sites.

Steps 7 & 8 should take about 5 seconds, 10 seconds tops! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[John Channing]

Huh! Turns out the old saying really is true.

"Those who don't know, talk... while those who know, don't talk. "

Who'da thunk it?

JCC