March 6th Update on Patch Status

[boomboomer 0]

I'm not convinced on this beta progression on patches - it's not as if the 1.09 broke anything that wasn't already broken in 1.08.

What it's done is fragment the multiplayer community between those who've updated and those who haven't/won't. It's good that BIS are taking the time to stop the warez/cheaters but I'd rather have it as an offical patch than a beta - a lot of people won't use a beta and seem to be waiting for the final before patching, leading to a few people playing in 1.09 while 1.08 servers are still full but have the usual problem children.

At least if an official patch comes out, even if followed closely by another patch, they'd all disappear for a while and it also wastes a lot of the hacker's time (hopefully forever if the new anti-cheat works).

[ModaFlanker 0]

Boomboomer...

Maybe it's all thanks to those people who take it as the greatest personal insult if there is ONE thing wrong with an official patch.

"HOW CAN YOU RELEASE SUCH A THING?!?! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING BIS?!?!"

The moderators then have their hands full trying to close constant threads on this subject.

I'm hoping very much that this beta proves itself to be without any regressive problems so we can quickly move onto the final patch very soon.

It looks like that the reason why the patch has taken this long is because perfecting the VoN and anticheats took much longer than they expected.

[-=seany=- 5]

Yes, this great news. Interesting about the rudder control and AI pathfinding, that will be a nice added bonus.

I don't mind the proposed 2nd beta, much better to make sure nothing bad results because of the changes. If all goes well with this beta I don't see why it shouldn't be released fairly shortly.

[gL33k 0]

Yes, this great news. Interesting about the rudder control and AI pathfinding, that will be a nice added bonus.

a nice BUG FIX

[Mr_Tea 0]

More then happy to see that ArmA + Vista64bit problems will be fixed. It's about time.

Not about time, but a nice move by BIS as Vista is still no official supported OS to run ArmA.

We should be happy as little girls, that BIS is working on that end at all, and not say something like "It`s about time".

If you have a problem with that use an supported OS, what would be: Windows 2000 and WinXP.

[Seitan 8]

More then happy to see that ArmA + Vista64bit problems will be fixed. It's about time.

Not about time, but a nice move by BIS as Vista is still no official supported OS to run ArmA.

We should be happy as little girls, that BIS is working on that end at all, and not say something like "It`s about time".

If you have a problem with that use an supported OS, what would be: Windows 2000 and WinXP.

Are you serious? You really think developers should not fix games to work with latest major OS? It reads in my Fallout II box that "Windows 95 supported OS" and i can still play it with Vista. And you say we should be happy that it's finaly fixed!?? Vista was already released when ArmA got out, so yea it's about time.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Are you serious? You really think developers should not fix games to work with latest major OS? It reads in my Fallout II box that "Windows 95 supported OS" and i can still play it with Vista. And you say we should be happy that it's finaly fixed!?? Vista was already released when ArmA got out, so yea it's about time.

Still not about time.

As you could see, listed in the system requirements, the supported OS`s are Windows 2000 and WinXP.

So if you try to run it on a different OS, don`t blame the developers if ArmA refuses to work properly.

[l mandrake 9]

Really, the only thing I care about in ARMA2 is the player movement code = does anybody know if it will be the same underlying engine as OPF and ARMA (clunky, robotic movement, takes 3 attempts to move through a doorway, etc.) or something entirely new?

Who am I kidding I will buy ARMA2/3/4/5/6.... anyway

[Mr_Tea 0]

The AI precision will be a few centimeters in ArmA II, instead of 2m? that it is in ArmA I. I don`t know if that will improve the player

movement control, but i think there is hope.

[mrcash2009 0]

As long as path finding is enhanced, and watching AI after firing means they look more like people in a firefight than "sometimes" bots bumping around and pausing, and if it all looks similar to ARMA I dont care, i will get it.

Anyway the bridge and pathfinding updates / draw distance performance enhancements for the patch look good, thats in itself is a good patch to me.

[Odie3 0]

Are you serious? You really think developers should not fix games to work with latest major OS? It reads in my Fallout II box that "Windows 95 supported OS" and i can still play it with Vista. And you say we should be happy that it's finaly fixed!?? Vista was already released when ArmA got out, so yea it's about time.

Still not about time.

As you could see, listed in the system requirements, the supported OS`s are Windows 2000 and WinXP.

So if you try to run it on a different OS, don`t blame the developers if ArmA refuses to work properly.

No, its about time because my Atari Box list NO System OS requirements.

[MehMan 0]

Are you serious? You really think developers should not fix games to work with latest major OS? It reads in my Fallout II box that "Windows 95 supported OS" and i can still play it with Vista. And you say we should be happy that it's finaly fixed!?? Vista was already released when ArmA got out, so yea it's about time.

But Vista wasn't out when ArmA was being developed. Vista is a whole new system and developing for it is probably not that easy and they said which OSes are supported. They don't have to fix it, they said what is supported and what not. If you didn't read the label, your bad luck. You can still use a dual boot.

You should be happy that it's finally fixed, they said it's not supported. But they are fixing it anyway. It probably gets a bit tricky to fix a game that was intended for a whole other OS to work on a newer OS with a different code.

[SlipperyJim 0]

Lets look at this long timeline:

- June 2007 1.08 patch released.

- July 2007

- August 2007

- September 2007

- October 2007

- November 2007

- December 2008 - beta patch released

- January 2008

- February 2008

- March 6 - another beta test announced.

At this rate the final patch won't be released until around July. Congrats BIS a year between patches. I assume the patch will be perfectly timed for Arma 2's release?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Lets look at this long timeline:

- June 2007 1.08 patch released.

- July 2007

- August 2007

- September 2007

- October 2007

- November 2007

- December 2008 - beta patch released

- January 2008

- February 2008

- March 6 - another beta test announced.

At this rate the final patch won't be released until around July.  Congrats BIS a year between patches.  I assume the patch will be perfectly timed for Arma 2's release?

Be happy that the game is still supported, i have plenty of games which could use another patch but they were dropped after only a few months..

[SlipperyJim 0]

Be happy that the game is still supported

I am only objecting about the time it is taking. They get complete credit for making sure that the final patch does not leave the game in worse condition.

The problem is that so many people have given up on the game and the remaining people are splintered between the two patches. By the time they finally finish the patch they will have successfully killed off the rest of the community.

In terms of Arma 2 sales I guess it works out great for them, lol.

Come on BIS, put more people on the patch and get it out the door!

[gL33k 0]

Lets look at this long timeline:

- June 2007 1.08 patch released.

- July 2007

- August 2007

- September 2007

- October 2007

- November 2007

- December 2008 - beta patch released

- January 2008

- February 2008

- March 6 - another beta test announced.

At this rate the final patch won't be released until around July. Congrats BIS a year between patches. I assume the patch will be perfectly timed for Arma 2's release?

Be happy that the game is still supported, i have plenty of games which could use another patch but they were dropped after only a few months..

but a lot of announced feature werent working at release. so , BI should respect his part of contract. sorry to balance thing , but it's the true .

8800 serie card supported ? what a joke ... i don't blame them simply because they are working on it. but sending them flower isn't ... appropriate AMHA.

[Mabes 0]

but a lot of announced feature werent working at release. so , BI should respect his part of contract. sorry to balance thing , but it's the true .

8800 serie card supported ? what a joke ... i don't blame them simply because they are working on it. but sending them flower isn't ... appropriate AMHA.

What features where announced that weren't working, maybe it's been so long that I've forgotten.

Also, I never saw anything about the 8000-series nVidia cards being in the requirements/recommended specs or anywhere else AFAIK.

The problem is that so many people have given up on the game and the remaining people are splintered between the two patches. By the time they finally finish the patch they will have successfully killed off the rest of the community.

I don't think that having another beta patch come out will split off any more of the community, all I see happening is those that are playing on the beta just upgrade to the new one and those playing on 1.08 continue (or maybe more will switch over when they see how awesome the next beta is going to be).

I know on our server all we'll do is upgrade cause 1.09 makes ArmA much, much better.

[dslyecxi 23]

I am only objecting about the time it is taking.

The problem is that so many people have given up on the game and the remaining people are splintered between the two patches. By the time they finally finish the patch they will have successfully killed off the rest of the community.

Come on BIS, put more people on the patch and get it out the door!

What do you want? Seriously? You bitch about them taking a long time - well, guess what, they're a relatively small independent developer, working with a very complex piece of software. They're going as fast as they can and doing everything they possibly can to give you a solid final patch. Sitting around and moaning about how long it takes is completely non-productive.

You have a completely delusional view of how the patching process works. Your "Come on BIS, put more people on the patch" comment illustrates that perfectly.

[LtCmdrBoon 0]

well near enough 18months after arma was first released in the shops back east, they are finally getting AI to cross a bridge.

I can sympathise with those saying "it's only a small dev team" etc, but they began on arma2, using the same engine (all be it reworking it), so it just seems like the "small team" is split in half doing much of its work twice.

I remember the days though when u died if u flew over any water, and had to shoot the tyres of a BH to get in when it appeared damaged. At least we get our game eventually.

For me they needn't have bothered with the VoIP, it was useless from the off, and everyone used TS and the likes and I can't see the masses moving back going "oh but it has direct chat". Maybe if arma2 has it working from the off...

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]well near enough 18months after arma was first released in the shops back east, they are finally getting AI to cross a bridge.

This is ridiculous - you're implying that nothing else has changed in those 18 months. That's not even remotely accurate. Go put the changelogs together and look at how much support they've given to the product. There are many, many, many developers around who would not have done even half of that.

Quote[/b] ]I can sympathise with those saying "it's only a small dev team" etc, but they began on arma2, using the same engine (all be it reworking it), so it just seems like the "small team" is split in half doing much of its work twice.

Once again we have someone who doesn't understand the development process throwing a half-baked opinion out that is simply not true or accurate.

Quote[/b] ]For me they needn't have bothered with the VoIP, it was useless from the off,

Funny, I recall a poll on this very forum by someone like you, someone who thought nobody wanted VON. The results were overwhelmingly positive about VON being fixed. Welcome to the minority, I guess?

[andersson 285]

Can people please quit discussing BIS patch-policy? We cant do much about that, we have tp accept the situation.

I'm more interested with peoples experience from this patch. Any input regarding that, anyone?

[SlipperyJim 0]

You have a completely delusional view of how the patching process works. Your "Come on BIS, put more people on the patch" comment illustrates that perfectly.

In your typical fanboy fashion you attack anyone even mildly critical of the game. How do you think you are being productive for the community by insisting time doesn't matter?

You can stick your head in the sand all you want. The servers continue to empty out and people are moving on.

The simple fact is that most of the developer are busy working on Arma 2. If they had put the proper number of people working on the patch it would have been out the door long ago. You can try to argue that all you want but it is just more PR bullcrap.

[MehMan 0]

I think the biggest problem is testing and reproducing bugs, finding out what is really causing the problem and then make a change there so the rest of the game doesn't get affected by that single change. A single small change in code can cause a multitude of problems. It's like the butterfly flapping his wings on one side of the world, causing a tsunami on the other side of the world. So they have to watch out for that.

Also, we don't know how many devs are actually working on the patch, they just said a part of the dev team are working on ArmAII and a part on ArmA.

Simply adding more devs could cause the patch to arrive later because then you need to coordinate all devs constantly. Plus, then there's the problem of several code builds and implementing them, one can fix one problem but causes a problem with another build and so on and then they need to find what is causing the new problem, fix it and so on.

This game is far more complex than any battlefield game or the like. There are far more things to think about and they have far less resources and devs than battlefield for example. It simply takes time and just adding more devs to the patch might increase production time rather than decrease it.

Before you say it, I'm not really happy that the patch is taking so long but bitching about it also isn't going to bring it any faster. I reserve my whining for after the patch to see what still hasn't been fixed even though I reported it many times. Like the Mk19. And various other things. But before the patch I hold my breath and just whine for more info on what's getting fixed and what not. I don't care how long it's going to take really, I just care that it's getting fixed.

[binkster 0]

You have a completely delusional view of how the patching process works. Your "Come on BIS, put more people on the patch" comment illustrates that perfectly.

In your typical fanboy fashion you attack anyone even mildly critical of the game.  How do you think you are being productive for the community by insisting time doesn't matter?

You can stick your head in the sand all you want.  The servers continue to empty out and people are moving on.

The simple fact is that most of the developer are busy working on Arma 2.    If they had put the proper number of people working on the patch it would have been out the door long ago.   You can try to argue that all you want but it is just more PR bullcrap.

If I was building a game and saw all these negative comments on my board I wouldnt get in a hurry making patches either. Remember making patches gains no revenues for them. I would be thankful 1 to 2 years after a game is released that your still getting patches.

If they didnt release a beta patch and there were other things found wrong you would be complaining about that too.

Im sure this thread was intended for bug fixing comments and discussion not BIS patch policy.

I dont remember ever seeing crap like this all the time in the ofp community. Too many spoiled kids must have came along between ofp to arma.

[Maddmatt 1]

You have a completely delusional view of how the patching process works. Your "Come on BIS, put more people on the patch" comment illustrates that perfectly.

In your typical fanboy fashion you attack anyone even mildly critical of the game. How do you think you are being productive for the community by insisting time doesn't matter?

Calling people fanboys is weak and makes you look like an idiot. He has given valid points against your argument and all you can do is start childish personal insults.

It's highly unlikely that a development team is going to have half (or even any) of their employees working on a patch for a game that is over a year old. It's a business, not a charity.