Will ArmA "stable" be MP compatible with "Dev."after official release?

[giorgygr 61]

I can remember i saw the same question in 'some' thread some time ago-but i can't remember

if the question has been answered.

So..

There are (if any) immediate plans to maintain compatibility between the 2 branches in MP?

*Sorry in case there is already a thread about this..the 'composition of English' i 've used didn't return useful results :)

[kylania 567]

Probably as much as possible, but there's no guarantees.

[windies 11]

Honestly I would hope so unless there were major engine changes that would prevent the two from working together.

[tonygrunt 10]

If they keep updating the addons folder, probably not. Different signed addons.

They will have to update only the executable, start using same major versions numbers with the stable and no major changes that will break compatibility.

[TSAndrey 1]

I doubt it. Too much difference between the two.

[Cormega 0]

Great question Giorgy, let's hope so. :cool:

[dezkit 28]

no

.

[RuecanOnRails 10]

No it likely will not.

Look back at the issues which occurred during early alpha when there was no MP separation, the Dev branch caused the seagull-apocalypse ;)

Due to differences in code, any number of glitches could occur. It's best to keep them separate, I know I'll continue to run the Dev version and vote on feedback tickets.

By keeping them separate it allows them to drastically change any number of things without affecting every server from people trying to play with "incorrect" versions.

[Varanon 892]

I doubt it. Too much difference between the two.

That's true for the different content sets in dev and stable of the beta, but beyond that, what the heck should be so difficult about it. It's working in Arma 2 for years, so how are the future developer branch and the the future stable branch so different ?

The incompatibility between the branches is artificial, as far as I can see it. The only answer we got was "There is a reason why they aren't compatible", but that's it.

---------- Post added at 09:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 AM ----------

Due to differences in code, any number of glitches could occur. It's best to keep them separate, I know I'll continue to run the Dev version and vote on feedback tickets.

Again, why does it work in Arma 2 then ? The seagul apocalypse was a bug.

I guess that the dev branch was still evoloving the game's MP protocol, therefore, the protocol could become incompatible with the stable branch at any time. That would be a good explanation for the seaguls and the separation.

[maddogx 13]

Again, why does it work in Arma 2 then ?

It failed to work in Arma2 on some occasions aswell, for example when they changed the VoN implementation so that it used the same port as the game. Also, in some A2 beta patches they intentionally incemented the minor version number (like 1.52 to 1.53) when backwards compatibility was no longer guaranteed. As I understand it, they started giving the A3 dev branch a different minor version than the stable branch in order to keep them separate and avoid any potential compatibility problems, like the seagull bug.

From a developer's standpoint it can be a nightmare to have different versions of your software communicating with each other, because you can't always be sure whether the bugs people report are legitimate or simply caused by compatibility issues between versions. It's much less of a headache to keep different versions separate.

[Varanon 892]

It failed to work in Arma2 on some occasions aswell, for example when they changed the VoN implementation so that it used the same port as the game. Also, in some A2 beta patches they intentionally incemented the minor version number (like 1.52 to 1.53) when backwards compatibility was no longer guaranteed. As I understand it, they started giving the A3 dev branch a different minor version than the stable branch in order to keep them separate and avoid any potential compatibility problems, like the seagull bug.

From a developer's standpoint it can be a nightmare to have different versions of your software communicating with each other, because you can't always be sure whether the bugs people report are legitimate or simply caused by compatibility issues between versions. It's much less of a headache to keep different versions separate.

The one reason I can see for separating these two is network protocol. The seagul and the VON problems were both most likely caused by changes in the protocol (packet layout, ports, something like that).

I would say that it should be a "calculated risk" to use the beta client to connect to a stable server. It might fail, but well, that's the risk of using the beta then. With most of the functionality and content being in the release version, I would say that due to missing compatibility, a lot of people will switch back to stable, which isn't a good sign for the developer branch, especially since you can't install them side-by-side like in Arma 2, sadly.

[-ghost-tf 12]

especially since you can't install them side-by-side like in Arma 2, sadly.

Looks like we can, havent figured out how to do it yet though :)

[maddogx 13]

The one reason I can see for separating these two is network protocol.

Network compatibility issues are the main factor, but several other possibilities come to mind. For example AI fixes - say a player is running the dev build where some AI problem has been fixed, but he's playing on a server running the stable build. AI local to the server will still have the problem, so the player goes on the tracker and claims that the issue hasn't been properly resolved. Result: devs waste time chasing phantom bugs that no longer exist. Any other locality-related issues could have a similar effect (certain config changes for example).

I would say that it should be a "calculated risk" to use the beta client to connect to a stable server. It might fail, but well, that's the risk of using the beta then.

Unfortunately, the risk is not just that it "fails" (as in "doesn't work") but that it fails in unpredictable and non-obvious ways, resulting in additional (read: unnecessary) problems that take up more dev time. Apparently, they decided early on that this is more trouble than it's worth, just to allow everyone to play together.

On the other hand, once v1.00 is out they might decide to keep the dev branch on the same version as long as there aren't any obvious compatibility issues. But since this would require them to double-check every single daily dev branch update for compatibility issues to be safe (again taking up dev time), I doubt this will happen. Keeping the versions separate allows them to experiment more freely.

With most of the functionality and content being in the release version, I would say that due to missing compatibility, a lot of people will switch back to stable, which isn't a good sign for the developer branch, especially since you can't install them side-by-side like in Arma 2, sadly.

This is true and unfortunate, although there is apparently a way to run both versions using steamcmd. (No idea how this works though.)

[Varanon 892]

This is true and unfortunate, although there is apparently a way to run both versions using steamcmd. (No idea how this works though.)

Let's hope there will be a way to make it work like in Arma 2. I much prefer this to having to install in twice.