Jeremy Miller tweets (Senior Programmer at ISI)

Tuttle

I see, yes I guess it could easily cause confusion/frustration +if info given that isn't quite correct I guess that could cause a stir.

Looking forward to trying the new build when ever it shows up anyhow

 

Build 494 its out? is that correct?

 

You can now update yes, but no official announcement which is a bit strange. Anway, I'm off to try the new build.

 

Perhaps the karts aren't quite ready yet and ISI want to announce the new build with a cherry on top.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

 

What is the purpose of releasing an unstable build just one day before releasing the stable one?
Do you really expect us to provide feedback about something that will become obsolete in one day and that unless a bug is reported in less than 24 hours, it will not be repaired in the stable build???
I have heard about bugs already found in the stable one. These might have been corrected if unstable had been up for longer time before releasing the stable.
I don't know about other people but if this will be the case in the future I will stick to stables builds. I have not much free time to work for nothing.

enviado mediante tapatalk

 

At least now ISI can release another unstable build for closed beta tests and follow developments best practices.
Beta builds should be on per 2 weeks rotation... like Spaskis suggestions

 

The whole unstable build approach is not working at moment in my view. ISI has way more testers on the internal team than on the unstable section, or at least the feedback on the internal forum is better and more detailed. That's probably why they don't wait long from unstable to release as the build has already passed plenty of internal testing, which is usually detailed enough. Most people who are interested to help with testing have already applied for the internal team, which means they report bugs there rather than on the unstable forum.

 

That's because of what I explained before and what I am suggesting is thatal a more serious testing is required before calling something stable. The internal team you mention cannot perform a stability test as I understand it. I would not restrict unstable release to a private forum. It took just a couple of hours for the community to detect the bug from different sources. Just call them unstable and after solving stability issues release a stable one.

enviado mediante tapatalk

 

Yeah massive online testing is naturally not possible for them. But the internal test team works quite efficiently as it is in my view. For example a build is out, next hour they report this is a nogo, then next build, etc, quick cycles. I don't see where the unstable build fits here. If the unstable build is released two weeks before, it's completely "outdated" by the time of release, with this development cycle.

 

If more people got involved, this is exactly what would happen. But we can't openly scream that we have an unstable build because media will report it, and 'average joe' will install it without reading or understanding what they've walked into. We already get people asking for support for unstable builds on how to uninstall them, etc. Those kind of users gain us nothing in terms of product testing, and more about Windows and how to use it, and an open forum is going to be laughably full of them.

 

Devs would have to twiddle their thumbs for two weeks. Essentially the devs can't do too much work on an area changed in a new build between the unstable and the stable. We're actually holding code back right now because we also needed 494 out, because the new code in 494 affects the code being worked on and held, and you can't get too deep into code changes. What to do? Should the guys only develop in an area every other public build? It's not something you can actually do.

The interesting thing with 494 is that although it's obviously our problem, the build works fine, the MM has a problem that the build doesn't like. It's an intermittent issue (depending on the servers listed) that may never have been able to get an established pattern until the build went public anyway. It took Jeremy until the next day after the build was public as it is, and that was a lot of extra testers than we would ever have in unstable.

 

GOOD NIGHT Tim !!!!!

 

its not that inconsistent Tim, atleast at my end, with my 2 installs, ive tried approx 20-25 times today & never succeeded once!

 

C'mon let him go , the internet never sleeps ,people need to . The other devs will be awake soon to reply i'm sure.

 

settle petal... you think the world revolves around the time Americans are awake, you think we have a world clock handy everytime we post on a forum...... give us a break mate!

 

lol it wasn't meant that way .Tim mentioned he was ill today and put in a massive effort , he needed to go and i'm sure his missus agrees thanx Mr Hurley ?

 

Easy...talk to 3,4,5 communities using rf2, bring them to the table, ask if they´re interested in helping testing unstable´s. For sure not 1 will deny your request. Most will be gratefull to help.
And probably you guys will get 40/50 regular RF2 league drivers testing it hard instead of "John Doe" who simply install new builds looking for nordschleife or pit lane babes....You will get only one report by the league admin with their drivers feedback.
There are a couple of things you could deliver in return to the leagues.....making colaborations is the way, not only in this department but also in modding scene.

 

+1, There is no real exchange at this time since the begining to really use the user feedback to improve the game. This is the feeling we have in reading the forum. No answer to the modding question, no answer on the state of each feature and priorities. And the changelogs of each build not complete to help enough.

I think it's time to have a constructive way of working with the users and modders, build after build the patience is falling down, and still no way to follow the improvement in the good way ...


In the previous build, the collisions was wrong and undocumented, so the online not usable in league
In this one the multi is boken ...

I think it's time to use correctly the drivers that are in the unstable build section, one day to validate nothing before a release is not really useful, so, please, change your way of working, put unstable build in test for longer time and more often to get feedbacks.

In my position, unstable build is a joke, perhaps I don't understand something, but I tough the unstable build was to test the new changes to valid with a huge panel of motivated testers is working well. For this build, the release was out before I installed the unstable one ...

I want rFactor2 working and for this I want to help (and there is many guys on our team that want), but there is no way to do that and to be sure is taken into account by ISI team

 

I hope you realise that this issue with the update was mostly with the Match Maker update (and couldn't be fully tested till implemented ) and not so much the build update

 

Yes, and it's an important reason to envoleved seriously the users in unstable build tests with some non regression objectives and special tests to do linked to updated/new features before releasing something. With tests on this point, it will be easy to find the bug and let ISI fix it before a public release.