Papy are aware of 1.1 probs

OK, Papy made a bit of a hash of beta-testing the patch, (and making the patch I suppose). However, firstly don't forget they at least DID produce the patch, as they had been promising for so long. Also, I've noticed a couple of postings in the forum at gpl.gamestats.com (The Apex) from Eric T Busch, who is part of Papyrus. Basically it seems Papy are aware of the problems, and will try to fix them. The 2 main problems seem to be that on certain systems (including my own), (a) some people get consistently low framerates (25fps) and time running slowly, while some get 37-8fps and time running fast. (b) the massive fluctuations in game speed in online play. Don't forget the patch came out on Friday. It has been the weekend, so they have not had time to START working on a fix yet. Perhaps we should give them a bit of a break? Mike West 3DNow! UK: www.3dnow.freeserve.co.uk

<SNIP> <END SNIP> Thanks for the info, but with regards to the comment above, isn't a "patch" a "fix" in itself? Given that, I find the idea that a company needs time to START working on a fix for what was supposed to be a "fix" in the first place a bid ludicrous. I truly applaud Papy for releasing the patch in the first place, and for backtracking to provide FF support where there was none before, but they do deserve a bit of a slap on the snout for not involving a broad enough cross-section of users as beta testers in the first place. Either they KNEW about these problems and released the patch hoping no one would notice, or the DIDN'T know about the problems, which indicates a bid of shoddy testing on their part. It took no time at all for a large percentage of the people here to learn of the problems, while it seems a small few have experienced no problems at all -- do these numbers correlate with Papy's beta test results, I wonder? At any rate, I imagine that right now, WE are ALL Papy's beta-testers. The patch is out, they'll (probably) work on further fixes for the patch, and I imagine that in the end we'll see a re-release of GPL in stores, possibly a NEW versioin ("Grand Prix Legends II" perhaps?) touting "Force Feedback" support once they get the bugs ironed out of the patch. There's a long history of this within the company -- look at how many variations of NASCAR 2 we have available, and then there's CART Racing, which is merely a repackaged version of ICR2 with full Rendition support. Granted, the variations bring various enhancements, and Papy always gives us a superb product overall, but I think that if the current patch is actually a beta patch, it should have been released as such, along with full disclosure of what problems people might encounter. Graphic card manufacturers release beta versions of their video drivers to the general public all the time -- why can't game companies be forthright about releasing patches that are still (or should be) in the beta stages due to known bugs? All in all, though, I have to say kudos to Papy, and raspberries to Papy. Keep up the good work -- now fix what needs to be fixed, please. -- JB

No, a patch is NOT necessarily a "fix". In this case there were more features that were added to the game than features that were fixed. Backtracking to provide FF support? Huh? Are you smoking something the world hasn't seen yet? Good grief, when they wrote the game in the first place FF was just on the horizon and and was only beginning to make a notion of itself, let alone have at least decent devices out for them to test with. All you are doing is speculating about how bad of job Papyrus did with the patch, but later you will go on to say "kudos" to them. Make up your mind. The patch is free. Don't like it? Don't use it. Thats not necessarily Papyrus, that would be more in the realm of Sierra's marketing department. Not to mention, since it was primarily Randy, I do believe, doing the patch and not an entire section of Papyrus, I doubt they had the resources to do as full blown of beta testing job as they did the first time, so they might not have been aware that the problems would crop up quite as badly in a few instances as they did. And the patch wasn't released as anything such as beta, alpha, retail, etc, it was just released. Deal with it. You didn't pay a dime for it. Don't like it don't use it, GPL was fairly bug free to start with and runs well without it. Who says there were known bugs upon release? Got inside information you wish to share with us John? If not, all you are doing is making rampant speculation. Thats all after you ranted and raved about the patch being "beta" and that they shouldn't have released it unless they were going to say its a "beta" patch?

<snip> > of the "GPL 1.1 IS CRAP" kind of ranting I've seen in some posts, and > despite my good intentions, YOU turn my post into a negative rant. > Thanks Chris -- pat yourself on the back. Well-done, Maestro. John, You are correct it was NOT a "GPL1.1 IS CRAP" rant, but it was still a rant nonetheless. Or at least thats the way it came across to me, and therefore my opinion. > As for the issues at hand, I've got to disagree with you on the issue > of a patch not necessarily being a "fix," at least in this case. GPL > 1.1 is definitely a patch AND fix -- the GPL 1.1 "patch" does a couple > of different things, if you want to get technical: It ADDS Force > Feedback support, and supposedly FIXES or enhances some aspects of the > on-line gaming support. Um, depends on your view I guess. A "patch", at least to me in terms I deal with them on a daily basis, is that it can contain both new features and/or fixes. Therefore a "patch" is something that changes the way the said software works. Which includes both fixes and new features either together or seperately. Actually it adds FF and dedicated servers, which I suppose fall under "enhances some aspects of on-line gaming support". Perhaps it would have been better to distribute a "fix" that fixed any issues with GPL1.0, then also delivery an upgrade for those who wanted new features (or at least FF). But then again, I have no idea how much each of those fixes, upgrades and new features interact or are independent/dependent on each other. Only Randy could really answer that, and it maybe that they ended up being dependent on each other so had to all be installed at the same time. <shrugs>

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Also, I say they are "backtracking" to provide FF support because GPL > came out at almost exactly the same time as Viper Racing (Q3/4 1998), > and VR offered FF right out of the box, while Papy boldly stated that > they CHOSE not to include FF support in GPL because they didn't feel > that Force Feedback technology was "mature" enough yet, I believe. > Given this, I don't think you have a leg to stand on when you say that > "FF was just on the horizon and was only beginning to make a notion of > itself"; MGI seemed to succeed with their FF implementation in Viper > Racing right out of the box, which has set the high mark for FF > effects up to this point. Papy missed the boat on FF entirely -- by > their own DECISION -- and now, thanks to Randy's efforts, they're just > getting on-board the FF wagon.

Just because it came out at the same time as Viper Racing John, does not mean it was in production up til that point. They very well may have finished the game 6 months or a year before and were testing it and making small enhancements, fixes, tweaks, etc to the code or finishing up licensing issues, etc. So you don't really know at what time they felt that FF, and you see how long it took Randy to get the patch together by himself -- half that maybe at most and thats how long it might have taken to implement it initially, wasn't on mature enough. So of course I have a leg to stand on, unless you can tell me exactly when the decision was made not to support ForceFeedback. I am more than willing to bet it was at least 6 months or more before the product shipped. Just getting on-board the FF wagon? I think thats an understatement. The only other decent attempt at FF was Viper Racing....and GPL's implementation is much much better, so I think they didn't get onboard, but upped the ante. > >All you are doing is speculating about how bad of job Papyrus did with the > >patch, but later you will go on to say "kudos" to them. Make up your mind.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> They did good, but there's still more to be done. As I pointed out, > what they ADDED seems to work nicely from what I hear (the FF effects, > that is), hence the kudos. On the other hand, some aspects of the > game have suffered from the patch (the frame rate slowdowns/speedups), > so that's bad. Now, thanks to the patch, there are things that need > to be fixed. That's bad, too. So what is there to make my mind up > about?

So there are things that need to be fixed. Doesn't mean they necessarily came out in testing at Papyrus. > I'm not (see below for more details). I never said I didn't like it, > though -- in fact, I never even hinted at it. I've noticed you've > used this same line in other posts on this subject -- you sure seem to > be touchy today. Did somebody put Absorbine Jr. in your athletic > supporter this morning, or is your Force Feedback wheel out on loan, > too? <G> Heh, both and rollouts on two projects, lack of sleep, etc...but irregardless, perhaps I am a bit touchy today. :P

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Let's see a show of hands -- how many people here would have > volunteered to serve as beta testers for Randy (raise your hand, > Chris)? Beta testers are typically unpaid volunteers -- volunteers > don't require much in the way of resources; in fact, volunteers mean > ADDED resources FOR NO ADDITIONAL COST. As I said in my original > post, Papy deserves a bit of a slap on the snout for not involving a > broad enough cross-section of users as beta testers in the first > place. Thank you for supporting my point here.

Yes, but you have to organize those volunteers, NDAs, etc, etc. :) However, perhaps they in a way are having a very broad cross-section now since they did release it, perhaps they got sick of all the questions of when it was going to be released? :) Its now been tested and now they know where some problems are. :) > A) I get my FF wheel back from the friend who is currently using it; Its very nice, I enjoy the further immersion into the sim and haven't, personally, noticed really any framerate reduction. > B) I find out that some kind of solution has been found for the frame > rate slowdown/speedup problems. Not everyone is experiencing it, however its been said several times, even now finally by Randy himself, that they know about it and are looking into it.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Geez, man -- calm down (I'd recommend cutting a little bit of caffeine > out of your diet for starters). I'm not the one making "rampant > speculation" -- GPL 1.1 has KNOWN bugs (we know about them now). I > said NOTHING about known bugs on release of ANYTHING in particular -- > what I said was (and I quote, just in case the words in the paragraph > above escape your notice): "Why can't game companies be forthright > about releasing patches that are still (or should be) in the beta > stages due to known bugs?" I specifically avoided referring to Papy > or the GPL 1.1 patch, because I was talking about ALL game companies > (which is why I said "Why can't GAME COMPANIES..." and not "Why can't > PAPYRUS...").

Ok, so perhaps I misread it, and apologize, because you are very correct in the statement. Take SSI's latest release of Fighting Steel or Microproses Falcon 4.0....those were very very big disasters. Heck Fighting Steel was suppose dto ship with 8 person internet play, and didn't..now its supposed to be a couple months before 4 person internet play shows up.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> PLENTY of companies have released patches with known bugs, so I'm not > singling Papy or Randy out here. One example that comes to mind is > the V2x00 Rendition patch for ICR2 had a known bug; it worked fine > with the V2200 Rendition cards, but didn't work well with V2100 cards, > and this was known up-front -- AND this was made known up-front. No > hassle, no confusion -- a known bug, revealed up-front, use at your > own risk. THAT is the way it should be done (hats off to Papy and/or > the Rendition folks on this one, BTW -- I'm not sure who gets credit > for the V2x00 ICR2 patch).

Well, lots of companies do include readme files that have known problems or bugs in them. Those that do should be credited, those that don't should be shamed I guess.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I don't know if Randy and/or Papy knew of the bugs in the GPL 1.1 > patch, and I don't claim to know (never did, in fact). When bugs > exist, though, it's either an indication that insufficient testing was > done prior to release, or a decision was made to go ahead and get it > out despite the problems/shortcomings/bugs. I don't know which was > the case with the GPL 1.1 release, but either way, there's definitely > a bug or two in there.

Depends. And this isn't to say this is what happened with the patch, but sometimes bugs crop up that the developers never expect. > If the frame rate slowdown and real-time discrepancies created by the > GPL 1.1 patch aren't BUGS, for example, then I don't know what is -- > surely Randy and Papy didn't INTEND for these things to occur. Definetly I'm sure they didn't...I'm confident we can all agree here. :) > Whether or not they knew about them in advance is debateable -- and > I've given them the benefit of the doubt on this by pointing out that > they EITHER knew about these problems and released the patch anyway, > OR they didn't know about the problems at all, which indicates that > they probably should have involved a greater number of beta testers. Hard to say without knowing how much testing went on. But normally its not quite that black and white.

but they do deserve a Maybe Papyrus is starting to follow the ID patch model of releasing a quick fix a(how many months??!!) and then fixing the fix when the bug reports roll in. :) dave henrie

The negative reports always outnumber the positive. Reporting problems helps build a consensus for action, reporting kudos is generally thought of as redundant. I'll take anything Papyrus gives and be thankful for it. Since you're not privy to testing information your premise is based upon a guess. Not a slam, just a fact. It works fine for me so there's a positive post. Beta testing is limited by many factors. Bottom line , do you want the patch now or nothing because it took too long to account for all of the possible machine and user configs? Best, Greg Avella Gavel

"Chris Schletter" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> Thanks for the info, but with regards to the comment above, isn't a >> "patch" a "fix" in itself? Given that, I find the idea that a company >> needs time to START working on a fix for what was supposed to be a >> "fix" in the first place a bid ludicrous. I truly applaud Papy for >> releasing the patch in the first place, and for backtracking to >> provide FF support where there was none before, but they do deserve a >> bit of a slap on the snout for not involving a broad enough >> cross-section of users as beta testers in the first place. >No, a patch is NOT necessarily a "fix". In this case there were more >features that were added to the game than features that were fixed. >Backtracking to provide FF support? Huh? Are you smoking something the >world hasn't seen yet? Good grief, when they wrote the game in the first >place FF was just on the horizon and and was only beginning to make a notion >of itself, let alone have at least decent devices out for them to test with.

No, I'm not "smoking something." Why the hostile and aggressive attitude on your part -- you sound as though I've insulted your grandmother, and that's definitely not the case. I made this post with the intention of giving Papy (and Randy) the credit they deserve, while pointing out -- in a level-headed manner -- what still needs to be done, and to encourage them to do it and not just leave things as they are. I did this in an attempt to provide a counterpoint to some of the "GPL 1.1 IS CRAP" kind of ranting I've seen in some posts, and despite my good intentions, YOU turn my post into a negative rant. Thanks Chris -- pat yourself on the back. Well-done, Maestro. As for the issues at hand, I've got to disagree with you on the issue of a patch not necessarily being a "fix," at least in this case. GPL 1.1 is definitely a patch AND fix -- the GPL 1.1 "patch" does a couple of different things, if you want to get technical: It ADDS Force Feedback support, and supposedly FIXES or enhances some aspects of the on-line gaming support. Also, I say they are "backtracking" to provide FF support because GPL came out at almost exactly the same time as Viper Racing (Q3/4 1998), and VR offered FF right out of the box, while Papy boldly stated that they CHOSE not to include FF support in GPL because they didn't feel that Force Feedback technology was "mature" enough yet, I believe. Given this, I don't think you have a leg to stand on when you say that "FF was just on the horizon and was only beginning to make a notion of itself"; MGI seemed to succeed with their FF implementation in Viper Racing right out of the box, which has set the high mark for FF effects up to this point. Papy missed the boat on FF entirely -- by their own DECISION -- and now, thanks to Randy's efforts, they're just getting on-board the FF wagon.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>Either >> they KNEW about these problems and released the patch hoping no one >> would notice, or the DIDN'T know about the problems, which indicates a >> bid of shoddy testing on their part. It took no time at all for a >> large percentage of the people here to learn of the problems, while it >> seems a small few have experienced no problems at all -- do these >> numbers correlate with Papy's beta test results, I wonder? >All you are doing is speculating about how bad of job Papyrus did with the >patch, but later you will go on to say "kudos" to them. Make up your mind.

They did good, but there's still more to be done. As I pointed out, what they ADDED seems to work nicely from what I hear (the FF effects, that is), hence the kudos. On the other hand, some aspects of the game have suffered from the patch (the frame rate slowdowns/speedups), so that's bad. Now, thanks to the patch, there are things that need to be fixed. That's bad, too. So what is there to make my mind up about? >> At any rate, I imagine that right now, WE are ALL Papy's beta-testers. >The patch is free. Don't like it? Don't use it. I'm not (see below for more details). I never said I didn't like it, though -- in fact, I never even hinted at it. I've noticed you've used this same line in other posts on this subject -- you sure seem to be touchy today. Did somebody put Absorbine Jr. in your athletic supporter this morning, or is your Force Feedback wheel out on loan, too? <G>

Quoted text (20 lines)

>> The patch is out, they'll (probably) work on further fixes for the >> patch, and I imagine that in the end we'll see a re-release of GPL in >> stores, possibly a NEW versioin ("Grand Prix Legends II" perhaps?) >> touting "Force Feedback" support once they get the bugs ironed out of >> the patch. There's a long history of this within the company -- look >> at how many variations of NASCAR 2 we have available, and then there's >> CART Racing, which is merely a repackaged version of ICR2 with full >> Rendition support. Granted, the variations bring various >> enhancements, and Papy always gives us a superb product overall, but I >> think that if the current patch is actually a beta patch, it should >> have been released as such, along with full disclosure of what >> problems people might encounter. >Thats not necessarily Papyrus, that would be more in the realm of Sierra's >marketing >department. >Not to mention, since it was primarily Randy, I do believe, doing the patch >and not an entire section of Papyrus, I doubt they had the resources to do >as full blown of beta testing job as they did the first time, so they might >not have been aware that the problems would crop up quite as badly in a few >instances as they did.

Let's see a show of hands -- how many people here would have volunteered to serve as beta testers for Randy (raise your hand, Chris)? Beta testers are typically unpaid volunteers -- volunteers don't require much in the way of resources; in fact, volunteers mean ADDED resources FOR NO ADDITIONAL COST. As I said in my original post, Papy deserves a bit of a slap on the snout for not involving a broad enough cross-section of users as beta testers in the first place. Thank you for supporting my point here. >And the patch wasn't released as anything such as >beta, alpha, retail, etc, it was just released. Deal with it. You didn't >pay a dime for it. Don't like it don't use it, GPL was fairly bug free to >start with and runs well without it. Yeah, the price was nice, but I'm still not using it, thank you very much -- it probably won't be installed on any of my machines until either: A) I get my FF wheel back from the friend who is currently using it; and/or B) I find out that some kind of solution has been found for the frame rate slowdown/speedup problems.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Graphic card manufacturers release beta versions of their video >> drivers to the general public all the time -- why can't game companies >> be forthright about releasing patches that are still (or should be) in >> the beta stages due to known bugs? >Who says there were known bugs upon release? Got inside information you >wish to share with us John? If not, all you are doing is making rampant >speculation.

Geez, man -- calm down (I'd recommend cutting a little bit of caffeine out of your diet for starters). I'm not the one making "rampant speculation" -- GPL 1.1 has KNOWN bugs (we know about them now). I said NOTHING about known bugs on release of ANYTHING in particular -- what I said was (and I quote, just in case the words in the paragraph above escape your notice): "Why can't game companies be forthright about releasing patches that are still (or should be) in the beta stages due to known bugs?" I specifically avoided referring to Papy or the GPL 1.1 patch, because I was talking about ALL game companies (which is why I said "Why can't GAME COMPANIES..." and not "Why can't PAPYRUS..."). PLENTY of companies have released patches with known bugs, so I'm not singling Papy or Randy out here. One example that comes to mind is the V2x00 Rendition patch for ICR2 had a known bug; it worked fine with the V2200 Rendition cards, but didn't work well with V2100 cards, and this was known up-front -- AND this was made known up-front. No hassle, no confusion -- a known bug, revealed up-front, use at your own risk. THAT is the way it should be done (hats off to Papy and/or the Rendition folks on this one, BTW -- I'm not sure who gets credit for the V2x00 ICR2 patch). I don't know if Randy and/or Papy knew of the bugs in the GPL 1.1 patch, and I don't claim to know (never did, in fact). When bugs exist, though, it's either an indication that insufficient testing was done prior to release, or a decision was made to go ahead and get it out despite the problems/shortcomings/bugs. I don't know which was the case with the GPL 1.1 release, but either way, there's definitely a bug or two in there. If the frame rate slowdown and real-time discrepancies created by the GPL 1.1 patch aren't BUGS, for example, then I don't know what is -- surely Randy and Papy didn't INTEND for these things to occur. Whether or not they knew about them in advance is debateable -- and I've given them the benefit of the doubt on this by pointing out that they EITHER knew about these problems and released the patch anyway, OR they didn't know about the problems at all, which indicates that they probably should have involved a greater number of beta testers. THAT is pretty much my point -- if they knew in advance, we should have been infomed; if not, they definitely needed to get more people involved in testing phase, and they should take notes and do so in the future for other sims and patches. As I said, though, it sounds like they did good, so kudos to Papy (and Randy, who really deserves the credit). I reiterate that there's still work to do, though, and I hope they're not too busy patting themselves on the back (or beating themselves up, for that matter). >> Papy. ... read more »

And if they did that, would it be a bad thing? It's tough being a beta tester as we are all finding out trying to pin down which combination of settings and so forth maximizes and minimizes the "treacle" effect as it is now being called. However, I am willing to participate in the "late testing" stage if the developers are willing to work along with us to iron out any problems. It's a lot better than, say Codemasters, where the TOCA2 patch (which fails to address all of its problems) was known from the get-go to be a one-shot deal. Of course, Papy isn't just doing all of this out of the goodness of their hearts, either. The OpenGL patch helps them design their next titles as will the FFB support. Marc.

Hi John, From what I hear, it's Eric you should be thanking, not Papy - apparently he did the patch on his own time, ie unpaid. Thank you Eric, if this is true ... Sky (Chris from Sportsims)

Hi Chris, Maybe if you "smoked something" yourself you'd be a little more relaxed, and a little more civil. Chill, dude. People are entitled to express their opinions, even if they don't happen to coincide with yours ... Sky

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:39:46 -0500, "Chris Schletter" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

><snip> >> of the "GPL 1.1 IS CRAP" kind of ranting I've seen in some posts, and >> despite my good intentions, YOU turn my post into a negative rant. >> Thanks Chris -- pat yourself on the back. Well-done, Maestro. >John, >You are correct it was NOT a "GPL1.1 IS CRAP" rant, but it was still a rant >nonetheless. Or at least thats the way it came across to me, and therefore >my opinion.

Sorry that's how it came across -- not my intention, exactly. Just wanted to point out that more beta testers might have helped, and I also wanted to give us all a chance to volunteer. <G>

Quoted text (78 lines)

>> As for the issues at hand, I've got to disagree with you on the issue >> of a patch not necessarily being a "fix," at least in this case. GPL >> 1.1 is definitely a patch AND fix -- the GPL 1.1 "patch" does a couple >> of different things, if you want to get technical: It ADDS Force >> Feedback support, and supposedly FIXES or enhances some aspects of the >> on-line gaming support. >Um, depends on your view I guess. A "patch", at least to me in terms I deal >with them on a daily basis, is that it can contain both new features and/or >fixes. Therefore a "patch" is something that changes the way the said >software works. Which includes both fixes and new features either together >or seperately. >Actually it adds FF and dedicated servers, which I suppose fall under >"enhances some aspects of on-line gaming support". >Perhaps it would have been better to distribute a "fix" that fixed any >issues with GPL1.0, then also delivery an upgrade for those who wanted new >features (or at least FF). But then again, I have no idea how much each of >those fixes, upgrades and new features interact or are independent/dependent >on each other. Only Randy could really answer that, and it maybe that they >ended up being dependent on each other so had to all be installed at the >same time. <shrugs> >> Also, I say they are "backtracking" to provide FF support because GPL >> came out at almost exactly the same time as Viper Racing (Q3/4 1998), >> and VR offered FF right out of the box, while Papy boldly stated that >> they CHOSE not to include FF support in GPL because they didn't feel >> that Force Feedback technology was "mature" enough yet, I believe. >> Given this, I don't think you have a leg to stand on when you say that >> "FF was just on the horizon and was only beginning to make a notion of >> itself"; MGI seemed to succeed with their FF implementation in Viper >> Racing right out of the box, which has set the high mark for FF >> effects up to this point. Papy missed the boat on FF entirely -- by >> their own DECISION -- and now, thanks to Randy's efforts, they're just >> getting on-board the FF wagon. >Just because it came out at the same time as Viper Racing John, does not >mean it was in production up til that point. They very well may have >finished the game 6 months or a year before and were testing it and making >small enhancements, fixes, tweaks, etc to the code or finishing up licensing >issues, etc. So you don't really know at what time they felt that FF, and >you see how long it took Randy to get the patch together by himself -- half >that maybe at most and thats how long it might have taken to implement it >initially, wasn't on mature enough. So of course I have a leg to stand on, >unless you can tell me exactly when the decision was made not to support >ForceFeedback. I am more than willing to bet it was at least 6 months or >more before the product shipped. >Just getting on-board the FF wagon? I think thats an understatement. The >only other decent attempt at FF was Viper Racing....and GPL's implementation >is much much better, so I think they didn't get onboard, but upped the ante. >> >All you are doing is speculating about how bad of job Papyrus did with >the >> >patch, but later you will go on to say "kudos" to them. Make up your >mind. >> They did good, but there's still more to be done. As I pointed out, >> what they ADDED seems to work nicely from what I hear (the FF effects, >> that is), hence the kudos. On the other hand, some aspects of the >> game have suffered from the patch (the frame rate slowdowns/speedups), >> so that's bad. Now, thanks to the patch, there are things that need >> to be fixed. That's bad, too. So what is there to make my mind up >> about? >So there are things that need to be fixed. Doesn't mean they necessarily >came out in testing at Papyrus. >> I'm not (see below for more details). I never said I didn't like it, >> though -- in fact, I never even hinted at it. I've noticed you've >> used this same line in other posts on this subject -- you sure seem to >> be touchy today. Did somebody put Absorbine Jr. in your athletic >> supporter this morning, or is your Force Feedback wheel out on loan, >> too? <G> >Heh, both and rollouts on two projects, lack of sleep, etc...but >irregardless, perhaps I am a bit touchy today. :P

That makes two of us, it seems. I bet my Monday was worse than yours, though -- my wife's car caught fire in the garage after she got home, and when I arrived, the fire fighters had just finished hosing things down. The car was a loss, the garage is a mess, the house is fine, and best of all, the wife, dogs, cats, AND my computers and TSW wheels are all fine. <G>

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> volunteered to serve as beta testers for Randy (raise your hand, >> Chris)? Beta testers are typically unpaid volunteers -- volunteers >> don't require much in the way of resources; in fact, volunteers mean >> ADDED resources FOR NO ADDITIONAL COST. As I said in my original >> post, Papy deserves a bit of a slap on the snout for not involving a >> broad enough cross-section of users as beta testers in the first >> place. Thank you for supporting my point here. >Yes, but you have to organize those volunteers, NDAs, etc, etc. :) >However, perhaps they in a way are having a very broad cross-section now >since they did release it, perhaps they got sick of all the questions of >when it was going to be released? :) Its now been tested and now they know >where some problems are. :) >> A) I get my FF wheel back from the friend who is currently using it; >Its very nice, I enjoy the further immersion into the sim and haven't, >personally, noticed really any framerate reduction.

I'm looking forward to checking it out. The real-time discrepancy is what troubles me the most, though -- I hope that can be fixed without having to scrap the FF.

Quoted text (60 lines)

>> rate slowdown/speedup problems. >Not everyone is experiencing it, however its been said several times, even >now finally by Randy himself, that they know about it and are looking into >it. >> Geez, man -- calm down (I'd recommend cutting a little bit of caffeine >> out of your diet for starters). I'm not the one making "rampant >> speculation" -- GPL 1.1 has KNOWN bugs (we know about them now). I >> said NOTHING about known bugs on release of ANYTHING in particular -- >> what I said was (and I quote, just in case the words in the paragraph >> above escape your notice): "Why can't game companies be forthright >> about releasing patches that are still (or should be) in the beta >> stages due to known bugs?" I specifically avoided referring to Papy >> or the GPL 1.1 patch, because I was talking about ALL game companies >> (which is why I said "Why can't GAME COMPANIES..." and not "Why can't >> PAPYRUS..."). >Ok, so perhaps I misread it, and apologize, because you are very correct in >the statement. Take SSI's latest release of Fighting Steel or Microproses >Falcon 4.0....those were very very big disasters. Heck Fighting Steel was >suppose dto ship with 8 person internet play, and didn't..now its supposed >to be a couple months before 4 person internet play shows up. >> PLENTY of companies have released patches with known bugs, so I'm not >> singling Papy or Randy out here. One example that comes to mind is >> the V2x00 Rendition patch for ICR2 had a known bug; it worked fine >> with the V2200 Rendition cards, but didn't work well with V2100 cards, >> and this was known up-front -- AND this was made known up-front. No >> hassle, no confusion -- a known bug, revealed up-front, use at your >> own risk. THAT is the way it should be done (hats off to Papy and/or >> the Rendition folks on this one, BTW -- I'm not sure who gets credit >> for the V2x00 ICR2 patch). >Well, lots of companies do include readme files that have known problems or >bugs in them. Those that do should be credited, those that don't should be >shamed I guess. >> I don't know if Randy and/or Papy knew of the bugs in the GPL 1.1 >> patch, and I don't claim to know (never did, in fact). When bugs >> exist, though, it's either an indication that insufficient testing was >> done prior to release, or a decision was made to go ahead and get it >> out despite the problems/shortcomings/bugs. I don't know which was >> the case with the GPL 1.1 release, but either way, there's definitely >> a bug or two in there. >Depends. And this isn't to say this is what happened with the patch, but >sometimes bugs crop up that the developers never expect. >> If the frame rate slowdown and real-time discrepancies created by the >> GPL 1.1 patch aren't BUGS, for example, then I don't know what is -- >> surely Randy and Papy didn't INTEND for these things to occur. >Definetly I'm sure they didn't...I'm confident we can all agree here. :) >> Whether or not they knew about them in advance is debateable -- and >> I've given them the benefit of the doubt on this by pointing out that >> they EITHER knew about these problems and released the patch anyway, >> OR they didn't know about the problems at all, which indicates that >> they probably should have

... read more »

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:14:59 GMT, "Marc Collins"

Quoted text (10 lines)

>And if they did that, would it be a bad thing? It's tough being a beta >tester as we are all finding out trying to pin down which combination of >settings and so forth maximizes and minimizes the "treacle" effect as it is >now being called. However, I am willing to participate in the "late >testing" stage if the developers are willing to work along with us to iron >out any problems. It's a lot better than, say Codemasters, where the TOCA2 >patch (which fails to address all of its problems) was known from the get-go >to be a one-shot deal. Of course, Papy isn't just doing all of this out of >the goodness of their hearts, either. The OpenGL patch helps them design >their next titles as will the FFB support.

VERY good point, Marc -- this is kind of what I was getting at. A "GPL2" re-release ("NOW WITH FF SUPPORT!") would help Papy recover some of their GPL investment, but what Randy has learned in implementing FF in GPL will undoubtedly help Papy with their next round of (hugely popular and highly profitable) NASCAR titles (did I mention that these are hugely popular and highly profitable?). -- JB

Quoted text (20 lines)

>Marc. >> but they do deserve a >> >bit of a slap on the snout for not involving a broad enough >> >cross-section of users as beta testers in the first place. Either >> >they KNEW about these problems and released the patch hoping no one >> >would notice, or the DIDN'T know about the problems, which indicates a >> >bid of shoddy testing on their part. It took no time at all for a >> >large percentage of the people here to learn of the problems, while it >> >seems a small few have experienced no problems at all -- do these >> >numbers correlate with Papy's beta test results, I wonder? >> >At any rate, I imagine that right now, WE are ALL Papy's beta-testers. >> Maybe Papyrus is starting to follow the ID patch model of releasing a >> quick fix a(how many months??!!) and then fixing the fix when the bug >> reports roll in. :) >> dave henrie

Gee, Randy and Eric both working independently on their own time....I wonder which one's patch actually made it out the door as the current patch? Wonder what happened to the other one--maybe it doesn't have the timing bug??? Let's wake-up here.... I am sure Sierra could care less about patching GPL for our sake, but both Sierra and especially Papy need much on the street FFB on on-line *** experience before the release of the title that will actually make or break Papy--the next Nascar title. Why not use us as late-beta testers since we have been frothing at the mouth waiting for these features?? We are also much more forgiving than the average consumer in terms of being patient and willing to help diagnose problems. And, we are much more exacting than the average consumer in our expectations of quality. (Which leads to the "whining" and "complaining" that we hear and hear about here on r.a.s.) Sounds like a marriage made in heaven to me. But don't worry, Randy, Eric and Papy and Sierra are not suffering. However, Randy and Eric (and others at Papy) deserve a tremendous amount of credit for being willing to work as far outside traditional corporate boundaries as possible (and remain employed, I guess)--without that, we would be collectively in a lot worse shape than having to iron out a timing bug in an otherwise wonderful patch to GPL. Marc. > Hi John, > From what I hear, it's Eric you should be thanking, not Papy - apparently he

Quoted text (57 lines)

> did the patch on his own time, ie unpaid. Thank you Eric, if this is true > ... > Sky (Chris from Sportsims) > > <SNIP> > > >Don't forget the patch came out on Friday. It has been the weekend, so > they > > >have not had time to START working on a fix yet. Perhaps we should give > them > > >a bit of a break? > > <END SNIP> > > Thanks for the info, but with regards to the comment above, isn't a > > "patch" a "fix" in itself? Given that, I find the idea that a company > > needs time to START working on a fix for what was supposed to be a > > "fix" in the first place a bid ludicrous. I truly applaud Papy for > > releasing the patch in the first place, and for backtracking to > > provide FF support where there was none before, but they do deserve a > > bit of a slap on the snout for not involving a broad enough > > cross-section of users as beta testers in the first place. Either > > they KNEW about these problems and released the patch hoping no one > > would notice, or the DIDN'T know about the problems, which indicates a > > bid of shoddy testing on their part. It took no time at all for a > > large percentage of the people here to learn of the problems, while it > > seems a small few have experienced no problems at all -- do these > > numbers correlate with Papy's beta test results, I wonder? > > At any rate, I imagine that right now, WE are ALL Papy's beta-testers. > > The patch is out, they'll (probably) work on further fixes for the > > patch, and I imagine that in the end we'll see a re-release of GPL in > > stores, possibly a NEW versioin ("Grand Prix Legends II" perhaps?) > > touting "Force Feedback" support once they get the bugs ironed out of > > the patch. There's a long history of this within the company -- look > > at how many variations of NASCAR 2 we have available, and then there's > > CART Racing, which is merely a repackaged version of ICR2 with full > > Rendition support. Granted, the variations bring various > > enhancements, and Papy always gives us a superb product overall, but I > > think that if the current patch is actually a beta patch, it should > > have been released as such, along with full disclosure of what > > problems people might encounter. > > Graphic card manufacturers release beta versions of their video > > drivers to the general public all the time -- why can't game companies > > be forthright about releasing patches that are still (or should be) in > > the beta stages due to known bugs? > > All in all, though, I have to say kudos to Papy, and raspberries to > > Papy. Keep up the good work -- now fix what needs to be fixed, > > please. > > -- JB

(snip) We are also much more forgiving than the average consumer in terms of being patient and willing to help diagnose problems (unsnip) HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! Next joke please Marc.

People here are not always polite or diplomatic, but we are all here discussing (and whining and complaining). The average consumer wouldn't dream in a million years of participating in a discussion about the sordid details of what a patch does and doesn't do and how well and accurately it is doing it and how it is better or worse than that other company's patch, and so on and so on. Marc.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> (snip) > We are also much more forgiving than the average consumer > in terms of being patient and willing to help diagnose problems > (unsnip) > HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! > Next joke please Marc.

Probably because the "average consumer" would buy the product, take it home and play it without any desire (or knowledge of the ability) to modify it in any way, shape or form. One buys the pretty box, loads the CD up and it runs perfectly, doesn't it??! Then, when it *doesn't* run on his system, the average consumer takes it back to the average retailer and complains bitterly that what he was *sold* (not "what he bought without seeking advice") was a load of ***and there is nothing wrong at all with his hardware and you've sold me a heap of crap. And I know this from personal experiences on the other side of the cash-register!!

Quoted text (19 lines)

> People here are not always polite or diplomatic, but we are all here > discussing (and whining and complaining). The average consumer wouldn't > dream in a million years of participating in a discussion about the sordid > details of what a patch does and doesn't do and how well and accurately it > is doing it and how it is better or worse than that other company's patch, > and so on and so on. > Marc. > > (snip) > > We are also much more forgiving than the average consumer > > in terms of being patient and willing to help diagnose problems > > (unsnip) > > HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! > > Next joke please Marc.

>And I know this from personal experiences on the other side of the >cash-register!! Absolutely true. Even if the 1.1 problems can be solved with INI settings (not yet true for me) there's no way the average consumer will put themselves through that kind of configuration. Joe McGinn ========================================== Staff Writer for the Sports *** Network [link lost in import: /***.com/] ==========================================