Patch 1.4.3 to be released next week!

[MechBFP]

2 minutes ago, Jesusthebird said:

I think my gripe isnt the delay...but rather its been delayed without anyone saying a word. I consider it polite to state a major patch will be delayed for(insert excuse/reason here) this is highly anticipated...would be nice to see them at least say " we are still working on it, please be patient"

At this point i dont expect this patch to be released by end of the month...its been almost a week past official release date range stated...so its either harder than they thought..or they are taking their time..which.. Either way..keep working..we want a polished bugfix. But some sort of communication would be nice

So, I take it you didn’t read the KSP weekly article on Friday?

[Serenity]

 

5 minutes ago, Jesusthebird said:

I think my gripe isnt the delay...but rather its been delayed without anyone saying a word. I consider it polite to state a major patch will be delayed for(insert excuse/reason here) this is highly anticipated...would be nice to see them at least say " we are still working on it, please be patient"

At this point i dont expect this patch to be released by end of the month...its been almost a week past official release date range stated...so its either harder than they thought..or they are taking their time..which.. Either way..keep working..we want a polished bugfix. But some sort of communication would be nice

Its the official update for the patch

Edited April 23, 2018 by Boyster

[Jesusthebird]

3 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

So, I take it you didn’t read the KSP weekly article on Friday?

Link?? No this is the only info i see pertaining to 1.4.3

 

Nvm. Ur  way ahead of me

 

Excellent! That what i wanted  see

Edited April 23, 2018 by Jesusthebird

[MechBFP]

1 minute ago, Jesusthebird said:

Link?? No this is the only info i see pertaining to 1.4.3

http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/173132214564/ksp-weekly-the-lunar-greenhouse

[silverfox101]

Not really a dev blog is it though, just my opinion.

[MechBFP]

6 minutes ago, silverfox101 said:

Not really a dev blog is it though, just my opinion.

It’s a blog written by the devs. Not sure how much more “dev blog” it can get. 

[silverfox101]

Ok yeah that's true, but I guess its just not the kind of dev blogs I'm used to reading, not going to loose sleep about it though. 

[MarvinKosh]

1 hour ago, Jesusthebird said:

I think my gripe isnt the delay...but rather its been delayed without anyone saying a word. I consider it polite to state a major patch will be delayed for(insert excuse/reason here) this is highly anticipated...would be nice to see them at least say " we are still working on it, please be patient"

At this point i dont expect this patch to be released by end of the month...its been almost a week past official release date range stated...so its either harder than they thought..or they are taking their time..which.. Either way..keep working..we want a polished bugfix. But some sort of communication would be nice

They edited the top post and added this at the end:

On 12/04/2018 at 11:05 PM, UomoCapra said:

[UPDATE]
During the final testing stages of the patch 1.4.3 release we identified an unexpected issue that unfortunately has made us take the decision of holding the release until next week. The good news is that we already have a fix in the works, so we are confident that we’ll have the the patch ready by then.

 

 

[Adelaar]

Just the new airports alone are a good reason for me to put this DLC on the wanted list!

[PaloLV]

At this point I'd pay for DLC that fixes the landing legs and fairings.

[Jognt]

On 4/20/2018 at 12:48 AM, NoMrBond said:

I'm hoping that the cause was the same "shader interaction with part scale bug" which was affecting the re-entry shader, so it's also been fixed?

Unfortunately I can see #18095, #18094 and #18303 are all on zero% (although 94/95 are pretty sparse reports, so not entirely surprised about those two) which is a bit concerning

I'm glad to at least see someone notice my bug report (#18303). I must say I do feel a bit sad over the silence surrounding my report, especially as I tried to create as detailed a report as I could.
Thanks for letting me know my efforts have not gone completely unnoticed.

@UomoCapra Thanks for postponing the update. I admit I initially had different thoughts, but in the end I'll settle for a bit more polish rather than a bit more speed.

[Snark]

2 minutes ago, Jognt said:

I'm glad to at least see someone notice my bug report (#18303). I must say I do feel a bit sad over the silence surrounding my report, especially as I tried to create as detailed a report as I could.

Just speaking as a person who's shipped a lot of software, here:  bear in mind that when devs have a lot of bugs, they can't do everything at once.  I don't work at Squad, of course, but I think it's a fairly safe bet that none of their devs have been just sitting around twiddling their thumbs since 1.4.2. 

There are lots of reasons why a bug may have to get in line behind other bugs.  The other ones may be deemed more severe-- for example, anything that affects actual gameplay (e.g. the broken landing gear and fairings in 1.4.2) is likely going to take precedence over cosmetic issues (even ugly cosmetic issues), such as problems with reentry f/x.  Also, the devs have to take into account how difficult and time-consuming is it to fix the bug-- a less severe bug may be bumped ahead of a somewhat-more-severe bug, if the former is a quick trivial fix but the latter is going to take a long time.

And when devs are operating in a bug-rich environment... well, with so many targets out there, they'd get distracted and go nuts if they tried to look at all of them at once.  Speaking as a developer myself (though not at Squad), I can say it's fairly common for a dev to pick the bug at the top of the priority queue, bang on it until it's done, then move on.

(And the list of reasons goes on.)

This means that bugs can sit around for quite a while, sometimes-- but just because they haven't been commented on doesn't necessarily mean it's "ignored" or that it won't get worked on in due course.  (Doesn't guarantee that it will, either.)  All I can say is... be patient.  Personally, I'd be surprised if 1.4.3 is the last 1.4 patch, though I'm just guessing that as a KSP user (your guess is as good as mine.)

And bear in mind that in patching-and-bug-fixing mode, folks tend to be really really busy, which means, in my experience, that it's not uncommon for them to get so focused on fixing stuff that everything else (such as "provide status reports to bug reporters") can kinda fade into the background.

So... please try not to get discouraged.  And take it from me, as a developer, that really good bug reports are golden (so many reports aren't!) and much appreciated by devs, in general.  It's just that it's not always easy for them to show that.

[Capt. Hunt]

5 hours ago, Mark Kerbin said:

We are going to have to clone @Snark if squad ends up needing to do 1.4.4.

on a more on topic note, has anyone seen any images or info of the new launch pads? I need to plan where to deploy my base so it’s not redundant 

the new launch pad and runway is in the desert.  if you are talking about the floating mobile pads, those are only available with the mission builder, not in the Career/Sandbox mode.

[Dunbaratu]

The end of the top post says this:

Quote

[UPDATE]
During the final testing stages of the patch 1.4.3 release we identified an unexpected issue that unfortunately has made us take the decision of holding the release until next week. The good news is that we already have a fix in the works, so we are confident that we’ll have the the patch ready by then.

I came to this thread late so I didn't see when that [UPDATE] got added, and there doesn't seem to be the usual "edited on ___date___ " caption at the bottom of the post. so I'm not sure what the phrase "next week" actually means.   (To know which week they mean, the [UPDATE] text would have had to have a timestamp on it, but it doesn't).  If the [UPDATE] Text appeared a week ago, then "next week" could mean this week.  If it just appeared today then "next week" would not.

Can someone who's been watching this thread tell me when the [UPDATE] text first appeared?

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Steven Mading

[linuxgurugamer]

Friday 

[Jesusthebird]

13 minutes ago, Capt. Hunt said:

the new launch pad and runway is in the desert.  if you are talking about the floating mobile pads, those are only available with the mission builder, not in the Career/Sandbox mode.

Boooo lol. Why...i like the idea of a mobile 'elephant' launch vehicle. Halo3/ remember that giant vehicle?? Lets launch rockets from it! Lol

[Greenfire32]

9 hours ago, Wallygator said:

Thread summary so far:

1) update late

2) want update

3) squad bad 

4) philosophical discussion on QA

5) go to 1

 

i love this thread. 

 

Its the five stages of forum.

[Capt. Hunt]

1 hour ago, Jesusthebird said:

Boooo lol. Why...i like the idea of a mobile 'elephant' launch vehicle. Halo3/ remember that giant vehicle?? Lets launch rockets from it! Lol

I'm sure someone will figure out how to do it, we already have Extra-planetary launch pads, and there are also mods to add crawlers.

[Jimbodiah]

Edited April 23, 2018 by Jimbodiah

[Vanamonde]

Sorry, guys, but many jokes which may be common on the internet these days are overly vulgar for our friendly little forum. Please remember we have many younger forum visitors and try not to say things you wouldn't say around your friends's children, okay? 

[Arch3rAc3]

Will it be coming to the console version of the game?

[invision]

1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

Sorry, guys, but many jokes which may be common on the internet these days are overly vulgar for our friendly little forum. Please remember we have many younger forum visitors and try not to say things you wouldn't say around your friends's children, okay? 

you must have never met my friends kids

[razark]

22 minutes ago, invision said:

you must have never met my friends kids

Yeah, if we talked the way my group of friends does around each others' kids, the moderators would be shutting down every thread.

[steve_v]

On 4/23/2018 at 6:43 AM, Skystorm said:

module manager patch I used to fix some of the landing legs.

Sorry I missed this, and thanks for the workaround. Multiplying the crash tolerance my 10 isn't really a "fix" though, it simply sacrifices a gameplay element (landing legs can be broken on hard landings) to conceal a bug.

 

15 hours ago, Tyko said:

This defense would apply if the errors were occurring on only Linux

Balderdash. Defending a buggy release because it's only buggy on one of the 3 supported operating systems is defending a total lack of QA on that supported system.
If a bug were occurring only on Arch Linux, with a particular graphics card and driver version, I'd be more than willing to forgive not catching it before release. If it affected the majority of Linux systems, hell no.

In the case of the "joysticks don't work on Linux" issue (which is specifically not mentioned for 1.4.3), it's a problem with the game engine that has been known about for nearly a year, and yet Squad went ahead with a release without even attempting to address it.
I don't know how anyone can describe this as anything but flat-out "not giving a crap about GNU/Linux users". I, for one, am properly tired of this.

@SQUAD: There's going to be a 1.4.4 to address the lack of proper joystick support on GNU/Linux, right? I'd like to buy your DLC, but I won't if I can't use my joystick with it.

Edited April 24, 2018 by steve_v

[Tyko]

36 minutes ago, steve_v said:

16 hours ago, Tyko said:

This defense would apply if the errors were occurring on only Linux

Balderdash. Defending a buggy release because it's only buggy on one of the 3 supported operating systems is defending a total lack of QA on that supported system.
If a bug were occurring only on Arch Linux, with a particular graphics card and driver version, I'd be more than willing to forgive not catching it before release. If it affected the majority of Linux systems, hell no.

I think you took my comment out of context. if you read what @Terwin wrote (copied below) he was saying that bugs in hardware manufacturing are easier because all the widgets are always built exactly the same way while software bugs are more complicated because it has to run on different platforms. My point was that since most of the bugs are occurring across all platforms they aren't being caused by an issue with a single platform. So therefore his "hardware manufacturing vs software development" defense was....in your words "balderdash"

Read what he wrote:

  On 4/22/2018 at 7:33 PM, Terwin said:

Sure but manufacturing processes always run on exactly the same environment(aka the real world where Iron is always harder and heavier than aluminum, but aluminum cools faster because it is a better conductor), for software that can only happen when you provide the hardware as well(and keep it in a locked box that the users are not allowed to tinker with).

How well would those 'consistent' manufacturing processes work if you had to ship the same manufacturing line to all factories, even though in some of those factories Aluminum is heavier than lead and harder than diamonds, but high-carbon steel has the consistency of tapioca pudding?