rec.autos.simulators

by Jo » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Actually the N2 patch was a major topic of interest for many months on
the 3dfx newsgroups.

Joe

by Jo » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>>Updating customers on the status of missed [or vague] ship dates is
>>only good busniess sense.
>It is if you have given a delivery commitment, but until today Papyrus
>have not missed any committed schedule for an N2 3dFX update.

Or if your delivery commitment is so vague that customers have no
choice but to interpret it themselves.

Joe

by Jo » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>We are in the last stages of getting this patch done. Andy is still
>working on some issues which we hope to have complete soon. No, I
>won't give you a date because I don't have one. When we have done all
>we can with the patch, we will release it. Sorry for the silence and
>the delay but trust me when I say it is coming. Thanks.

Thanks very much for the feedback you are able to provide, Adam, it's
appreciated. Looking forward to the patch!

Joe

by **Doug Henr** » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Thanks,
Thankfully I have other games and things do do while waiting! :)

>>We are in the last stages of getting this patch done. Andy is still
>>working on some issues which we hope to have complete soon. No, I
>>won't give you a date because I don't have one. When we have done all
>>we can with the patch, we will release it. Sorry for the silence and
>>the delay but trust me when I say it is coming. Thanks.

>Thanks very much for the feedback you are able to provide, Adam, it's
>appreciated. Looking forward to the patch!

>Joe

by **Ron** » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

..snip

Thanks Adam,
This is all that many of us needed to hear and
your time taken to post here is much appreciated. Please keep us
posted on any further news!
Ron L.

(Please remove the extra letter(s) to respond)

Home of the SSC http://www3.pgh.net/~lazer/
For Nascar2 & Winston Cup Fans!

by **Greg Cisk** » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>The potential "gain" is the avoidance of loss on tech support calls if
>the patch has stability problems, or needs integration with NROS, or
>doesn't work right on sub-standard CPUs, or whatever...

I doubt it. The tech support people will be there answering phones
whether the patch is released or not. It isn't like you can get more
*** out of a turnip or anything. Plus the 3dfx patch will probably
yeild dividends with regards to future products. In affect allowing
us to beta test the papy 3dfx engine. Any input via the tech support
lines should be a benifiet not a hinderence.

I'm sure it doesn't. But the whole deal should be properly budgeted
and should take these things into account. Or else new people need
to be in charge.

IMHO. I'm sure I am way out of line :-)

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **Greg Cisk** » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>If the atmosphere here is not conducive to a company feeling
>comfortable making any sort of official or even unofficial statement,

Really. IMHO the companies should be above the pissants who
flame them. I will even go so far as to claim that they could easily
post meaningful info here and *COMPLETELY* avoid the rabid
flaming idiots. How do I know? It is done all the time in the flight-sim
newsgroup, and frankly there is no reason why it cannot be done
here. They just need restraint in getting into some BS flamefest.
The way Dean handled the Alison review is a typical example of
how to completely***up your gig in a NG. Dean should have
completely ignored that review and carried on his bussiness, letting
CPR stand by it's own merrits (if it could). Apparently he has allot
to learn about dealing with NG's. But it can easily be done. Very
easily in fact as Adam has demonstrated recently, and as Jim
used to when he worked for Papy.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **Joel Willste** » Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>Subject says it all. It's February now, which is past "early 98" by
>any reasonable definition. Where's the promised patch?

>Joe

Joe

I don't think the Feb qualifies as being past early 98.
Personally I don't expect to see the patch more before the end of the
of the 1st quarter,(April).

Joel Willstein

by **Marc J. Nelso** » Thu, 05 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>...they're just holding it back to***people off!

It's working.

Cheers!

Marc

--

(please remove '*' when replying)

Sim Racing News - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
The Sim Project - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

* No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Thu, 05 Feb 1998 04:00:00

(snip)
It's working.

Cheers!

Marc
(unsnip)

LOL!!!
My first decent laugh of the day!
Thanx, Marc.
--
Bruce
(at work)

"Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get
tired."
(Jules Renard)

by **John Walla** » Thu, 05 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>Or if your delivery commitment is so vague that customers have no
>choice but to interpret it themselves.

...and then blame it on Papyrus when the date doesn't happen?

If the atmosphere here is not conducive to a company feeling
comfortable making any sort of official or even unofficial statement,
I hardly think they can be blamed for not meeting the schedules people
dream up in their absence.

IMO the software companies are doing their best, it's the people on
r.a.s. who are not.

Cheers!
John

by **plegr..** » Thu, 05 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Thanks very much for the info....its a relief to see that at least ONE
developer has not forgotten this forgotten newsgroup. Makes it less a
boys club and more of a useful place for news. Thanks again.

And yes I also really appreciate all the work the independent developers
are doing towards making all of our sims that much better. For instance
thanks to the Developer of the Name Editor...for F1 Racing sim...

Now if we could get more participation...

PAPA DOC

by **Jim Sokolof** » Thu, 05 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> >The potential "gain" is the avoidance of loss on tech support calls if
> >the patch has stability problems, or needs integration with NROS, or
> >doesn't work right on sub-standard CPUs, or whatever...

> I doubt it. The tech support people will be there answering phones
> whether the patch is released or not. It isn't like you can get more
> *** out of a turnip or anything.

Right, but I presume Sierra overflows calls to third-party providers
at times of heavier-than-anticipated volume. There are entire
companies whose sole purpose in life is to handle overflow calls from
call centers. (I know Papyrus used them when tech support was done
locally.) If they use these services, then indeed tech support is a
variable cost. Or, you can pay your existing staff overtime to handle
an increase in call volume, again making support a variable cost.

Agreed 100%

Yes, but that benefit comes at a cost; and if the cost exceeds the
value of the benefit, then an economic decision has to be made.

The people in charge are doing a great job in my admittedly colored
opinion (even though they don't sign my paychecks anymore, I'm sure I
can't be unbiased and I admit it).

:-)

---Jim

by **Steven Trave** » Thu, 05 Feb 1998 04:00:00

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:11:28 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>>The potential "gain" is the avoidance of loss on tech support calls if
>>the patch has stability problems, or needs integration with NROS, or
>>doesn't work right on sub-standard CPUs, or whatever...

>I doubt it. The tech support people will be there answering phones
>whether the patch is released or not. It isn't like you can get more
>*** out of a turnip or anything.

>snip<

It's not at ALL that simple, Greg. Tech support calls are tagged as
regarding a specific title, and these counts are used to spread the
costs of tech support among all the projects' bottom lines. It affects
royalties, etc.

steve

--
Steven Travers

by Jo » Thu, 05 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>...and then blame it on Papyrus when the date doesn't happen?

Well, it did get them to post an update, didn't it? ;-)

<"Look ma, I'm reelin' in a bigun!">

Joe

rec.autos.simulators

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?

Papyrus: it's no longer "early 98". Where's the Nascar2 3dfx patch?