Leopard 2E hotfix (for v3.011 and v3.019b)

[Tacbat]

Well I don't know why.

Exactly, so let those that do worry about it.

[Tjay]

EXE patches require merging branches of code and the full QA process, including internal beta testing. This fix, on the other hand, required changing one resource file where the amount changed is isolated to two parts on one vehicles armor. This fix was produced by Volcano in his spare time. Does that help explain the difference?

Which bug is the show stopper for you?

Thanks for your reply Sean. Obviously eSim finds making changes to the .exe file 'challenging', and therefore releases new versions only at infrequent intervals. I accept that as a fact. But it is also a fact that other game developers do not seem to have the same problem and jump on bugs pretty promptly. They have to do this because they are usually in a competitive market and would be punished financially if they did not.

Show stopper? Well, I continue to play Steel Beasts and enjoy it. But I have - like many others I know - totally given up on the Mech Inf side of the game. Previous posts on the subject mean that eSim must be aware of what the problems are, if not how to fix them. (If not, I can provide an extensive list :clin:). When 3.002 came out with apparently a much greater focus on counter-insurgency (civilians, multiiple parties, etc) there was great expectation that most of the Mech Inf bugs would be gone.

As I said (rouighly) in my previous post: 'Surely this must be harming the Company's chances of selling the Pro version to armed forces bearing in mind everyone's current focus on training for this type of warfare?'

I'm sure everyone in this forum wishes eSim to be successful, and are therefore mystified as to why these problems are not being addressed as a matter of extreme urgency. If you tell me that the current Mech Inf situation is NOT harming SB Pro sales I will accept what you say - but with, I'm afraid, a 'degree of sceptism'.

[Tjay]

Exactly, so let those that do worry about it.

So it is unreasonable for me, a customer, to politely request an explanation?

[Tjay]

Because:

1. The word obviously didn't go "round like wildfire and everyone updated asap" and

2. It most certainly didn't take "only about 5min for everyone to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'"

Now perhaps the IL2 community is different (no idea) but this is the way things have happened here for the last three major updates / public betas.

OK, here's a suggestion. Make TGIF strictly 3.011 - and state that fact on a sticky in the forum. If there is some reason that wouldn't work, I'm all ears. But I find it very odd using a beta version - which many people do not have, and for which licenses are no longer available - to play an officially-sanctioned sanctioned multiplayer event was ever considered.

[Tacbat]

But it is also a fact that other game developers do not seem to have the same problem and jump on bugs pretty promptly.

I'm sure everyone in this forum wishes eSim to be successful, and are therefore mystified as to why these problems are not being addressed as a matter of extreme urgency.

You wouldn't say that if you knew how many bug fixes have been done since 3.011 came out.

So it is unreasonable for me, a customer, to politely request an explanation?

Ignorance is bliss. Let the big boys worry about why things are the way they are, and move along.

Yes, you are a customer, as am I, but remember who the big customers are.

OK, here's a suggestion. Make TGIF strictly 3.011

Interesting, coming from someone who regularly attends TGIF. :heu:

[Sean]

Thanks for your reply Sean. Obviously eSim finds making changes to the .exe file 'challenging', and therefore releases new versions only at infrequent intervals. I accept that as a fact. But it is also a fact that other game developers do not seem to have the same problem and jump on bugs pretty promptly. They have to do this because they are usually in a competitive market and would be punished financially if they did not.

Show stopper? Well, I continue to play Steel Beasts and enjoy it. But I have - like many others I know - totally given up on the Mech Inf side of the game. Previous posts on the subject mean that eSim must be aware of what the problems are, if not how to fix them. (If not, I can provide an extensive list :clin:). When 3.002 came out with apparently a much greater focus on counter-insurgency (civilians, multiiple parties, etc) there was great expectation that most of the Mech Inf bugs would be gone.

As I said (rouighly) in my previous post: 'Surely this must be harming the Company's chances of selling the Pro version to armed forces bearing in mind everyone's current focus on training for this type of warfare?'

I'm sure everyone in this forum wishes eSim to be successful, and are therefore mystified as to why these problems are not being addressed as a matter of extreme urgency. If you tell me that the current Mech Inf situation is NOT harming SB Pro sales I will accept what you say - but with, I'm afraid, a 'degree of sceptism'.

Many bugs will be fixed in the next release. I know of at least one that involves troops loading and unloading and refusal of that pc to move afterwards. Like I said, you aren't specifying what the problem is, so its hard to say more about it.

[Sean]

OK - lets try to keep it positive guys. This thread is supposed to be about a hotfix for a leopard armor problem and its degenerated from there. If there is something that you want fixed, then make sure there is a thread with a .sce file attached that quickly reproduces your problem with as few vehicles/units as necessary to make it happen.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Sean
spelling

[Volcano]

Yes, to add what Sean said:

Can we all just accept this fix and lets wait for the next beta/patch? More bugs will be fixed in due time. Don't worry.

Also, something has to be made clear once and for all:

Beta testers are NOT affiliated with eSim other than that they volunteer their personal time to help test Steel Beasts. They aren't officially paid, they aren't under contract, nor are they under any sort of agreement. In short, they can speak their mind just like everyone else in the community can, but they must adhere to the forum and community rules of course.

That said, there is no reason why we all (Beta testers and customers alike) cannot be civil, respectful, and polite to each other. I can understand that Tjay is expecting something more because he is comparing Steel Beasts to Game X, but we have to also understand why some people (like Tacbat in this case) might think that is rude/ungrateful and so he takes offense and may not word his posts as politely as he should. However, that is his right, just like it is Tjay's right to bring this up. There seems to be some kind of one-way-street mentality here. You guys can block and mute each other all you like, it is everyone's right to do so and usually goes both ways. Personally though, this thread is a bit discouraging to me to take the time to do another hotfix, maybe I should have just waited for the next Beta. Lesson learned.

Other than that, let me just say that I cannot take adequate time to explain why the patches are the way that they are, other than the fact that you cannot compare Steel Beasts with IL-2, especially because (assuming you are referring to the latest IL-2 Stalingrad??) their business model is to release constant free updates, but lock you out of content until you pay for it. So, their "fixes" are actually also adding more content, similar to Rise of Flight. We choose to offer a single upgrade that adds EVERYTHING, for one payment. We do this because we actually want to accumulate enough changes and test them out before hand to make them worth the payment, rather than consciously throwing more bugs onto the consumer. Because of that approach, we just cannot fix one thing at a time in the old version, because we have moved on in the code, kind of like painting a picture. Each release is basically a snapshot in the history of the code, so going back and fixing something is tricky. This is a typical problem in game design and that is why there is content progression with new upgrades, but not with patches. Basically a new update is released, the code base is of that version, then it is maintained for some time while another branch of the code continues to evolve. At some point the old branch is abandoned and assimilated into the new release and the process repeats. BTW, if you talking about the fixes to the old IL-2, then you would be the referring to a fan group that now posses the code, and their goal is to fix bugs and not really to add new content (so the opposite extreme, little to no content or new features added so perpetual bug fixes are building upon each other).

Anyway, I am not sure if that is a helpful or sufficient explanation but let's try to take away two things here:

1) Let's remain calm, another Beta will fix more bugs soon.

2) We all want the same thing here (less bugs).

I have said all I am going to say on this topic...

Edited October 31, 2014 by Volcano
typos, clarifications

[Tacom]

@Volcano, whatever you do somebody is going to disagree, so, please, if there is something easy to fix like has been the case with the Leo, do it.

IMHO, the percentage of people discussing here is not representative of your player base and would be an error to make decissions based only in our input.

[Ssnake]

Other game developers crank out patches faster for several reasons, typically because...:

1. The have implemented a "push" service for updates like the Windows Update mechanism, or the Steam subscription model.
   We can't do that easily because we're working with a fifteen year old code base that wasn't prepared for it (and frankly, it wasn't intended to grow for decades as it turned out to do). We might change that at some point, but it's a major development task and we have to find the time for it.
2. Other game developers have to focus only on one particular game (and the simultaneous development of the next title).
   We are currently maintaining at least six other code branches, and we have a number of development contracts that are coming to an end. Contractual obligations with delivery deadlines are always our priority #1.
3. Some of the bugs that you alluded to (but never elaborated on) as "surely hurting our sales of the classroom version to armies" may indeed have been fixed already. In fact, there's a truckload of bugfixes waiting for the next free update which we announced to be coming before the end of the year (hopefully faster).
   So, why aren't we releasing them already in a nice piecemeal fashion?
   Because releasing a version requires at least a minimal QA test with a dozen people kicking the tires for a month before we let it roll off the yard.

Everybody in the team can vividly imagine how the same people that demand faster bug fixes are ready to complain about those bug fixes introducing new problems once that they have been "rushed to the front", which may explain the reserved reaction that you got.

The thing is, you can't have the cake and eat it at the same time: In software development you have a triad of "Good, Fast, and Cheap." But you may only pick two, or you must be willing to compromise. SB Pro is supposed to be cheap, and good. Be careful when demanding that we should be faster, there will be consequences.

"Cheap" in this context is highly relative, of course. We've said it countless times before, and I say it again: Steel Beasts Pro PE is not intended as a game. Surely you can play and have fun with it. But it's designed as a tool for training and education in mounted warfare and combined arms combat tactics.

As a software tool in this extremely small market (some armies have fewer than 300 armored combat vehicles in their inventories ... how many classroom licenses do you think they are ordering) Steel Beasts is about as cheap as it gets before you have to sacrifice some serious capability. And we seriously try to keep the overall code quality high. But eSim Games' survival as a business hinges on two things - software maintenance contracts for the classroom version, and software development/customization contracts. Such contracts will therefore always be our top priority. Priority #2 is bug killing, #3 is the addition of new features that close a capability gap, #4 is about everything else.

We have ramped up our development team from one to four programmers, from one to four main artists. That is a substantial increase in development team size. It doesn't mean that we can work four times faster, though - some of the energy now goes into the coordination of who does what, and when. So maybe we effectively tripled the development speed in the broadest sense.

It doesn't mean that every development task can now be finished in a third of the time however: If one woman can give birth to a child in nine months, nine women ... do the math for yourself. It's more of a parallelization, you work on more and different items at the same time. One of these tasks has been going on for more than a year now (and will probably take at least another six to nine months), so that single developer alone is seemingly not contributing to bug fixing. But he does other important work, and the results you will see one day.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ssnake
Tagfixing

[Gibsonm]

OK, here's a suggestion. Make TGIF strictly 3.011 - and state that fact on a sticky in the forum. If there is some reason that wouldn't work, I'm all ears. But I find it very odd using a beta version - which many people do not have, and for which licenses are no longer available - to play an officially-sanctioned sanctioned multiplayer event was ever considered.

You seem to be missing the fact from my post that the same "issue" happened for:

1. The transition from 3.002 to 3.011 (non Beta patch - Official release version to Official release version)

AND

2. the 3.017 and 3.019 Betas.

So its not limited to Betas.

The issue is the slow adoption of the new version (regardless of it being a Beta or not) in this group compared to your earlier comments about another forum/product where news about it was rapidly transmitted and everybody had moved uniformly to the new version very rapidly.

[Tjay]

Many bugs will be fixed in the next release. I know of at least one that involves troops loading and unloading and refusal of that pc to move afterwards. Like I said, you aren't specifying what the problem is, so its hard to say more about it.

Good to hear. It's just that it would be nice to have the bugs fixed sooner rather than later, but if that can't be done, we'll just have to wait.

Regarding specific bugs, all the ones I know of have been mentioned on this forum before and may well be in the list of 'bugs already fixed but awaiting release'. However, I will consult with others and pm you a list. Unfortunately, because these issues are things like IFVs refusing to follow routes, refusing to move unless the owner player keeps hitting the W key, spinning on their access without player input, etc, they aren't very photogenic and I personally don't have Rotaraneg's expertise with making movies.

[Tjay]

You seem to be missing the fact from my post that the same "issue" happened for:

1. The transition from 3.002 to 3.011 (non Beta patch - Official release version to Official release version)

AND

2. the 3.017 and 3.019 Betas.

So its not limited to Betas.

You are quite right Mark. I misread you previous post and thought you were referring to recent TGIFs. I guess at the time of new versions being released, players will continue to turn up in blissful ignorance of the fact.

[Tjay]

Other game developers crank out patches faster for several reasons, typically because...:

1. The have implemented a "push" service for updates like the Windows Update mechanism, or the Steam subscription model. SNIPPED FOR BREVITY.
   
   Many thanks for your most informative and reasonable post. As expected, you understood that I was submitting a RFI so I might better understand what to me is a somewhat frustrating situation. Which I now do.
   Shame that others have chipped in with unhelpful comments that contribute nothing to the debate, but that's inevitable in an open forum like this one I guess.

[Tjay]

Yes, to add what Sean said:

Can we all just accept this fix and lets wait for the next beta/patch? More bugs will be fixed in due time. Don't worry.

Also, something has to be made clear once and for all:

Beta testers are NOT affiliated with eSim other than that they volunteer their personal time to help test Steel Beasts. They aren't officially paid, they aren't under contract, nor are they under any sort of agreement. In short, they can speak their mind just like everyone else in the community can, but they must adhere to the forum and community rules of course.

That said, there is no reason why we all (Beta testers and customers alike) cannot be civil, respectful, and polite to each other. I can understand that Tjay is expecting something more because he is comparing Steel Beasts to Game X, but we have to also understand why some people (like Tacbat in this case) might think that is rude/ungrateful and so he takes offense and may not word his posts as politely as he should. However, that is his right, just like it is Tjay's right to bring this up. There seems to be some kind of one-way-street mentality here. You guys can block and mute each other all you like, it is everyone's right to do so and usually goes both ways. Personally though, this thread is a bit discouraging to me to take the time to do another hotfix, maybe I should have just waited for the next Beta. Lesson learned.

Other than that, let me just say that I cannot take adequate time to explain why the patches are the way that they are, other than the fact that you cannot compare Steel Beasts with IL-2, especially because (assuming you are referring to the latest IL-2 Stalingrad??) their business model is to release constant free updates, but lock you out of content until you pay for it. So, their "fixes" are actually also adding more content, similar to Rise of Flight. We choose to offer a single upgrade that adds EVERYTHING, for one payment. We do this because we actually want to accumulate enough changes and test them out before hand to make them worth the payment, rather than consciously throwing more bugs onto the consumer. Because of that approach, we just cannot fix one thing at a time in the old version, because we have moved on in the code, kind of like painting a picture. Each release is basically a snapshot in the history of the code, so going back and fixing something is tricky. This is a typical problem in game design and that is why there is content progression with new upgrades, but not with patches. Basically a new update is released, the code base is of that version, then it is maintained for some time while another branch of the code continues to evolve. At some point the old branch is abandoned and assimilated into the new release and the process repeats. BTW, if you talking about the fixes to the old IL-2, then you would be the referring to a fan group that now posses the code, and their goal is to fix bugs and not really to add new content (so the opposite extreme, little to no content or new features added so perpetual bug fixes are building upon each other).

Anyway, I am not sure if that is a helpful or sufficient explanation but let's try to take away two things here:

1) Let's remain calm, another Beta will fix more bugs soon.

2) We all want the same thing here (less bugs).

I have said all I am going to say on this topic...

Many thanks V. You and Nils always respond to this sort of thing in an intelligent, rational, calm and informative manner. I now fully accept that due to eSims business model and some problems with an elderly code, bug fixes cannot be released in between official releases. A shame, because it means in this case that the Mech Inf side of the sim will remain well below optimum until next year. But so be it.

Personally, I don't see how expressing 'disappointment' (a very mild word in my vocabulary) and 'concern' (a positive word meaning 'I care') could be taken to be 'rude and ungrateful', and it's nice to know that Tacbbat is expressing a personal opinion not in any way attributable to eSim.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Tjay
Typo

[Tjay]

You wouldn't say that if you knew how many bug fixes have been done since 3.011 came out.

Ignorance is bliss. Let the big boys worry about why things are the way they are, and move along.

Yes, you are a customer, as am I, but remember who the big customers are.

Interesting, coming from someone who regularly attends TGIF. :heu:

This post and the previous one in the same vein are condescending, patronizing and unworthy of you Tacbat.

[Tjay]

@Volcano, whatever you do somebody is going to disagree, so, please, if there is something easy to fix like has been the case with the Leo, do it.

IMHO, the percentage of people discussing here is not representative of your player base and would be an error to make decissions based only in our input.

+1

[MDF]

...We are currently maintaining at least six other code branches ...

That sounds painful.:eek2:

[Asid]

Dear "community"

I am saddened by what seems to be a recurring theme within this forum. The response given by certain individuals to what are in many cases sincere, non-malevolent questions and concerns is often scathing, condescending or both. Can a person not ask a question in order to solicit a mature and reasonable response? Can a person not post here without some people (a small but consistent minority) taking a query or comment about Steel Beasts as a personal attack? I understand that people can be passionate and protective about certain things. However are people not allowed to ask questions, disagree or express any opinions? Is that not the essence of a forum?

Concerning the matter of relationship between posters and esims. I would like to say, if i may? That having a persons name listed under a specific department within esims, displayed in the end credits implies/illustrates an association with the company.

when there is a symbiosis between a person and a company then that person needs to consider there behaviour in public as they can and often are seen as representatives of the company. Do they have a right to express their opinion? Yes but they should remain professional at all times.

Could this be the reason why many do not post here because they fear an "attack"? This forum can go days without new posts being made....Could there be a relationship here?

This is not MY interpretation of what community is.

On the question of the "hot fix". I applaud the efforts made. Thank you.

regards

[Grenny]

.....sincere, non-malevolent questions and concerns ...

...

Questions of any kind are answered quickly here, and often help the questioner.

A question laced with pointed remarks will cause an echo too, as SOMEONE is bound to pick it up or pick it up the wrong way or just has his "immature day" of the week. Thats allways going to happen, unless you want to engage in serious post-censoring.

[Volcano]

Dear "community"

Concerning the matter of relationship between posters and esims. I would like to say, if i may? That having a persons name listed under a specific department within esims, displayed in the end credits implies/illustrates an association with the company.

when there is a symbiosis between a person and a company then that person needs to consider there behaviour in public as they can and often are seen as representatives of the company. Do they have a right to express their opinion? Yes but they should remain professional at all times.

Well, I mentioned that I was not going to say anything more about the subject of updates versus patches, versus this "hotfix" but the above comment must be addressed (regarding association).

You have every right to interpret things as you like, but the problem here is that there is a mentality in this community (and everywhere else where a company produces a product and allows the customer to "discuss" it in forums) that complaints and displeasure can only go one direction. In other words, the customer can say what they want but the developer cannot. In this particular case, which is quite silly IMO, we are trying to draw a connection of association as a way to retaliate against someone who apparently offended another person because of the way he worded his post. I have seen this several times now and I am getting quite tired of it.

The problem here is that Tjay went too far with his posts, and then he retracted. When I say "too far", I mean that he literally hijacked the thread, a thread that existed simply as a "here is a fix to a bug" which turned into an "explain to me why other bugs are not fixed like this" thread. I don't care how you look at it, that will come off as ungrateful to some people. When a reasonable person goes too far then the usual reaction is to retract and say that it was not your intention and that you were misunderstood. Fine, the discussion should have ended there, but it didn't. As I said, I personally don't have a problem with Tjay's posts. I am also absolutely against censorship, and I am huge fan of "calling people out". I will not hesitate to call someone out, and I expect the same to be done to me, directly. All of this goes both ways though. You can post whatever you want (within forum rules), but you better be prepared for the consequence and the subsequent reply if you step on toes. Action and reaction. Some people have a high tolerance for that toe stepping, some do not. Everyone is different.

In any case someone got offended by the fact that this thread was hijacked. That is the source of the situation.

But let's talk about the idea that certain people are somehow associated with Steel Beasts, therefore they aren't allowed to disagree or express displeasure towards others. If anyone contributes to SB then your name appears in the credits, this much is true. For example, Assassin was kind enough to provide us with information regarding the M1A2 to help us simulate it so his name appears in the credits. However, does that mean he has to be "professional" or that he is associated with eSim? No, certainly not. He can say whatever he wants.

So this leads us to the testers. As I said time and time again, they devote their own personal time without any substantial compensation (they do get a free copy of the upgrade; we try to do what we can). Since they contribute to the development of SB, their names appear in the credits, no different than anyone else. Beyond that, this a free world and they can say what they want as long as they abide by the forum and community rules. I am not going to censor or restrict someone's right to speak their mind, and sometimes I may speak my mind as well (like now). That said, if there is some idea that we are going to get rid of someone that volunteers their own personal time to the development of SB on the basis that they offended someone because of how they worded a post, then you are mistaken, especially because good testers are a valuable and rare commodity. Sorry if you are upset with that, but that is just how it is. That said, if a tester repeatedly violates the community and forum rules, threatens another person, or other serious offenses like that, then of course eSim would take action after a pattern of serious violations. But other than that, I think everyone can see that eSim and forum moderators are very tolerant towards everybody. Should Tacbat have used more tact in his reply? It certainly would have helped, but that is his personal choice and the consequence of what he says are his own, just like the consequence of Tjay's posts are his own. Not mine, and certainly not eSim's. PERSON X may piss everyone off to the degree that no one wants to talk to him anymore nor be buddies with him, but that is the consequence. That is how these things play out in the real world.

Personally I think that our community is just too sensitive, hyper sensitive really, and especially so in the past two years or so (I have been around for 14+ years, and seen it all). This is a topic for another thread though, but I would like for us all to act like adults and stop getting so easily offended with each other (this goes both ways!). Let things roll off your back more. This stuff has a way to drive software developers to the point of insanity.

So...

Tacbat: try to be more tactful in your replies.

Tjay: if you want to get a jab in that more bugs should be fixed, fine, I welcome reminders and discussions about bugs because it helps with prioritizing, but you should specifically mention the bugs that bother you and leave it at that.

Everyone else: if someone makes you upset, then tell them directly. Confront them about it either via PM or Teamspeak if it bothers you enough. Too often certain people resort to posting about it, or emailing others, or "stirring the pot" by sitting around talking about it in Teamspeak with others. This is not helpful and it only encourages more hyper sensitivity in the community. Confront the source and if they do nothing about it then do not associate with that person. Case closed. That is what adults do, and since I know we are all capable of doing that and are adults, then we should all be able to handle it.

That fact that we have a several page derailment here over something that should have just been just for reporting further issues is sad really. I apologize to the community for having to witness this train wreck.

Anyway, I think I have covered everything here. Remarks complete. I am closing the thread so that we can all move on.

NOTE:

If anyone notices any issues with the Leo 2E in regards to the fix above, then please post it in a new support forum thread.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Volcano
grammar

[Ssnake]

Finally, try to read every comment in the forum in the most positive way in which you cna interpret it. There may be occasions where a comment can be read in more than one way, and choosing the most positive option not only helps to keep the response moderate but also helps everybody with a better mood in daily life.

We're limited to the written word here, misunderstandings are inevitable. If every misunderstaning is the jump-off point for rhetoric escalation the forum indeed loses its purpose of exchanging ideas and opinions.