Next Update.....?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bart S said:
Maxym with your 275 you will never see the graphics that you think are not there, and if you do your framerate will kill your visual experience anyway, upgrade yourself to a 680 get your credit card out you already have an i5 2500. I'm not attacking your critic I just believe your missing something compared to what I see at 8x SS and so must a lot of people.
I still struggle with framerate I'd like over 60 fps bottomline.
Click to expand...

CdnRacer said:
@Maxym I agree with BartS. With your system good luck on getting the graphics/performance you are looking for. You might just be disappointed once again.
Click to expand...


I don't get you guys. I never complained about fps.
I know there is too less fps for results I can see but I'm sure it will be optimized (as rf1 got more fps after some first update). Also I have no problems with fps. Even if I got 40+ on Monaco in fullhd maxed out, which is not perfect but acceptable for tests. However my guess is that it can work with about 100fps on my rig after optimizations.

Believe me or not, but you may get pCARS-like visuals for very low cost comparing to current state (about a few % of fps), just replacing shaders and setting correct materials. How I know it? Because we are applying such shaders to rf1 tracks and cars. I know you may think something opposite (judging by your arguments), but try to believe me, or check SRPL ShaderPack for rf1.

At the end (if you are worry about my fps) I'm ready to replace my gfx card just after rf2 will improve visuals. Doing it now improves nothing in area I'm talking about.

RMachucaA said:
It was a bit misleading marketing it as a Beta. The standard dev industry definition for software that is labeled as a "beta", means that ALL features are there AND functional, from GFX to UI to Physics etc, this envelops the whole product. So every feature can be rigorously tested and ironed out, getting rid of bugs etc. Hard to test a feature if it isnt there :P.

If there are features that are non functional or missing, its clearly an Alpha, which is what we have here atm.
Click to expand...

yep, I talked about a few times and had feeling nobody wanted to understand the difference. Maybe excepting some one who replaced "beta" by "testing" in forum menu ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jubuttib said:
If it is indeed a standard industry definition, it's one that almost no company really follows.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As an Apple developer, the beta iOS and Mac OS X releases we developers get always have release notes pointing out features that aren't implemented yet, and they usually note what specific features we should try and test in each particular build.
 
Dave Millard said:
Tim...?Tim?... I love this place!
XXX.jpg
Click to expand...
Your tattooist missed an arm.
 
RMachucaA said:
To be completely honest here......

It was a bit misleading marketing it as a Beta. The standard dev industry definition for software that is labeled as a "beta", means that ALL features are there AND functional, from GFX to UI to Physics etc, this envelops the whole product. So every feature can be rigorously tested and ironed out, getting rid of bugs etc. Hard to test a feature if it isnt there :P.

If there are features that are non functional or missing, its clearly an Alpha, which is what we have here atm.

This isnt a post to complain about RF2...Just wanted to get that off my chest, pet peeve :P.
Click to expand...
You seem to be confusing Beta with Release Candidate.
 
You're not going to be able to call rF2 feature complete for a few years, if that is your basis for definition. rF1 wasn't out of beta until 2008 then. :)
 
There is ONE test version available to you, the one downloadable in this forum, the updates all go to that.
 
"alpha" "beta" "release candidate"... I don't give sh!t what you call it. I'm happy to just be playing whatever it is. I've already gotten $80 worth of fun out of it. And it will only get better.
 
Tim Wheatley said:
You're not going to be able to call rF2 feature complete for a few years, if that is your basis for definition
Click to expand...

It looks like very handy statement backing up potential flaws, indefinitely. Maybe would be more serious if "for a few years" was more precisely defined given with guarantee. Following your words, even gold release will remain a beta, right?

Please also check this page for definition of "beta version". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle. Let me to quote a fragment: It generally begins when the software is feature complete.

and also a word about open beta: Open betas serve the dual purpose of demonstrating a product to potential consumers, and testing among an extremely wide user base likely to bring to light obscure errors that a much smaller testing team may not find.

I'm quite sure, releasing half-finished product with use of "beta" for version is not best way to demonstrate it to audience. I think, it would be more friendly and fair to use general conventions in version naming. Even if most of us accepts current state, progress etc.

with regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Geez Maxym do you ever take a break? What Tim means is after gold release ISI will still continue to work on rF2 with content and updates for years to come. Quit picking apart every word like this is some sort of international court. :p
 
There is no general definition for "beta" in the software industry, and, by the way, ISI staff called it more often "Test version" than "beta". Nearly every company i worked for had a more or less slightly different definition of "beta".
Don't confuse Microsoft's definitions with industry wide definitions.
 
Nightrat said:
There is no general definition for "beta" in the software industry, and, by the way, ISI staff called it more often "Test version" than "beta". Nearly every company i worked for had a more or less slightly different definition of "beta".
Don't confuse Microsoft's definitions with industry wide definitions.
Click to expand...

Beta is just beta and has general definition. It means test of feature complete milestone (or version if you wish). There is no other definition of beta (but there are slightly differences). You cannot call product as beta if one is planned to be extended in future. There is no therm "beta forever". Just every single version has own alpha, beta, rc stages. (of course I'm not talking about garage-productions which usually doesn't fit any definition).
I agree that ISI staff started to use 'test version' therm. It is way better name. I would even call it "feature test". But for sure it is not beta version
 
MaXyM said:
Please also check this page for definition of "beta version". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle. Let me to quote a fragment: It generally begins when the software is feature complete.
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia article cites 6 pretty weak sources. That, combined with the fact that "generally" is included with you quote makes your argument a lot less substantial. Gjon and Tim have already stated that goal of rF2 is to never be feature complete. What software is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top