Another Another Tweet from the team

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

New feature (heating)

Heating in 0.1.4? Wow!

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

Jumping to the worst possible conclusion, without any evidence?

Why not? I do not plan to come up with excuses for the developers, they only asked the fans to be paid beta testers, not PR managers.

[Stoup]

13 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Why not? I do not plan to come up with excuses for the developers, they only asked the fans to be paid beta testers, not PR managers.

Ehh, just to play devil's advocate, jumping to negative conclusions without evidence is just as problematic as jumping to positive conclusions despite the evidence of all the problems this game has had in its development. Neither action is going to lead to productive discussion, but instead is just going to further the partisan atmosphere that's been taking over around here.

In my mind, all that can be done is to hope things improve, but not allow anything short of direct successful content deliveries sway my opinion of things

[cocoscacao]

18 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Heating in 0.1.4? Wow!

And only partial implementation of it. Because it will have bigger scope this time. So yes, wow! 

19 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Why not?

Looking for the worst in things (even with limited information) is a personal choice. I cannot argue with that. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

So how can fixing the bugs indicated by the developers achieve a significant drop in performance

It’s impossible to say without seeing the actual code but many of the bugs are related to things that happen in flight, and therefore any changes in them can potentially have a performance impact. 

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

I only imagine this if they introduced a software crutch to bypass some situation, and this raises questions about whether the game code is spaghetti code.

I can imagine loads of situations how this could happen without it being crutches or spaghetti code! I even gave you an example!

2 hours ago, Alexoff said:

It seems that the developers were unable to find out the essence of the problem in a short time, since a new patch date has not been announced.

Or just maybe the producers are being cautious?

It is annoying when QA finds blockers shortly before you’re supposed to go to production, but it happens. BG3 just had to pull and then redeploy a patch, and they’re a really mature studio with terrific process and QA and a game that’s been in EA for three years! I hope one day my studio will be that good at production, but I expect that even if we get there we’ll still occasionally embarrass ourselves!

[cocoscacao]

18 minutes ago, Periple said:

It is annoying when QA finds blockers shortly before you’re supposed to go to production

When they find it, complaints on the dev team. When they don't, complaints on the QA team. Either way... brick walls... 

Edited August 20, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Periple said:

It is annoying when QA finds blockers shortly before you’re supposed to go to production, but it happens.

Sometimes QA gets a little ... zealous. We did six hotfixes this Friday (big infrastructure upgrade) and the QA engineer on mine wanted to continue testing the fix in the development environment even though devops had decided to deploy it on their own early into production, and it had just proven itself in production, three hours after close of shop (man I wanted a beer...) I'll never understand that mentality but they've saved me from some pretty obscure bugs in the past, so I accept their judgement, annoying as it may be.

[cocoscacao]

24 minutes ago, regex said:

annoying as it may be

Pointing a gun in their face vs buying them a beer, is always a thin line affair xD

Edited August 20, 2023 by cocoscacao

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

And only partial implementation of it.

Source? Or are you just stating there's going to be some raw heating code in it? Also, no, the system was clearly dumbed down, the only advance is making it warp compatible, at a huge step down in complexity.

Edited August 20, 2023 by PDCWolf

[cocoscacao]

@PDCWolf sorry, again my connection is limited, so I can't put a link. Check the official thread on the subject (red rocket's glare?).

Basically what was said is that not entire heating will come with the update, just parts relevant to the roadmap updates.

Quoting between threads is painful as it is for me, combine that with excruciatingly slow wifi connection... I'm sure some other member on the forum can highlight it for you. I'll try though... 

Edited August 20, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

And only partial implementation of it. Because it will have bigger scope this time. So yes, wow!

Well, you can remember the message before the release where it was indicated that the heating was just turned off and being finalized. In fact, partial heating will be only together with science, and in the final form, apparently by the end of the decade.

1 hour ago, Periple said:

Or just maybe the producers are being cautious?

Good joke!

1 hour ago, Periple said:

I can imagine loads of situations how this could happen without it being crutches or spaghetti code! I even gave you an example!

I'm afraid that in the current program of transparency, developers will traditionally not tell us the truth, but since this did not happen in KSP1, I will remain unconvinced.

[PDCWolf]

45 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

@PDCWolf sorry, again my connection is limited, so I can't put a link. Check the official thread on the subject (red rocket's glare?).

Basically what was said is that not entire heating will come with the update, just parts relevant to the roadmap updates.

Quoting between threads is painful as it is for me, combine that with excruciatingly slow wifi connection... I'm sure some other member on the forum can highlight it for you. I'll try though... 

You can quote as if you were replying on that thread, and just copypaste the generated quote from your reply into this one. Can't help you with the internet though.

[The Aziz]

QA can do everything from "check a specific situation in which the bug used to occur"(which can take as short as 5 minutes) to "do a test plan with hundreds of test cases that involve a lot of RNG" (source: our team just finished doing that for 3 weeks)

[cocoscacao]

@PDCWolf

Because we’re in early access with a specific roadmap, it doesn’t make sense for us to try to cram a system of this complexity into a single update, particularly with the huge rash of user stories we want to cater to. We’re going to deliver functionality iteratively where it is most appropriate in the roadmap. Here’s how things are looking right now, though we will refine this roadmap dynamically so heat problems appear at the right times.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

I'm afraid that in the current program of transparency, developers will traditionally not tell us the truth, but since this did not happen in KSP1, I will remain unconvinced.

That’s your prerogative but it’s about as valuable as any opinion I might have about horticulture or internal medicine — two areas I know nothing about!

[cocoscacao]

@PDCWolf it's the best I can do atm

[PDCWolf]

2 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

@PDCWolf it's the best I can do atm

That's fine, thanks for the source. Cool.

[Alexoff]

28 minutes ago, Periple said:

That’s your prerogative but it’s about as valuable as any opinion I might have about horticulture or internal medicine — two areas I know nothing about!

I know a little more about game creating

19 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

That's fine, thanks for the source. Cool.

Can you explain to me what kind of heating should appear in 0.1.4? A lot of developer messages require special interpreters, I did not understand this one.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

I know a little more about game creating

How interesting! What do you know about it and how did you learn it?

[Alexoff]

10 minutes ago, Periple said:

How interesting! What do you know about it and how did you learn it?

Are you inviting me to work with you? It seems to be offtopic, isn't it?

[PDCWolf]

17 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

I know a little more about game creating

Can you explain to me what kind of heating should appear in 0.1.4? A lot of developer messages require special interpreters, I did not understand this one.

The source indicates heat is gonna be in science, not 0.1.4, at least that's what I understood from that dev blog.

 

[Alexoff]

22 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

The source indicates heat is gonna be in science, not 0.1.4, at least that's what I understood from that dev blog.

I saw it too, [snip]

Edited August 21, 2023 by Vanamonde

[Strawberry]

We wont get heating in 0.1.4, check dev tracker itll just be bug fixes and no new content.

[cocoscacao]

22 hours ago, Alexoff said:

I saw it too, 

Read the post again. It can arrive with or before the science update

Edited August 21, 2023 by Vanamonde

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

Just now, Strawberry said:

We wont get heating in 0.1.4, check dev tracker itll just be bug fixes and no new content.

Not the splash we expected when they said they want to spend more time on updates to make more progress from patch to patch.

[Stoup]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

@PDCWolf

Because we’re in early access with a specific roadmap, it doesn’t make sense for us to try to cram a system of this complexity into a single update, particularly with the huge rash of user stories we want to cater to. We’re going to deliver functionality iteratively where it is most appropriate in the roadmap. Here’s how things are looking right now, though we will refine this roadmap dynamically so heat problems appear at the right times.

 

Not directed at you personally, but this statement is a pretty good example of exactly WHAT with their communication needs to improve.

This is a very ambiguous statement.

Does this mean they have a functioning version of the heat system, but they're only going to enable parts of it as they go along the roadmap to fit with their specific milestones? I gather that that's the impression they WANT to give.

But it's just as valid an interpretation to say that they're building it as they go, for each milestone.

For me to consider their communication to have improved, what I expect is that I'd be able to read a statement they put out... And not have to wonder about interpretations of what they say, but instead to be left with a clear idea of what is actually happening with KSP2's development