And when you are project manager in a company making any type of product, you can outline this as your plan for your beta phase. That's the only point you have made in your post - your opinion of what a beta is or should be. But ISI does it however they do it, so just let it drop?
K, don't start pointless arguing please or we end up on comparing colour of cheese and moon. Point is, that some people, I would say a lot of people, didn't manage that rF2 is in early development stage. There must be a serious reason for it. You are doing everything to not name the problem in straight way. BTW: once you said me: yes, ISI has serious problems with using names in a right way. Is it still valid? I'm not the author of terms used to call dev stages. I'm using those names in way they has been invented for. It has nothing to do with opinion so don't blame me I expect same from others. You also wouldn't be fine if you got milk instead of bread in a shop, just because some one has started to name things in other way.
It's actually me, who's telling you not to start the same discussion over again I would like to point out a simple fact - I'm not the one having issues with this beta thing. It's you who can't let it go and keep bringing it up. I'll reply once or twice but that's about it. I don't remember if that's how I put it but yes, they tend to use unfortunate names. But you're forgetting something here. Something I said so many times I'm starting to doubt if there's any point in repeating it again. So for the last time, as simply as I can put it: This is what ISI said: "We're releasing a beta. Beta software might not work on your system at times, even if you meet the minimum specs. It may have bugs, poor performance, issues and problems...." This is what people have read: "We're releasing a beta. Blah, blah, blah, blah.. Hurray!" And somehow, when people misread your posts, you usually blame them. Odd That would be all from me. I see no point in another beta thing discussion.
I will say this: People, on the whole, and especially on the internet, are damned idiots. No matter how you phrase whatever you do there will be people who will complain about every single thing, let alone words for which there, despite your fervent implications, really exists no well defined and commonly accepted, and especially no commonly followed, meanings. So yes, in this case and many others I will say that "those people have something wrong with them", most likely in their heads, egos and overdeveloped senses of entitlement. Definitions of beta, beta test, beta release etc. Wiktionary: 4.(computing) The phase of development after alpha testing and before launch, in which software, while not complete, has been released to potential users for testing. (very fitting for rF2) 5.(computing) A computer program in such phase; a preliminary version. The Free Dictionary: The version of a software product that is used in the final stage of testing before it is commercially released. Testing of a beta version is generally conducted by an independent tester outside of the company developing the product. (fitting, because this indeed the final stage of testing for rF2 before release) Merriam Webster: : a field test of the beta version of a product (as software) especially by testers outside the company developing it that is conducted prior to commercial release Webopedia: A test for a computer product prior to commercial release. Beta testing is the last stage of testing, and normally can involve sending the product to beta test sites outside the company for real-world exposure or offering the product for a free trial download over the Internet. Wikipedia, Software Testing article: Beta testing comes after alpha testing and can be considered a form of external user acceptance testing. Versions of the software, known as beta versions, are released to a limited audience outside of the programming team. The software is released to groups of people so that further testing can ensure the product has few faults or bugs. Wikipedia, Software release life cycle article: Beta (named after the second letter of the Greek alphabet) is the software development phase following alpha. It generally begins when the software is feature complete. Software in the beta phase will generally have many more bugs in it than completed software, as well as speed/performance issues. The focus of beta testing is reducing impacts to users, often incorporating usability testing. The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta release and this is typically the first time that the software is available outside of the organization that developed it. (Notice the generally, not always. Also the last part is very fitting, since this is indeed the first time that rF2 is available outside of ISI.) Would it have been better to call it something other than beta? Perhaps. Is it wrong to call it a beta? No. Beta, beta test and beta release don't have an agreed upon meaning that everyone follows, it's pointless to go on about that. And again, people are idiots, just because someone or 7 billion complain about something doesn't make them right. Just because a large amount of people believe the same thing doesn't mean they're right.
OK, it means that another person is right - one who doesn't belongs to this 7bilion group When trying to match rF2 stage to beta stage definition from various sources, you forgot about single thing: to make testing of product (especially by people outside dev team, which are not able to test single components but must test whole product at once) you have to provide version of product which is intended to be final. It is only way to test product. In case of rF2 is impossible to perform product test, because a) product is incomplete b) adding missing features may (and probably will) affect other part of program Both those things makes testing product useless. That means, what we do, is testing single parts of program or its single components. And this is not beta stage for sure. At the end I'm happy to be part of development or testing. I'm sure a lot of people feels the same. But I would like to see invitation to let's say alpha tests rather than pre-selling a product on beta stage and figured out it is far from beta. Also calling it right way would save a lot of Tim's and other people time explaining again and again same things about rF2 progress. Finally people wouldn't feel confused, surprised, disappointed, deceived etc. Easy? yes Cheap? yes doable? yes So why to not make it right? Anyone would be happy I tell you why... ask me on PM
I guess he missed the part in the definitions that said alpha is typically an internal testing of the software and beta is typically an external testing of the software?
I vote we go out of the beta phase and onto the Beat-a-Maxym phase. New vmod with tanks and an AI bumper car with maxym in it please!
Why does this forum seem to care so much what any "one" person thinks?....especially if it's either unreasonable or semi-reasonable at best...?
So.....given your desire to put ISI in it's place despite rf2 having the potential to be the best sim ever made and improving every year, how many people give a rats what a whinger like you thinks, LOL.
Not sure about great, but it's not that bad actually....though I'm not sure I like it's image quality to resource demands ratio, but it's a decent enough looking game when maxed or thereabouts.
For now though, I think Project C.A.R.S is MILES AHEAD of RFACTOR 2 in term of development. Physicis arent quite there yet but you can see they are improving week after week and they're still not beta..... and what can be said about graphics? OMG? Greatest graphics ever and not as demanding as RF2. I am just fearing that if ISI dont bring more new stuff up soon, they will just get eaten by Project CARS and iRacing.
