Beta patches policy

[.kju 3245]

Preface

• This is NOT a bashing thread! Leave this thread at once if you want to.
  
• @ Admins: Maruk suggested this approach. Do NOT close the thread.
  

To put this into perspective merging the relevant post from the said thread:

kju

As a matter of fact most MP is still 1.14, PvP leagues are still 1.14.

So all beta patches have split the community and beta to full patch always took many months..

So if BI would be really concerned about big issues, BI could bring the

full patch after two weeks of beta phase without major issues - which

was always the case so far and still it took many months for the full to appear.

The additional effort involved in preparing a patch, linux server and focus on A2

are very very likely to be the reason for the beta patches.

If it is really better to have beta patches with very long wait times till full

and therefore splitting the MP community than no patch, I am not sure..

At least at this point it probably does not matter.

Hopefully BI does not make this huge mistake with the patching policy for A2 again.

Dslyecxi

I can speak for my community to say that the beta patches have been a huge success for us and are very welcome. To each his own, but our experience with it has been completely positive.

Dwarden

i fully agree that 1.16beta linux server would be really nice for 'complete' testing before final

Maruk

Very strange reading this discussion.

Does anyone care about the fixes made (as despite low number, all fixes made are of very essential nature: vista users with ATI should run the game at full screen in all configuration, BE shouldn't kick out players randomly, memory fragmentation dramatically reduced on ATI cards, most frequent crash more likely fixed).

Anyway, if you prefer talking about BI release policy, here you go:

1) 1.15 exhibited major issues preventing it from being final patch as main fixes we wanted there didn't fully work

2) 1.16 beta will stay beta only for some time, if nothing bad happens again, will be raised to final 1.17 pretty soon

Why do we bother creating another patch for Arma? Mostly to leave Arma 1 in a shape to run on Vista with X GB of memory in years to come. If you don't care, fair enough, but what annoys you about this free optional patch I simply don't get. If you don't want to try it, simply don't.

Small fixes... well, I better not to tell this to people implementing it. Low level D3D call changed based on year long communication with ATI about problems related to drivers, low level Vista fix, low level netcode protocol change to avoid BE kick off.

I am going back to Chernarus.

p.s.: as to the future: no betapatches = no patches later in life of the game. But I am pretty sure many people in the community will understand why beta patches are needed. The ways to play Arma are nearly endless, as are user modifications, hardware configurations etc. How can you expect us to test it all? No way. Beta patches are needed reality.

Mojo

I normally NEVER run beta software in the production environment, but some of these changes are exactly what the tech team has been waiting for.

CarlGustafa

Rocco, you have the patching thing gone wrong. In a day or two, nobody will be playing 1.15beta no more. There will be 1.16beta (probably more stable than 1.15beta) and 1.14 official. Those that found 1.15beta not working properly are still using 1.14, pluss those with lacking linux server. I think IC ArmA is requiring 1.14, but I don't play there myself. The next patch will either be 1.17beta or 1.17 official. There has never been afaik a beta and an official patch with the same number.

Myke

@Maruk

First of all, i really enjoy the patch policy of BIS. But to be honest (no, i'm not moaning that you release a patch) i can't enjoy it.

Reading what fixes it contains, this patch is for me.

As there is no Linuxserver available, i can't use it.

No doubt, it's great to see you improve ArmA even with ArmA2 close to release (close in it's widest meaning). I'm sure it's hard to say some programmers to take care of some arma issues when theyr manpower would be needed on ArmA2.

Again, i really love the way you care for ArmA and i wouldn't it be otherwise.

All i would wish (i'm not in the position to ask) is that linux would have higher priority as it has now.

After all, a lot of servers are running linux because a lot of people/clans can't afford the monthly Windows license fee.

Again, if i could i would kiss you and your team for your work, be it on ArmA or ArmA2. Keep it up.

[OGN]DarkPhantom

LOL You just can't please everyone.... there is always someone that likes to stand out in the crowed

We at OGN will support BI in any direction they proceed.......

We have done beta testing for BI for many many years right from the beginning of OFP release....... when BI wanted us to test the MP game play..... or mini CTI which is now called Warfare we were their to help them in anyway possible... if this could improved the game then we would at no hesitation help them out the best we could....

Maruk and crew have put alot of effort into this game and I'm shall that I can speak for most of the dedicated players that we are grateful for all the work they have put into OFP and armed assault......

You have to remember that this type of Sim takes more than just builders to build such a Great Sim but has to go through many trials and beta testing which includes the community to bring the public one of the Best War Sim ever been built......

You have to really look at the Big picture here and think of it as a beta testing for Armed Assault II...... because without OFP and armed assault betas there would be no Armed Assault II

Baddo

People, you have to consider that some of the fixes in this beta patch will very likely go into ArmA2. So you are kind of doing ArmA2 beta testing already when you test this patch.

The more it is tested before its actual release, the better.

Mr Fenix

I'm curious about (i.e. ignorant about) what extra work is required to make a Linux release. Anyone care to enlighten me?

W0lle

This has nothing to with "not being able to discuss". The splitting the community argument is simply not valid. Everyone can install the beta patch and remove it as easy as a Modfolder should it cause problems. It's also possible to run 1.14 when Linux servers are used and go back to 1.16 beta for SP/Windows servers.

I don't see the problem here, simply create 2 shortcuts for the 2 versions.

Maruk

It's quite significant work even for patch. Really, nothing we'd like to do more often than necessary...

And preparing linux server itself is really a significant many-months effort.

kju

It is an understandable decision as I explained that in my post.

So again effort (linux) and the need to concentrate on A2 lead to the beta patches.

Yet again, 50%+ of the MP community still plays 1.14.

* Only have linux (root) server. Normally you have 6-12 month contract, so nice quick/easy jump to windows. Linux root is good chunk cheaper.

After all people are paying 50-150 € each month for the servers.

* Many game-server-hosts (so NOT managed & root we are talking here) do NOT permit beta patches.

I said BI should reconsider this policy for A2 due to the huge impact on the MP community.

Now there are 2 ppl, rocco and me, putting a different perspective in here,

and you guys start bashing the evil nay sayers like being from hell.

While everyone is very grateful acknowledging here the release.

Double check on perspective needed?

CarlGustaffa

I said BI should reconsider this policy for A2 due to the huge impact on the MP community.

I disagree. The beta approach using a modfolder has been a very successful approach. Turn it off easily if it doesn't deliver or causes unexpected problems. Instead of having to remove everything and install from scratch.

Maruk

Whatever you say will not change how things are:

* every patch for a game of this scale with modding, multiplayer etc. simply needs public beta, there's no way around it, except maybe a large scale closed beta but that would be only worse split

* Linux ded. server is logically the last thing to develop once everything is finished, again, hardly possible to change this policy (and btw, look at linux server support and how it's prioritized even for more mass market games with way bigger user base)

* as beta patches are living well alongside the normal patches, you are creating too big drama "oh my god" etc. over something that doesn't cause you much problems as you still can join both versions quite easily

And lastly, I simply disagree with your view that no patches are better than public beta patches as in fact, beta patches are the only way to get to a final patch. Did it take too long from 1.15? Yes, it did but after all I think the wait is well worth it (the memory fragmentation on Ati cards is probably the most long term benefit from the delay).

I would like to thank everyone who will be betatesting 1.16. Please understand that there's no real benefit to start complaining about any issues that were present in 1.14 and remain in 1.16. Now it is simple: let's see if there's no new big problem with 1.16, if not, path to 1.17 is cleared up. This is mostly about seeing that there's no serious new problem caused by some low level changes made.

SlipperyJim

First of all thanks very much for the beta patch! Always happy to see BIS improving Arma 1. I give you full credit for sticking with the product unlike UBI or EA.

I will be downloading the beta patch soon but wanted to express the following concerns:

1) Yes it is fantastic that we are still getting patched but the patches have taken a very long time to arrive. Yes, of course the community is happy to see patches but half the time it seems like you guys are fixing things from previous patches. I would have much preferred you guys fixing content rather than trying to add more features like the voice communication. Wasted energy when all everyone really wants is a bug free game.

2) Half of the community is still waiting on a linux dedicated server. Half of the servers are running 1.14 which is a disaster for me.

sparks50

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim View Post

I would have much preferred you guys fixing content rather than trying to add more features like the voice communication. Wasted energy when all everyone really wants is a bug free game.

Not wasted time for me, I find the fixed direct voice communication godsend, and somewhat unique in games.(PR BF2 mod can be modded with a similar function, but this is nowhere near the Arma one)

It simply increases immersion a lot. Development time well spent.

Mr Ree

First off i'd like to say great patch. patches be thay beta or final are always welcome.

Now as a software developer my self i am alittle disheartened by the ( all be it minor ) negative feed back by the release of beta patches. It is a great way to get real world (as in not a development environment) feed back as to where we are when it comes to getting software working to our customers likeing.

that being said im not sure if BIS wrote the patching software or not but there is a bug when it comes to large HDD's in my case i had 900+ GB of free space and it was saying i had "not enough space to install" it installed anyway so is a minor bug but thought i should mention it anyway.

Maddmatt

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim View Post

I would have much preferred you guys fixing content rather than trying to add more features like the voice communication. Wasted energy when all everyone really wants is a bug free game.

Voice communication was in ArmA since 1.0. It was just so buggy that nobody used it.

Also, it was fixed in 1.09 which was ages ago. So a bit late to whine about that one.

And I completely disagree that fixing it was wasted energy. It adds a huge amount of fun to a good MP game.

Thanks BIS for supporting a game that is now over 2 years old, even when the next game is (hopefully) close

ModeZt

Originally Posted by Maruk View Post

* Linux ded. server is logically the last thing to develop once everything is finished, again, hardly possible to change this policy (and btw, look at linux server support and how it's prioritized even for more mass market games with way bigger user base)

That's just rediculous.. The most important thing for the community is SERVERS. And you just sayid that testing the server has to be done as the last step. And please don't tell us Valve, Epic and id_software sabotage their Linux servers.

Me and all my friends are waiting for AA2 and we are waiting for an online multiplayer. If you are not going to develop the server side properly then you are simply cutting your work to a play-and-forget one-week singleplayer.

ModeZt

Originally Posted by Maddmatt View Post

The non beta version (1.14) has a Linux server. Nobody is forcing you to test the betas

i'm saying that server needs testing too. and quality of the server is usually more imortant then clinet's.

plus that statement that other developers put linux servers to the ends of their lists seems very false to me.

Maddmatt

Windows server is available which allows for testing.

It's not like they can just pull a Linux version out of a hat right away, development takes time. It makes sense to make sure the Windows version works fully before porting to Linux.

Remember that they are trying to finish ArmA 2 as well.

Phew. That was hard work. It would have be nice if an admin would have done that. ;)

[sparks50 0]

Well, since some are experiencing issues with it, such as shadow-bugs, it was probably a good thing it was not final?

[.kju 3245]

I see this very pragmatic.

The separate folder for a new patch is a very useful addition (.\arma\beta).

Yet this system must not be limited to beta patches. It should be used for

any patch. Any new patch gets into 'beta' first, while the prior version is

applied to the full game setup.

Drop the word beta. To the end user it has no practical difference.

Yet it will make game server hosts also install this "kind" of patches.

If you keep the "two versions in place" on the client, there is always the fall-back

option to the end user. Same goes for the server.

If the effort is too high to provide a linux server for each patch, very unfortunate,

still dropping beta would make no practical difference here.

If you want keep the beta name, please make beta patches faster to full

patches. Every beta patch brought a huge amount of improvement over the

last full.

Even though you may not have been satatisfied, the quality of the beta

patch so far was always way superior.

So my say is push out a beta to full after two weeks of community testing,

if there are no big troubles with it. Always keep the improvement from latest

full to current beta in mind. Much improvement vs a few new problems should

not stop making a beta a full.

To hear that the creation of a linux server takes a lot of effort is very

unfortunate to hear.

At the end of the day the money from the higher server costs for windows

should better end up with BI to be able to provide linux server the same time

as the windows server.

In the long run it would be nice to see either BI needing way less effort to

keep the linux server up-to-date, have more internal resources to assign

to the task or any other means of being able to provide a linux server at

the same time as the windows server.

[.kju 3245]

Sorry a few quotes are need as Marek you seem to have misread some parts.

Does anyone care about the fixes made (as despite low number, all fixes made are of very essential nature..

...

Small fixes... well, I better not to tell this to people implementing it.

I pointed out that the change log of 1.16 in the BIKI and readme is wrong

(contains list of 1.14 and therefore causes massive confusion about the actual content).

There is no doubt about the importance of the fixes of 1.16.

every patch for a game of this scale with modding, multiplayer etc. simply needs public beta

You mean you want to provide two versions at the same time. This is key

aspect and very true. A beta patches is something different. At least the

name implies that to many people and causes the said consequences

(servers not allowing beta, customers not using beta software by principle).

I believe you can very much provide this by stop naming it beta patches.

btw, look at linux server support and how it's prioritized even for more mass market games with way bigger user base

As pointed out, this is not true for the id tech engine games and ut engine.

That said you cannot compare your company with those.

Still it would be great to see BI having the same ability to achieve that.

as beta patches are living well alongside the normal patches, you are creating too big drama "oh my god" etc. over something that doesn't cause you much problems as you still can join both versions quite easily

This is no big drama. It is a matter of fact that it splits the community and

causes big problems for league play.

One can of course disagree if this is a major negative effect or if you do not

put much priority in that.

And lastly, I simply disagree with your view that no patches are better than public beta patches as in fact, beta patches are the only way to get to a final patch.

Sorry to say, but this is not what i said:

If it is really better to have beta patches with very long wait times till full

and therefore splitting the MP community than no patch, I am not sure..

Patches are always welcome. Especially if you have a system to provide

two versions at the same time for fall back.

Yet again an ingame patching system on game startup with small frequent

patches is IMHO the way to go.

Edited April 25, 2009 by kju

[cross 1]

lol...its the first time I see kju so talkative on a non modding topic :D

Tbh I cant see the point in this discussion...

Beta patches is the methodology BIS uses to support the game while developing another. They are outsourcing the beta stage testing to community simply due to lack of manpower or time. Community beta testing has one disadvantage tho which results in a need for longer test period; community doesn't know what to test exactly, doesn't perform methodological testing and sometimes hesitant to report bugs.

They did not release an official 1.15 because they were not very happy with the 1.15b performance or about the feedback they got.

They made improvements on it as well as improving other code level stuff and came with another patch where they feel more comfortable with. Perhaps comfortable enough to leave 1.17 as the final patch for Arma for quite a long time.

They confirm that Linux will come in the final patch. In their eyes time spent for beta-linux does not justify the cost which is totally understandable.

Moreover you (clients & server) always have the option of playing 1.14 and 1.16b by a slight change in the shortcut or even better by creating a separate shortcut for 1.16b.

I really can't see the point in this discussion...sorry :(

PS..is it "give linuxserver-beta with beta updates" ?

Edited April 25, 2009 by Cross

[.kju 3245]

No. In short:

* Dont call in beta patches, just full patches. Not every has linux support (unfortunately).

* Maintain two versions at the same time system (.\arma and .\arma\beta)

In the long run:

* Try to make smaller and more frequent patches (patch pipeline needs to support that

and reduce effort involved creating a patch)

* Reduce effort for linux server updating and therefore allow more frequent linux server updates.

Why:

* Most ppl do not play beta software by principle, or cannot (server host issue).

* Linux root server are the majority and a lot cheaper.

* Community pays a lot of money to give BI and the community servers to play on.

* Most likely sales wise MP is the main reason people buy the game AND tell others to do so.

[rundll.exe 12]

Hmm I m not sure what you are al talking about when it gets to "dividing the MP community" It simply not true! You cant divde the player base, since EVERY player can use both the beta and the normal version. So people who see a server with a mission they like just look what version its running, and play that one.

In what way is this dividing, Everyone that wants to play still plays the game, and it doesnt matter what version.

The only thing is players that dont WANT to update to betas. Well its their choice (wich I dont understand) and they only cut themselves since they can play on fewer servers.

Please state the problem, since afaik, there is no problem.

Oh and thx BIS for the continued support!

[NoRailgunner 0]

If people have the choice - they prefer playing/hosting games on cheaper linux servers. Its completly understandable that they might be somewhat annoyed if they cant play with the latest update/patch.

Imho Betapatches are ok - maybe only change the name in something like "Public-Testing-and-Reporting-Patch" ?? :party:

[xeno 234]

rundll.exe,

the problem is not the casual public gamer but those people who actually run the servers and have to stick with "older" arma versions because they can't update (either they have a linux server or their provider doesn't allow it or whatever reason they have).

Now if you are running a server and pay for it (costs range from 50 euro to 300 euro per month here in europe, +/-) you are not interested in going to other servers to enjoy the benefits of new patches (fixes like the ATI bug for example, each beta patch improved the game a lot).

There are allways a lot of people behind each server who have to pay for them, it's not for free and they pay for it to use it.

Some numbers from today:

342 ArmA servers:

56 with 1.16

78 with 1.15

203 with 1.14

5 with 1.08

I would call that a divided online community (just remember, 1.15 came out in december last year and it removed some severe crash problems that 1.14 had, yet four months later most of the servers are still on 1.14).

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that BIS still provides patches. And I can understand that their main focus currently is not patching ArmA or provide a linux server.

But I'm also glad that my group has a Windows server so that I don't have this problem :)

Xeno

[mattxr 9]

No. In short:

* Dont call in beta patches, just full patches. Not every has linux support (unfortunately).

* Maintain two versions at the same time system (.\arma and .\arma\beta)

In the long run:

* Try to make smaller and more frequent patches (patch pipeline needs to support that

and reduce effort involved creating a patch)

* Reduce effort for linux server updating and therefore allow more frequent linux server updates.

Why:

* Most ppl do not play beta software by principle, or cannot (server host issue).

* Linux root server are the majority and a lot cheaper.

* Community pays a lot of money to give BI and the community servers to play on.

* Most likely sales wise MP is the main reason people buy the game AND tell others to do so.

I completely agree with this post, instead of 1.16beta just call it 1.16 and yes there might not be a linux server with every patch released this way.

[rundll.exe 12]

I completely agree with this post, instead of 1.16beta just call it 1.16 and yes there might not be a linux server with every patch released this way.

The logic in this escapes me. How would that differ from the current situation, except from the fact that you cant play on older version (linux) servers anymore?

The beta patches really ARE beta, for ex in 1.16beta the motorcycles are clearly bugged with steering. So calling it just 1.16 would make ppl complain even more for creating a bug in a patch.

Its simple, if BIS didnt make these patches, we would all be playing 1.14, so whats the problem?

[[frl]myke 14]

@Xeno

Those servers running 1.14, i bet those are all (or at least mostly all) Linux server. So they can't run later beta patches as there is no Linux server available for them.

As i was quoted in the start post, let me also clarify one thing:

I really like it that BIS still supports ArmA with patches, even with ArmA2 release coming in the very near future.

I also understand that developing a linux server executable takes it's time and isn't done within a few days. Fair enough.

I also have to admit that 1.16 gave an enourmous boost on my HD4870. It's the first time i could set everything (really everything) on very high and a viewdistance of ~4km and still having a framerate around 40FPS.

But there's also my problem (it isn't BIS problem, read above): i play exclusively on our Clanserver at least 3 times a week, beside that, i have rarely time to launch ArmA at all. So when i play, it's on our server. Our server runs on Linux.

So, although i would really enjoy it to play on 1.16, i can't.

Again, it's my very own problem. I can't and wont blame BIS about my very personal playing behaviour.

So from my side both thumbs up for BIS and the patches itself. I just wait eagerly for the final and the Linux server executable for it.

[Mojo 0]

First of all, if you aren't going to call it a beta - then you are going to introduce a lightly tested code base into the public arena and you will see outrage. Virtual rioting in the streets. If you don't like 'Beta', then call it 'RC' or something.

This community, more than any other I am a part of, is active in the creative evolution of the game. To point at what EA or Atari have as patch release policy is like calling the Moon the Sun. BF2 is what it is, ARMA changes to suit the needs of the sub-group that adopts it. This is true for all flavors, from the VBS variants to OFP. Because that is how the developers MADE it to be.

BIS' approach to this is as close to OSS as any mainstream game can be.

I understand the argument of having a divided community, I don't agree with the idea of removing the beta setup, it is a low cost and effective means of getting excellent feedback from the lion's share of your clients.

As to divided, no, it is not divided, not even close. Sure there are different versions out there. Look at almost any server list for any game and you will see the version history displayed for you. Rocco was completely off base.

Linux: This, to me is actually a more realistic issue. Linux servers are less expensive to run and so the number of them far outstrips the Windows boxes. I run Windows on our servers, only because we own the servers out-right, we aren't renting them. I would have to agree that the Linux version is a higher priority to the community, simply because of the raw numbers of Linux:Windows.

Building the Linux version on the other hand, is not just recompiling an EXE, so I also understand the difficulties BIS has in addressing the issue.

In short (too late, I know) I suggest everyone just take a step back and consider the larger picture.

[Serclaes 0]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the beta/final approach BIS has. But i t doesnt bother me very much since i/we run a Windows server.

I would agree with you that the beta/final stuff is dividing the community if this community wasn't big on modding. Every mod, addon etc. that is not client/server side only, is dividing the community. It's just not that obvious. Take ACE for example. ACE is dividing the MP community. Should we stop ACE or the development of any addon?

I doubt that the sole purpose of these patches is to make a community happy, since ArmA2 is in the works and the different hardware setups is a thing that could make every game creator flee to consoles. I hope that all the improvements that came with this patch will be in the ArmA2 Version i will buy in the store. The aim is to make sure its working, then one can invest the time to code a linux executable.

[max power 21]

These beta patches are 'use at your own risk' software that may contain bugs that are not fit for the full patch or commercial product. By installing them you are at the very least acknowledging that there may be stability problems. Should they call it 'official patch 1.16 - use at your own risk?'

[xeno 234]

Take ACE for example. ACE is dividing the MP community. Should we stop ACE or the development of any addon?

Anybody can download ACE mod or other addons, it's just a question if you like or not.

You can't compare addons with the current patch situation :)

Xeno

[Mr_Tea 0]

I don`t see any problem with the beta patches, especially as they don´t patch the game into a "beta-state", and you can still run the latest full patched version without it.

[Mojo 0]

I still see 1.05 servers out there, why can't you compare mods and patches?

They are both optional, both change the player's experience, both have iterations and both (depending on who you speak to) are vital to the community.

In truth, this entire thread is subjective to the perspective of the individual's tastes and desires. Beta patches are better than partially tested (read that as in-house) releases

Edited April 25, 2009 by Mojo
pontification

[Maddmatt 1]

No. In short:

* Dont call in beta patches, just full patches. Not every has linux support (unfortunately).

Just because you don't call it a beta patch doesn't change the fact that it isn't fully tested and potentially has major issues.

And if it's not a beta, the fact that it doesn't have a Linux server is an even bigger problem. Imagine all the complaining then, even worse if it introduces a new problem!

It could be even worse than the complaints about having beta patches :p

People need to be warned that it could have major problems, otherwise they will be even more upset when they discover them. You don't want them to expect a patch that hasn't been fully tested to be stable.

1.15 as Maruk mentioned in the other thread did not turn into a final patch because it had problems. I think that's understandable, hopefully 1.16 is better.

Xeno:

Now if you are running a server and pay for it (costs range from 50 euro to 300 euro per month here in europe, +/-) you are not interested in going to other servers to enjoy the benefits of new patches (fixes like the ATI bug for example, each beta patch improved the game a lot).

Yes the beta patches improve the game a lot. But imagine if the patch is not called 'beta', so everyone switches to it. Then after that we discover that the patch has a major problem that causes a CTD.

Testing for problems like that is exactly why it is called a beta and why some servers will refuse to install it. Some people don't want to be involved in testing and they have every right to decide on that.

This way, with the seperate beta version and older stable release, people can carry on playing a stable version while others 'take a risk' to test the newer one. If they discover a major problem with it that prevents them from playing then they can easily revert to a stable version.

[xeno 234]

Yes the beta patches improve the game a lot. But imagine if the patch is not called 'beta', so everyone switches to it. Then after that we discover that the patch has a major problem that causes a CTD.

Testing for problems like that is exactly why it is called a beta and why some servers will refuse to install it. Some people don't want to be involved in testing and they have every right to decide on that.

This way, with the seperate beta version and older stable release, people can carry on playing a stable version while others 'take a risk' to test the newer one. If they discover a major problem with it that prevents them from playing then they can easily revert to a stable version.

Maddmatt, I'm not saying that beta patches should be released as a final patch, never had. I was a software developer myself and know how this thingie works and what beta patches are made for.

The timespan between an ArmA beta patch and the final release patch is, simply spoken, just to long. And if a beta patch like 1.15 allready adresses severe problems like the crash problems that 1.14 servers were/are facing, it's very hard to tell your customers why they have to wait even longer.

The whole problem is not the question if there should be beta patches or not, it's up to you if you use them or not or if you want to test them or not, the question is, why the major part of the users can't benefit from improvements that were allready tested and proven stable.

Once again, I'm in the situation where I'm able to use all those new improvements that all the beta patches had (and personally I would never go back to 1.14), so I'm not complaining about beta patches and never had any serious problems with beta patches for ArmA. But I'm speaking for all those who are not able to use them, mainly those who have a linux server.

And, again, I can fully understand that ArmA does not have the highest priority for BIS currently and that it is just great that they still release patches for ArmA, whatever the reason is.

Xeno

[S!fkaIaC 10]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1276183&postcount=157

I am positively surprised that we got another patch for ArmA 1.

Ignoring the reasons why it takes so long I would be nice if we got those fixes earlier.

But as Maruk suggested - resources are limited.

I can understand both positions - Maruk's and Roccos:

- On one hand, betas are for public testing, not mean for "serious" gaming and absolutely required to find bugs

- on the other hand, long awaited fixes and changes taking that long to arrive, that a significant bunch of server admins grabbing the newest patch to get bugs solved /features working and hence splitting the community

A solution that serves both demands, betas for public testing and fast sequences of betas and "finals" ? - I really do not know except:

I remember A LOT of tiny oddities and bugs which were solved/changed by the community by delivering changes/complete addon packs to get it right.

It might be a good idea to find a regular process to test/verify the changes and implement them with their permission.

Again, thank you for the patch, and as usual for a demanding customer: where is the next patch ?

Edited April 27, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[whisper 0]

Not fully read everything here, but for the case in point (2 consecutive beta patches 1.15 & 1.16 without major release in between), Maruk explained it clearly :

1.15 patch did show some issues and could NOT BE RELEASED AS RC.

As simple as that. As the 1.15 beta wasn't functional, you simply cannot release a full version of it, you need some additionnal modification that also need beta-testing.

=> there we are with 1.16 beta.

This is the whole point of beta tests and if handled differently (like proposed, forcing the old beta version to be release as RC when a new beta comes out), you will have RC crashing and such.

For example, would this policy have been applied here, we would have ended with a buggy official 1.16 w/ buggy linux server and a beta 1.17 (the current 1.16b) without linux server, and maybe working (time will tell if 1.16b can be release as official this time).

As for comparison with other game :

1) Comparing to ID Tech... not fair to the slightest, the CLIENT is already developped as multi-platform (and THANKS ID for that, I would be forever in love w/ BI if they'd do the same for ArmA, but meh...), it's their policy, it's not BI's one. And even then, the linux dedicated (and client) are not ALWAYS completely in sync

2) Take CoD engine, linux servers take time to be released. It's not really a niche game ;) I'm pretty sure there's enough of examples like that.

From a dev point of view, you are porting a code from 1 OS to another (the way they do it, they use Windows code to be executed on Nux boxes).

You NEED to be sure your Windows code is operationnal before you port it. Otherwise, bug reports won't be usable (is the error caused by Windows code error or porting error? Basically, never do more than 1 change at a time to be able to debug ;) )

Meaning you need to have a official Windows version to port. Meaning you need to finish the beta phase, etc... Back to square one and the current situation.

One could test in parallel both win beta client and nux beta server ported from said client if he has many people parsing the bug logs and doing the report analysis stuff. It can be done for big name's game with a big publisher behind who has the workforce.

It's not the case of BI. Not even for ArmA2 I'm afraid, seeing their publisher policy. They'll do the beta feedback work themselves

[mattxr 9]

i agree with everyone infact its hard to get balance. The only point i want to make is that v1.14 came out on May 21st, 2008 thats a long time ago and then patch v1.15 came out December 23rd, 2008 now from December to now, is a very long time for those who are still awaiting with all those bugs in 1.14 who cant patch up when they know the fixes to their problems are there!.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

I personally like the way BI handles their beta patches, after all, it does save us from having to do a complete re-install of the game if we do not like them.

And about the time frame between patches? Wasn't it 3 years before we got to OFP 1.96?

[Evil_Echo 11]

Let's step back a moment. Take a look at this from a programmer's perspective ( having worn that hat a few decades myself ).

1.15 beta clearly had some issues outstanding. You don't shove that out the door as is, you fix the code and test again. Beta testers should test just the latest beta if they are going to test at all. Yelling at BI for servers using an old beta is like yelling at Microsoft for people insisting on running Windows 98.

The lack of Linux server support is reasonable too. Most of the outstanding bugs are client-side, graphics issues being foremost. Servers don't use the graphics sections very much and Linux graphics drivers have zero to do with Microsoft graphics - so why roll up a beta for that? BI can't afford that kind of time right now with ArmA-II around the corner.

In fairness - BI did muck up the release notes on 1.16. That should have been better handled since it did cause some confusion to users not closely tracking recent developments. It's been dealt with now, so no big deal to me.