Looking more like 1.0 was the RC and not Beta 5 after all guys
by James Brad Barnette · in Torque 3D Professional · 09/30/2009 (4:49 pm) · 8 replies
Looking more like 1.0 was the RC and not Beta 5 after all guys. Judging by how fast and many bugs are being reported in 1.0. Some on really obvious things.
Perhaps you guys should not have rushed thing so much and listened to the community when overwhelmingly the majority of people said that T3D was not ready for 1.0.
From time to time you might should listen to us.
Perhaps you guys should not have rushed thing so much and listened to the community when overwhelmingly the majority of people said that T3D was not ready for 1.0.
From time to time you might should listen to us.
About the author
#2
09/30/2009 (5:27 pm)
I imagine it is a tricky balancing act. Keeping a product in an extended state of beta testing, turning off a lot of people eagerly awaiting the 1.0 release, or putting out that release with most things working but still some work needing to be done, turning off a lot of people who think a 1.0 release should be perfect. I don't envy those who have to make the decisions.
#3
yeah us either actually we are still porting. We had quite a few things that were broken. but for the most part we have faired a lot better than most
yeah,I agree with you but I think a lot of the Egar people are only going to be disappointed by some of this.
09/30/2009 (5:37 pm)
Quote:Yea I was surprised by some of the obvious things - it looks like they released the wrong code drop. Oh well, its not like Beta 5 was really holding me back in the first place - it seemed pretty solid to me.
yeah us either actually we are still porting. We had quite a few things that were broken. but for the most part we have faired a lot better than most
Quote:I imagine it is a tricky balancing act. Keeping a product in an extended state of beta testing, turning off a lot of people eagerly awaiting the 1.0 release, or putting out that release with most things working but still some work needing to be done, turning off a lot of people who think a 1.0 release should be perfect. I don't envy those who have to make the decisions.
yeah,I agree with you but I think a lot of the Egar people are only going to be disappointed by some of this.
#4
/edit. Also let us not forget the wisdom of Robbie Burns:
"Suspense is worse than disappointment."
09/30/2009 (5:46 pm)
Of course. That is just the nature of things. Disappointment is the traveling mate of desire. ;)/edit. Also let us not forget the wisdom of Robbie Burns:
"Suspense is worse than disappointment."
#5
I personally would like to see a model where GG put's out a version as a release condidate and calls that version feature complete. Then, for 1-2 weeks releases that version to the community and works only bug fixes against it but continues working new features against the next release. Then, the RC version is released with only bug fixes as the next official version while the new version with enhancements could be released out to the community for it's testing phase as an RC.
The biggest problem with this is that during the testing phase GG will have two branches to maintain (the RC under test getting only bug fixes and the next release getting new functionality + bug fixes) but it would help ensure that the "official" releases are much more bug free.
09/30/2009 (5:48 pm)
Part of the issue is that everyone wants new features (and they want them now!) and GG is doing their best to provide them. This means that with each new version we get not only bug fixes but new functionality that introduces new bugs.I personally would like to see a model where GG put's out a version as a release condidate and calls that version feature complete. Then, for 1-2 weeks releases that version to the community and works only bug fixes against it but continues working new features against the next release. Then, the RC version is released with only bug fixes as the next official version while the new version with enhancements could be released out to the community for it's testing phase as an RC.
The biggest problem with this is that during the testing phase GG will have two branches to maintain (the RC under test getting only bug fixes and the next release getting new functionality + bug fixes) but it would help ensure that the "official" releases are much more bug free.
#6
The product is solid. The majority of bugs right now are affecting certain hardware or certain circumstances and I have yet to find an issue that has stopped my development in any way.
For future updates they could definitely feature lock them, but I don't think it was possible for 1.0 considering they didn't get everything they wanted to into it.
I can't see anyone being disappointed over the improvements made in T3D in contrast to the bugs.
09/30/2009 (9:14 pm)
This was discussed during the beta process. It is a good process but not one that would of met well with this release. Pulling 20% of the existing features so that the 1.0 would of been "bug free" (hah). Would not of sold anymore than it will now.The product is solid. The majority of bugs right now are affecting certain hardware or certain circumstances and I have yet to find an issue that has stopped my development in any way.
For future updates they could definitely feature lock them, but I don't think it was possible for 1.0 considering they didn't get everything they wanted to into it.
I can't see anyone being disappointed over the improvements made in T3D in contrast to the bugs.
#7
And the improvements are to be expected, after all the licenses for T3D for a team are 10 - 20 time as expensive as TGEA
T3D is, like iTGB, definitely not targeted at hobbiests any longer, so people start to expect at least a semi professional production quality.
During the first betas, that was kind of the case, well tested, documented known issues, ... But somehow that has gone again, what I'm missing especially are milestone lists that clearly show what we can expect in which release from the fixed, replaced and new features end. That does not need to be 3 milestones ahead but at least 1 minor and the immediate bugfix release.
But it seems that something behind the scene triggered in when beta 5 came around as the QA quality of beta 5 as well as of 1.0 sffered and that although one would expect it to be vice versa as GG likely is interest to get it out in the best possible state as they now will be compared to engines like Quest3D, Gamebryo and Trinigy Vision as they cost wise are able to get into the same range due to way the required investments caused by the new licensing terms and the license fees.
Due to the fact that it was decided to kick hobbiests completely out of the game by dropping any selling of TGEA (which originally was mentioned in various places to coexist with T3D), I (and I guess others) have dropped the "hobbiest developers" patience and understanding.
I've no idea how large GG is, but given the plans and definitive significantly raised "money hunger" behind the whole torque tech family, I expect to get correspondingly higher quality for my cash now, its not just "for fun and support its devs" any longer.
Currently 1.0 is not there anyway as fundamental license details are still unknown, like the information on how the licensing works ie by when we will have to pay at earlist, how long support is granted at minimum etc.
09/30/2009 (9:46 pm)
Well problem is that T3D is the 3rd of 3 releases in a row that was released in such a state, although T3D definitely has the least problems (TGEA and iTGB were totally useless at release, iTGB to a large degree still is without a lot of own work as it is not optimized nor even targeted at the iphone)And the improvements are to be expected, after all the licenses for T3D for a team are 10 - 20 time as expensive as TGEA
T3D is, like iTGB, definitely not targeted at hobbiests any longer, so people start to expect at least a semi professional production quality.
During the first betas, that was kind of the case, well tested, documented known issues, ... But somehow that has gone again, what I'm missing especially are milestone lists that clearly show what we can expect in which release from the fixed, replaced and new features end. That does not need to be 3 milestones ahead but at least 1 minor and the immediate bugfix release.
But it seems that something behind the scene triggered in when beta 5 came around as the QA quality of beta 5 as well as of 1.0 sffered and that although one would expect it to be vice versa as GG likely is interest to get it out in the best possible state as they now will be compared to engines like Quest3D, Gamebryo and Trinigy Vision as they cost wise are able to get into the same range due to way the required investments caused by the new licensing terms and the license fees.
Due to the fact that it was decided to kick hobbiests completely out of the game by dropping any selling of TGEA (which originally was mentioned in various places to coexist with T3D), I (and I guess others) have dropped the "hobbiest developers" patience and understanding.
I've no idea how large GG is, but given the plans and definitive significantly raised "money hunger" behind the whole torque tech family, I expect to get correspondingly higher quality for my cash now, its not just "for fun and support its devs" any longer.
Currently 1.0 is not there anyway as fundamental license details are still unknown, like the information on how the licensing works ie by when we will have to pay at earlist, how long support is granted at minimum etc.
#8
If 20% of the features of T3D were implemented just last week, that would be indicative of a much larger & more severe problem at GG. Considering how long T3D has been in development, delaying a couple days worth of feature development shouldn’t significantly impact the 1.0 feature set.
I’m glad the 1.0 release is working great for you but there are some significant issues showing up for a number of us (more than some of the beta releases) and we’re not all using some crazy hardware setup that no one else in the world has. Even a handful of reports of the problem in this forum means many times that number are experiencing the same thing with the demo.
Simply put, if I hadn’t been in the betas since beta 1, seeing the stuff achieved during some of the releases and my first experience with T3D was with the 1.0 version, I wouldn’t have bought it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy I did and I quite like the technology but that’s based upon the experience with the beta releases. If I didn’t have that experience, I would have been seriously concerned about the quality of the product, especially considering the price. Like Marc is saying, it's not a $100 engine and it isn't going to be evaluated by it's potential customers as one.
09/30/2009 (9:52 pm)
@Brett - If 20% of the features of T3D were implemented just last week, that would be indicative of a much larger & more severe problem at GG. Considering how long T3D has been in development, delaying a couple days worth of feature development shouldn’t significantly impact the 1.0 feature set.
I’m glad the 1.0 release is working great for you but there are some significant issues showing up for a number of us (more than some of the beta releases) and we’re not all using some crazy hardware setup that no one else in the world has. Even a handful of reports of the problem in this forum means many times that number are experiencing the same thing with the demo.
Simply put, if I hadn’t been in the betas since beta 1, seeing the stuff achieved during some of the releases and my first experience with T3D was with the 1.0 version, I wouldn’t have bought it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy I did and I quite like the technology but that’s based upon the experience with the beta releases. If I didn’t have that experience, I would have been seriously concerned about the quality of the product, especially considering the price. Like Marc is saying, it's not a $100 engine and it isn't going to be evaluated by it's potential customers as one.
Torque 3D Owner Matt Huston
Atomic Banzai Games