Community driven Bug&Issue Tracker (CIT) for ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead and ARMA 2

[Dwarden]

http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae20/phoboo/CIT_temp.png
i can't stress enough the importance of properly well written description in report
of problem, issue, incident, bug, crash or any other hick-up You have with our game(s)

not to mention all the files needed for complete reports are hosted as part of such report at same place

one of best ways to get things fixed is usage of public bug tracking system

so let me re-introduce CIT (Community Issue Tracker)

to understood how important role is played by such bug tracking solution
please see ROADMAP - future, present and history tracking here (each version vs reports)
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/roadmap?tracker_ids%5B%5D=1&tracker_ids%5B%5D=2&tracker_ids%5B%5D=4&completed=1

url to create new ticket
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/issues/new

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/8944/34729469.jpg

detailed help
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki
which e.g. leads to instructions about crash files (where find them, how compress and upload and so on)
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki/Attachments

and best is this system is not useful just for bug tracking but can be used to track suggestions / wishes / feature requests from users / community
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/issues?set_filter=1&tracker_id=2

sure it needs registration and email but that's little cost for chance get issue solved, obtain community help or even figure workaround till issue is resolved or else ...
NEW : OpenID login is supported (easier for lazier ones)

one of best ways how get things involved is take part (even just by reporting some glitch) ... :cool:

old thread http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73478

[MavericK96]

Yes, USE THIS, PEOPLE! You can report bugs here but if you don't post them to the CIT along with crashdumps and/or report files, there's really nothing BIS can do about it.

[Nicholas]

If you guys updated the TIC to be more user-friendly, I'm pretty sure lots of people would be happy to use it. But in its current state, it's not very user-friendly.

[AnimalMother92]

I love the CIT, the functionality is superb.

[MavericK96]

I don't see how it's "user unfriendly". If you read the instructions on how to properly format a ticket, it's not difficult at all.

[Dwarden]

If you guys updated the TIC to be more user-friendly, I'm pretty sure lots of people would be happy to use it. But in its current state, it's not very user-friendly.

what's not user friendly ?

all you need is register and fill report page and in worst case attach some files (crashdump related)

[jpinard]

Dwarden,
Will you guys still read the latest beta thread? The discussion in those threads can present information in a better format than the CIT in many circumstances.

For those that think the CIT is super easy to use. For a non-techie it is not simple to use compared to a forum. A forum is easy as pie to use. My Mom, at 67 years old is an avid gamer and Grandmother. She can post on a forum just fine. I have her system specs in a Word document she can copy and paste without knowing anything about her system. But looking at the CIT would be overwhelming for her. It would take her a year to fill out all the information required and chances are some of it would be wrong.

What is easy for a programmer or database manager is not easy for the average user. And it's a bit short-sighted to assume anyone who has a legitimate issue in ArmA2 is capable of navigating that system. I certainly will use it, but seeing how I know some people who would like to report issues and aren't very technical should not be shut out or overlooked. Otherwise you might as well just shut the tech sections of the "forum" down.

---------- Post added at 01:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------

I really hope no one takes offense at my post. Also - Dwarden, I forgot to get those Anistropic screenshots to you. Sorry about that. I'm trying to find a good place to demonstrate it.

-Jeff

[oktane]

Look, what makes more sense?

A developer spending most of his time in a forum, trying to extrapolate information and issues intertwined in complaints, opinions and various nonsense. And there is a lot of nonsense. (you have seen this in person)
A developer goes to a bug tracker, to fix a bug which has clear and direct repro steps. He now has more time to address other bugs. If more information is needed, it is simple to ask and track the status all on a single ticket dedicated to the issue, not 15 scattered forum threads.

There are helpful people around like Dwarden that end up filling the 'in-between' of getting issues from the forums to the CIT, when they exist.

In most cases, the CIT is a professionally-maintained (by volunteers like kju) place where bugs go to get fixed with the least amount of drama, wasted time, etc. There isn't a 'change in policy' that you are reading into here, Dwarden is just reminding everyone that the CIT is where most bugs get fixed, and that is how it has been for many, many months now.

The forum is a waste of time that can be better spent on the issues themselves. Contrary to your argument, it is not hard to fill out a bug report, many examples are given. (please see this simple page: http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki) Forum is okay for chatting, opinions, etc. But not ideal for development issues. It's a clear matter of efficiency and accuracy. CIT tickets usually don't have trolls, complaining, scattered topics, etc.

Sure you can use the forum because it's easy and you wouldn't like to learn something new right now. But that isn't usually how work gets done. This is indeed work for them, and if you were working, I trust you would expect some kind of standards in your working environment. ;) Try to think of it from their perspective please. Posting issues to the forum actually does them a small disservice, as now you've required someone else to grok your issue and make a proper CIT ticket of it anyways, and it may not be how you originally described due to a misunderstanding.. and it's missing repro missions, etc.

Also: Not everyone is suited to be a QA Tester and bug reporter. It takes work, and you don't get paid. And it isn't expected either, nobody is forcing anyone to run the betas. They are for testing, feedback and bug reporting of the game engine on a larger pool of testers. But if you wish to use it and not report bugs, that's okay too. But don't force the simplistic requirements on those that want to do the work, nor should you feel wronged by the developers for wanting to use an efficient system for their ongoing development. (sounds a bit selfish, or self centered, no?) If you do report bugs, it is expected they conform to some very simple requirements, it isn't huge deal like it's been made out to be here.

I doubt that the devs will stop reading occasional forum posts. When the CIT started, they didn't, why would they now? But if they did, I honestly wouldn't blame them one bit. (we already discussed why in PM)

And remember, since the CIT was created, various people have filled the gap between the CIT and those on the forums that are unable/unwilling to take the time to make tickets.

Cheers

PS: Be sure to make the distinction between the Bug/Feature tracker and 'troubleshooting', they are not the same. The CIT deals with things that are wrong with the game that affect everyone in most cases, whereas the troubleshooting forum can be user-related configuration issues, users helping users, etc. Real bugs are normally very complicated, and require a lot of data for the developer to reproduce. If a person has not been a QA tester before, they have to learn a bit to become one. It isn't as simple as reporting a problem in a forum post, it is almost never that simple. And the forum gives people a 'false hope' of their problem being recified, since so many people are posting about xyz issue, but it is not organized and there is usually missing information the dev's require to rectify the issue quickly. This is another reason for the dedicated bug testers that adhere to the requirements and post clear issues with the required information, without back and forth requests between people that are not acclimated to QA testing or game development. Try to imagine a person quality checking your work at whatever your day to day profession is, I assume you would want him to at least know what your job entails before he goes telling you how you're doing it wrong, right?

[Dwarden]

yes i read such forum threads and hunt bugs,glitches,issues crashes and reports from deep corners of internet ...

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------

i added screenshot of the simple screen, if this is complex to fill then i really don't know
not to mention you don't need even fill all :)

[Nicholas]

The thing is, the web site there is a mess. It needs to be more organized. The links at the top are no help. It doesn't tell you where to submit a bug. It lists "Overall Issues" when it should be something like "Submit and Track Issues" . It's not the form that is un-friendly, it's the web site itself. I'd be happy to whip up an example web site that would be more user-friendly.

[MavericK96]

It has a tab that says "New Issue" with a little green plus next to it. I admit there should be a separate "button" for this but overall I think people are making this out to sound way more complicated than it actually is.

[Dwarden]

The thing is, the web site there is a mess. It needs to be more organized. The links at the top are no help. It doesn't tell you where to submit a bug. It lists "Overall Issues" when it should be something like "Submit and Track Issues" . It's not the form that is un-friendly, it's the web site itself. I'd be happy to whip up an example web site that would be more user-friendly.

you self asking too much questions and demands too many options and changes :)
yet you talk about site being mess ?

create acccount, login and write up report and push 'create'

wait for survival of the fittest (reports) ...

[jpinard]

Oktane - I totally agree with you that their limited time is better spent in the CIT. It organizes the data better and gives them all they key information. It's a really nice tool. In fact - I will try and spend more time on the forum helping people with tech questions so BIS can focus on the CIT and not forums. I just thought it was important to offer a counter-argument.

Also, when it comes to the importance/priority of issues comes up, I don't think it should be soley based on "who gets the most votes" on CIT. As there will be a lot of people who will not search the CIT nor use it because it looks intimidating.

BTW - is there a way to save your system information in the CIT so we don't have to input it every single time?

[Nicholas]

you self asking too much questions and demands too many options and changes :)
yet you talk about site being mess ?

create acccount, login and write up report and push 'create'

wait for survival of the fittest (reports) ...

Well I'm sorry. I was only making a suggestion. I wasn't making any demands, only suggesting that if you want more users to use it, it should be more user-friendly.

[Dwarden]

well it will be useful if you mention how to make (where, what, why) it simpler / easier to use ...

such approach is always welcome

[oktane]

Argument for the sake of argument? SNR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio) seems to be falling rapidly.. defending some unidentified group of people suffering as a result of the CIT's existence? What seems more obvious to me is apprehension towards anything that inconveniences you in the least. (see spoiler)



BTW - is there a way to save your system information in the CIT so we don't have to input it every single time?

No, there isn't that I know of. The information changes regularly anyways. (people get new hardware, upgrade OS, etc) Your browser has the capability to save the information in the text fields too.

Those fields are irrelevant to most bugs anyways. For example, the 'GFX card type/Driver' data would be relevant to a bug about GFX stuff: LOD swapping, running out of VRAM, alt-tabbing issues, or crashes. But it isn't useful for a bug about a scripting command not working, being able to hear 'dry fire' noises across the battlefield, or the Mi24's air-ground anti-tank missile not hitting targets properly. So include them if you are unsure, but they don't have to be there if they aren't useful.

Seriously though, you shouldn't need to be entering in bugs so rapid-fire that it becomes an annoyance to select a handful of drop-down boxes! As I mentioned, reporting bugs is work, if you want to do a good job. Because you're continuing down this path, I still think you are missing the intention of the CIT. Writing up a bug should take a little bit of your time. The CIT is not meant to be a forum and therefore lacks 'streamlined' posting workflows like you desire.

If any of you have complaints about the CIT, the required data, the workflow, then I'm sorry but you're entirely missing the point. The bug tracker software (redmine) is used across the world, it's a fairly standard open-source system for reporting bugs. If you got a job doing QA work, there's a good chance you'd see the same thing. If you look at this and say, 'why the hell would anyone use this site', you have a few options:

You can be receptive, respectful and open-minded, and get involved with the CIT after lurking a bit, learning about QA testing in the process. Make good use of the technical skills that you've accumulated while modding & creating missions for OFP/ArmA to help the developers and community improve the game for the benefit of all. You can learn a lot from the people that run it. But you'll have to drop all tendencies of negativity at the door. If there is a problem, take the initiative and attempt to fix it yourself first.
You can take it at face value, maybe it's not up your alley. You can ignore the potential to learn new things or improve the game. Most importantly, you may not be interested in learning these things, and that's okay. Prehaps you aren't very technical, or you just want to play the game. What is annoying is folks complaining about the CIT when they haven't even used it or understand what it's for. The same goes for suggesting changes to it.

There are volunteers that run it, you're welcome to suggest things to them directly. They don't read these forums, so if you wish to talk about it, you'll have to make an effort and seek them out.

The CIT is not owed to you, it is not funded by any part of the money you spent on the game. So be nice and have some respect for the people that run and manage it, they don't get paid a dime. And before you complain about this or that, try first giving them the benefit of the doubt. (they know what they are doing, and they work closely with BIS) Besides, you can complain all you want, nobody that is involved in it is actually listening here, they all got burned out on these forums long ago, due to exactly these issues.

Remember, nobody is forcing you to report bugs, use the CIT, or use the beta. If you don't understand it or you think it's stupid the way it's done, it's okay, don't post bugs. There are plenty of people that have no problem with it. If you think you have unique bug, it's simple to contact someone more familiar with the CIT to post it up for you instead.

There's a lot of hot air on these forums. Complaining, requests, endless suggestions and demands, etc. However, the hot air does not ever get anything done as you can see, plus it just ends up creating more hot air. It's ultimately wasted time. You can be a part of the solution, be indifferent and not care, or a be part of the problem. Only the first option has a positive end result attributed directly to you. DH/CIT is a solution, a community of people that try to solve problems and create new things with a distinct lack of hot air and runaway internet-entitlement that plagues other places.

Those that are up to it, I looking forward to seeing your work in the future!

(note: I have to say that this is all my opinion, it does not represent any official response from BIS or DH staff. (duh) I am just a bug reporter like most people that use DH, but I did a game QA testing job a few years so I am familiar with it.)

Phantom (oops, I meant) Dice, if you have an interest, your desire for improvement is welcomed. You can join us at the DH google wave discussions (http://wave.dev-heaven.net/waves), your technical skills can be used if you wish to volunteer. Sickboy would be the person to address. We could use some help on the 'dynamic class browser (http://browser.dev-heaven.net/)' css and js.

[jpinard]

Argument for the sake of argument? SNR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio) seems to be falling rapidly.. defending some unidentified group of people suffering as a result of the CIT's existence? What seems more obvious to me is apprehension towards anything that inconveniences you in the least. (see spoiler)

OKTANE... CHILL OUT! I said my little blurb and I let it go, I'm making use of the CIT, I like it, and I will hand-hold anyone else that has something of true value to contribute. You're going to have an aneurysm if this stuff keeps riling you up so bad. Also, with a bunch of new people bringing in fresh new money to BIS you should be happy to see the SNR spike. It'll go back down as people learn the game, bugs get resolved, and those that don't want to put them time into a tech forum leave. But for the love of God understand and be happy that there's any noise at all! Otherwise BIS would be up shit creek with a lack of sales.

I love what you do here Oktane, I really do - and it pains me to see you so upset over newbies.

[oktane]

Hey I apologize for being so verbose, it's just the way I express myself, a force of habit from teaching complex tech stuff, I try to explain the same thing 30 different ways until even I am confused. It gets worse with more beers.

But don't interpret my verbosity as annoyance, or disrespect. The two places (BIF/DH) serve separate purposes, and they both must exist for either to prosper. I am just explaining why DH/CIT cannot become the next BI Forums, and why certain elements that occur here frequently are not welcome or tolerated there. And don't construe it as elitism, it's really open to all who want to apply some effort to what they'd like to do and get involved.

Wishy-washy nonsense:
I write only because I care, some days more, others not at all. Ultimately, the goal should always be clear, to improve a complex game that seems to bring people together(to rely on one another), keeping it fresh and fun to play. (and even fun to develop for) But at times the idea is obscured by the day to day communication difficulties between the multitude of groups and places they gather. The grim meat-hook realities that lie in wait for those that try to instill a sense of purpose and direction among casual players & modders(or anyone on the intertubes) are quite great in number.. and in the end their failure is ours. But WGL, FFA, BAS, BW, ECP, COC, FFUR, ACE, and others all show that when the right people come together, something great can come of it. I believe the same applies to even something as simple as the CIT, and over time it has shown to be true, improving the game in leaps and bounds. But it's hard to get people to see the good side of things, there is always more tendency to express their problems.


Cheers
:cheers:

[Dwarden]

imagine forums like BIForums
as club where you come to chatter with friends on bar drinking some drink

now imagine bug tracking system like CIT
as repair shop where you bring item with problem and they will try analyse it and fix it

hopefully this help to 'differ' the two enough

[jpinard]

That's an awesome analogy Dwarden. Oktane, sorry my post was a little harsh. I worry a bit on how flustered people can get with newbies, and being one of those people I can still see why simple things can be overwelming... when it's unfamiliar. Once you get used to it you wonder how it could have ever seemed difficult. :)

That said, I'm surprised no wise-cracker has voted "no". LOL :p There's always one.

[MavericK96]

That said, I'm surprised no wise-cracker has voted "no". LOL :p There's always one.

You spoke too soon. :p

[WarriorM4]

Ok I sent one in.This is happening to me on even regular Arma 2 without OA now.Seems something went weird after patch to 1.07.CTD's after 2-5 min of play.

[oktane]

Dwarden, are there resources for users to sanity check their environment before submitting bug reports that are very likely not bugs at all? You ask for people to submit everything like crashes and such, but doesn't that produce a ton of tickets that are user configuration or user enviroment issues and not bugs?

For example, if after patching the game, a user has crashes (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12150) but there aren't reports of that 'en masse', and the user does not provide repro steps or much detailed info, what is the workflow for something like that? Does it go to BIS for someone to load up into the debugger and report back what the fault was, providing a kind of tech support? To rephrase, does that fall into the scope that the CIT serves?

I am asking this because if the above situation is acceptable and desired by BIS, providing tools and guides for users to sanity check their environment may help alleviate the creation of such tickets that are user issues rather than game bugs. I often help troubleshoot peoples game issues, I have found that MD5's are very useful for determining if a users game data is corrupted. When the game is corrupted, all kinds of issues can arise, the most common of which is frequent crashing. (when the game goes to load an asset which is corrupted, poof) Also, in the above example case, the user could have had an error while patching that wasn't reported because he didn't see it or think to include it..(dunno, major lack of detail there) any number of things could have happened really but still likely not a game bug and isn't being reported to other users.

Any consideration for a similar yet separate CIT system specifically for tech support, such as community helping community, rewarded with rep points or something, like experts exchange or yahoo answers, to reduce the amount of non-bug dumps going in BIS's direction? (BIS could still get involved for tough ones, or if enough people are having the same issue(as in a game bug), a staffer would forward the ticket to the original CIT)

In a perfect world, the game should never crash, even if presented with garbled input.. But that is never going to be the case, and I've never seen a complicated application capable of doing that. The error checking and handling code would equal or outnumber the actual app code!

Just curious,
Cheers

(also sorry to you Warrior for using your ticket as an example, don't take offense :) )

[Sabbath]

wrong place

[wipman]

Hi, i've observed may "issues" that i would call bugs, in the ArmA2, they're there too after patch the game to the 1.07; mainly things like missing parts on LODs (i.e: the M1911 front sight = not pressent.) or shadows bugs on the units (i.e: USMC officer's cap don't haves shadow), this model don't have chest pockets on his jacket and neither on his sleeves. And are some more like this, i've also issues with the keys not responding in game and i've a "small issue" with the OA single (training) missions as i don't have an specific key to crouch, so i can't pass the 1St stage = closed access to OA's armoury. This kind of things that don't make CTDs or entire break the game... are issues that report in the CTI? or we should do it here, in the forums instead?. Let's C ya

[oktane]

Hi, i've observed may "issues" that i would call bugs, in the ArmA2, they're there too after patch the game to the 1.07; mainly things like missing parts on LODs (i.e: the M1911 front sight = not pressent.) or shadows bugs on the units (i.e: USMC officer's cap don't haves shadow), this model don't have chest pockets on his jacket and neither on his sleeves. And are some more like this, i've also issues with the keys not responding in game and i've a "small issue" with the OA single (training) missions as i don't have an specific key to crouch, so i can't pass the 1St stage = closed access to OA's armoury. This kind of things that don't make CTDs or entire break the game... are issues that report in the CTI? or we should do it here, in the forums instead?. Let's C ya

Yes, while minor those would all be actual bugs imo, aside from the ones about pockets and crouching. Especially if they can be reproduced on another players machine, then for sure they are universal bugs. (like i have verified that the shadow is missing for the hat)

The pockets inclusion was the artists choice when BIS made the model, I don't see how this is a bug at all. If it was posted, it would pretty quickly be assigned into a feature request I bet. The last one about crouching, um, set a key to crouching? That sounds like a user configuration issue, the game expects you to have a key bound to it. If you don't want to do it, then while in the mission, hold down left shift and type: numpad -, e, n ,d, m, i, s, s, i, o, n (without the commas, all while holding left shift) What that will do is pass the mission successfully. Dunno if it works for what you are talking about. I find it simpler to use the mission editor to test things rather than the armory.

I too had some LOD issues with the betas that became 1.07 and 1.07 itself. Especially certain weapons held by other units appearing to be square and malformed up close. (very low LOD) This has also started happening in recent OA betas. The front sights being missing may be a part of this overall LOD issue, or something else..(I can't understand why the game would show low LOD models for the players 1st person gun, it shouldn't do that afaik) If you run very low graphics settings, be sure to mention that if you report it or find the existing ticket. I looked at the 1911 and it appears normal in my 1.07 A2, it has a front sight even though it is a bit low. (the camera alignment is a little bit off, it's hard to see)

Cheers

[wipman]

Hi, with all or most the settings on high, this is how i see the M1911 A1 front sight in the ArmA2 and OA:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/wipman/ArmA2_bug.jpg
I'll call that a bug... the problem to reproduce some of the other issues that i've, is that some are not easy to reproduce AFAIK... like the keybinds issue... i'd configured the game (ArmA2 and OA) as the ArmA, same kybinds for same functions; but for example the switch fire modes key don't works most (like %80) of the times as soldier on foot... and never work as gunner on tanks and APCs/IFVs, like on the LAV III or the AAV7A1 so i don't know how to reproduce this issue that i've with the keys other than copy and paste my entire game's config, where everything looks normal to me. Let's C ya

[MavericK96]

Hi, with all or most the settings on high, this is how i see the M1911 A1 front sight in the ArmA2 and OA:

please do not quote images!

I'll call that a bug... the problem to reproduce some of the other issues that i've, is that some are not easy to reproduce AFAIK... like the keybinds issue... i'd configured the game (ArmA2 and OA) as the ArmA, same kybinds for same functions; but for example the switch fire modes key don't works most (like %80) of the times as soldier on foot... and never work as gunner on tanks and APCs/IFVs, like on the LAV III or the AAV7A1 so i don't know how to reproduce this issue that i've with the keys other than copy and paste my entire game's config, where everything looks normal to me. Let's C ya

Sort of off-topic, but what is that little radar thing with the names at the bottom of your screenshot? Is that some mod?

[wipman]

Hi, yeah man, it's a great mod/addon made by zx64 called: ShackTac Fireteam HUD. And can be found here: - ShackTac Fireteam HUD v100715. (http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?game=1&cat=news&id=4467)
It looks great and do a great job, i've only try it in SP on the 1St missions of the campaign (of the ArmA2) and is really usefull, but if you load a save game... it don't shows up again; i hope that they fix that little issue, improves very much the game play. Let's C ya

[jgaz-uk]

Quick Bug report Arma2 OA combo.
Don't know if any one mentioned a small graphics issue with some of the Mi8 helicopters?
Empty ones when started up ,the hub starts to spin about 4 seconds before the blades giving a weird tangle effect.

[Dwarden]

Quick Bug report Arma2 OA combo.
Don't know if any one mentioned a small graphics issue with some of the Mi8 helicopters?
Empty ones when started up ,the hub starts to spin about 4 seconds before the blades giving a weird tangle effect.

already fixed ;) please try using search on the CIT :cool:

[Sgt_Hawkins]

I tried to register for the CIT but it asks for a wave account...I dont have one nor do i know what that is....any help??

[Dwarden]

I tried to register for the CIT but it asks for a wave account...I dont have one nor do i know what that is....any help??

it should not be needed, and it's Google Wave

[1in1class]

This is an bug, the A-10s AA warning system does not work properly. I dont get an buzz or an indicator of an M on radar nor does it flash red on the indicator. F-35 indicator works with its flashing red but does not show the M or buzz.

I cant even log into the site! Iv register and got in then click back out and had to log back in, and it says wrong user or password? I i cant even get it to give me my password!

[B00tsy]

Sorry but I am not going through all the issue tracker stuff so I will report it here. Take it or leave it :)

I notice that the FN AL rifle does not have a consistent sound. When I fire a few clips some rounds sounds sound more like a M16. So its a mix of brighter sounds and heavyer sounds now.

[1in1class]

Ya try to log into the CIT tracker sit but cant. Hope that somebody has took up on note of the A-10 and F-35 AA warning system thats not working properly.

[Dwarden]

what browser you tried ? it works fine for me in IE8 and Firefox

[1in1class]

I got IE8, i cant log into the site. I got in once and had to log out then i try to log back in and it says wrong user or password.

[Kommiekat]

Trampoline Rocks ( I will make a CIT on this)

Noticing my squad member or other members lying prone on rocks in OA and dying from it.
They are unable to walk, roll or run off the rocks.

Sometimes as a sniper, I want to lay prone on a rock, but end up dying after bouncing up and down about a 100 times.

Sorry, I searched this and found nothing.

[B00tsy]

Trampoline Rocks ( I will make a CIT on this)

Noticing my squad member or other members lying prone on rocks in OA and dying from it.
They are unable to walk, roll or run off the rocks.

Sometimes as a sniper, I want to lay prone on a rock, but end up dying after bouncing up and down about a 100 times.

Sorry, I searched this and found nothing.

Yeah, I died multiple times my self from that, sometimes I can get out of the bounce loop by moving backwards in prone. Also pretty hard to kill a bouncing AI sniper from 500 meters.

[Big Dawg KS]

Sorry but I am not going through all the issue tracker stuff so I will report it here. Take it or leave it :)

Leave it it shall be then...? :raisebrow:

[1in1class]

Yet i still cant log into the CIT site, so i can post the A-10 and F35 bug! Would be nice to have some help on this!

[Gabkicks]

Everytime I'm in the chopper and order my team to get in the chopper with me, one of them runs towards the rear of the chopper and gets killled by the blades...

[wipman]

Hi, i've noticed a weird bug on the ArmA2 related to the player's head model, no matters if you use a custom face or one of the predefined faces on the player's profile; is this:

The Thing:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/wipman/ArmA2_bug_01.jpg

Happens or it's noticeable when you're in contact with smoke, from a smoke nade as seen on the screenshot or from an explosion. I don't remember if it happens too with the OA or CO as i've uninstalled the OA due to extremely low performance and display issues with the OA. This are my system specs:

DX Diagnosys:

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 6/30/2010, 23:53:20
Machine name: Whatever
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.100216-1514)
Language: Spanish (Regional Setting: Spanish)
System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
System Model: 965P-DS3P
BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @<hidden> 2.40GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 2046MB RAM
Page File: 520MB used, 2908MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Music Tab: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
Network Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D: 0/4 (n/a)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce GTX 285
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_05E3&SUBSYS_12853842&REV_A1
Display Memory: 1024.0 MB
Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor: Monitor Plug and Play
Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0012.5721 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 6/8/2010 01:57:00, 6300544 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp: n/a
VDD: no disponible
Mini VDD: nv4_mini.sys
Mini VDD Date: 6/8/2010 01:57:00, 10531200 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-46A3-11CF-AB4D-893200C2CB35}
Vendor ID: 0x10DE
Device ID: 0x05E3
SubSys ID: 0x12853842
Revision ID: 0x00A1
Revision ID: 0x00A1
Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D
Deinterlace Caps: {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
Registry: OK
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Enabled
DDraw Test Result: Not run
D3D7 Test Result: Not run
D3D8 Test Result: Not run
D3D9 Test Result: Not run

-------------
Sound Devices
-------------
Description: Realtek HD Audio output
Default Sound Playback: Yes
Default Voice Playback: Yes
Hardware ID: HDAUDIO\FUNC_01&VEN_10EC&DEV_0888&SUBSYS_1458E601&REV_1000
Manufacturer ID: 1
Product ID: 100
Type: WDM
Driver Name: RtkHDAud.sys
Driver Version: 5.10.0000.5282 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
Date and Size: 7/24/2006 10:15:04, 4353024 bytes
Other Files:
Driver Provider: Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
HW Accel Level: Full
Cap Flags: 0xF5F
Min/Max Sample Rate: 8000, 192000
Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 33, 32
Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 33, 32
HW Memory: 0
Voice Management: No
EAX(tm) 2.0 Listen/Src: Yes, Yes
I3DL2(tm) Listen/Src: Yes, Yes
Sensaura(tm) ZoomFX(tm): No
Registry: OK
Sound Test Result: Not run
Internet Connection: 6Mb/400Kb wifi.

And by the way, i don't gonna use the CTI report form not because i don't want to help BIS to find out bugs and fix things, i don't gonna use it because it's messy as hell, takes too long and it's unnecessary complex. I've updated my Nvidia Drivers to the latest 258.96 and haven't seen any change on any of the games or programs that i've on the computer.
Other thing... i don't know if that bug have something to do with the huge difference (to worst) beteween the ArmA custom faces shape and the ArmA2 custom faces, while in the ArmA they looked good, had the true colours that you seen on the .jpg in the ArmA2 you don't see the same on the player's profile than in game, could related to the head model... to some property of the head model... or to the specular maps; i don't know, but now on the ArmA2 the custom faces suck once in game; and that annoys me. Let's C ya

[Dwarden]

wipman CIT form messy as hell and takes too long ?

hell most of the fields are not needed ...
1. create account
2. fill form (only what's you think it's needed so just description and some checkbox)
3. attach files if it's crash or screenshot or video

over ...

in fact forum post is more mess than the CIT reprot
when You look on it from easy to use point of view ...

[Tempai]

Unable to get in to dev heaven due to bad gateway error so sorry if this question causes annoyance. Is there any word about the fixing of the enemy vehicle detection range of the mi-24's, currently it's still approx 800m was hoping for fix in latest patch but no cigar. This as been a issue since ARMA2, I believe and really puts OPFOR at a disadvantage. On a up note BIS you are to be congratulated for the latest version and the brilliant implementation of the DLC Brit lite system.

[Dwarden]

Unable to get in to dev heaven due to bad gateway error so sorry if this question causes annoyance. Is there any word about the fixing of the enemy vehicle detection range of the mi-24's, currently it's still approx 800m was hoping for fix in latest patch but no cigar. This as been a issue since ARMA2, I believe and really puts OPFOR at a disadvantage. On a up note BIS you are to be congratulated for the latest version and the brilliant implementation of the DLC Brit lite system.

the MI-24 serie radar fix is on schedule so don't worry ...

[ziiip]

I ahve noticed that if you are kneeling with your weapons readied, your body is completely still. Ya know that nice little body swing anim is not working.

[jonisynx]

well... i tried with firefox,opera,IE8, and flock.. but i still unable to load to dev-heaven.. soo im goin to post in here,, sorry if this botherin u guys..
i always had CTD when im goin to play on campaign, scenario and multiplayer,, only on those part..

these are the file
http://www.mediafire.com/?l8j7xmx53bn1pp5

thnx

[SkyDice]

Can't access the site, so it can go here. It's been posted in the troubleshooting thread, but has slipped off the front page (I found it by extensive googling on the subject):

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=106407

Basic tripod bags are not in the backpack menu in the editor. Static placed weapons can be broken down into mortar + tripod sets, but a bagged mortar (for example) given to a player, or left for them to collect is useless, as we can no longer give/place the tripod required to assemble it for use. OP tested better than I did though, I just came across it by accident while toying with mortar packs and static weapons just now. :)

[jeuxvideo.qc]

not easy for me I'm french quebecois I translated the text with google. or I should afiche bug on the Bohemia Interactive Forums.

[akd42]

I am trying to create tickets for the bugs I found here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=106307

...but I cannot access the community bug tracker. I keep getting "invalid user or password" even after resetting my password.

[Muahaha]

Anyone noticed the SOV has missing textures on some beam when AI or players occupies it?

[hansham]

hello, I am looking at all these posts, I have an above average interest an knowledge about ICT and it is ABSOLUTELY UNCLEAR what is CIT and how to use it.
Is CIT the automatic message from Windows to report the error to Microsoft when an app crashes?? is that it??
Or should i fill in a report anyway?

[seelix]

sry,dont get this to close to ya,but please use your brain.
i mean....
Is CIT the automatic message from Windows to report the error to Microsoft when an app crashes?? is that it??
...c'mon,thats more than just retarded,right ?
so just read the first post and follow the steps.then everything will be fine.
:rolleyes:

[Luomu]

I think the following fields could be hidden from normal users (or clearly grouped "Don't fill these"):
- Assigned to
- Start and due date
- Estimated time
- % Done
- Target version

(sure, the fields are explained on the help page but it would be a tiny usability improvement)

[Dwarden]

I think the following fields could be hidden from normal users (or clearly grouped "Don't fill these"):
- Assigned to
- Start and due date
- Estimated time
- % Done
- Target version

(sure, the fields are explained on the help page but it would be a tiny usability improvement)

not possible atm. maybe in future releases of Redmine ...

it's quite demanded so i hope it gets added

[Spamurai]

You should have a button in the UI that automatically links to the CIT and automatically fetches the appropriate diagnostic files (like the crash dump, the DirectX log) and maybe opens the default screenshot folder so that basic, non-technical minded people can quickly give feedback.

Trying to find the Crash Dump file is not as straight forward for an average user as you might think.

[Dwarden]

it's 3rd party community project so such idea is higly unrealistic

[Evil_Echo]

Just discovered that two tickets relating to the BIS artillery system, one by me about how it reloads ammo and another by Das Attorney about a bug in the latest beta had their status changed by a non-BIS person for very questionable "stylistic" reasons.

I find it highly distressing that a self-appointed censor is altering tickets in such a high-handed and blatently political manner. The effect has destroyed the credibility of CIT in such a way that I may never totally trust it again.

At this point I'd prefer that BIS run it's own bug report system with properly vetted staff managing it. Having a 3rd party in charge always had the potential for tampering. Additionally, the host server of dev-heaven.net has proven to be less reliable than hoped, with a much higher rate of downtime than what is expected for professionally managed sites.

[Dwarden]

the management of tickets is done by DH CIT staff and also by myself (rarely some other developer like Suma) ...

yet managing CIT eats quite an amount of time
and everyone of them doing it for free as volunteers (same as moderators here in forums)

it's standard response to demand more simpler, clear, less cluttered reports or better
(or at least some) repro mission and so on (i do it myself often on CIT)...

considering your tickets got status changed from New to Feedback
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14174
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14213

it shows You not ever took time to learn what each CIT ticket status means .. .
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki/Workflow

there is no altering which could be considered wrongful (noone tampers with text in negative way)
and CIT team does theirs part quite well in past year
(which is obvious considering me and other staff using it and we even reflect it in our changelogs or forums posts)

CIT is endorsed by me in this very same forum You complain about it

the stability of dev-heaven.net host is related to upgrades of theirs hw / sw
and of-course the huge amount of traffic it receives now
due to hosting many ARMA 2 related projects interesting for public ...

still i can twist this in style that e.g. YT is less stable for me than DH ...
but hey YT is hosted by pros right?

also please not that bugs are analysed and fixed on order decided by our staff not CIT nor bug reporters so the priority or status on CIT is purely informative but not definitive ...

[oktane]

Just discovered that two tickets relating to the BIS artillery system, one by me about how it reloads ammo and another by Das Attorney about a bug in the latest beta had their status changed by a non-BIS person for very questionable "stylistic" reasons.

I find it highly distressing that a self-appointed censor is altering tickets in such a high-handed and blatently political manner. The effect has destroyed the credibility of CIT in such a way that I may never totally trust it again.

At this point I'd prefer that BIS run it's own bug report system with properly vetted staff managing it. Having a 3rd party in charge always had the potential for tampering. Additionally, the host server of dev-heaven.net has proven to be less reliable than hoped, with a much higher rate of downtime than what is expected for professionally managed sites.

Can you remove any personal differences you seem to have had in the past (with the admins?) and take this from a fresh perspective? kju does this to *many* tickets, he isn't singling you out. He's done it to mine a lot, mostly because I have a hard time explaining things clearly without unnecessary details that confuse the matter. It sounds like a similar situation here. It is frustrating sometimes, because of the terse and almost canned nature of his responses, but he has a ton of bugs to sort thru. If BIS was capable and interested in hosting their own bug tracker, I'm sure they would have done it by now. But quite the contrary, they view the CIT as a success. (see biki OA faq responses)

Your claims of 'high handed and highly political' behavior I find quite ridiculous and deliberately dramatic. Considering your obvious intelligence and great contributions to the community and game, (like ECHO) I did not expect this from a person of your stature. The CIT has proved itself time and again, by providing a platform in which work gets done to fix game bugs quickly and provide a democratic way for people to suggest feature changes. Your post lacks any respect or acknowledgment for the success that have brought to the BIS development and beta process. (and the people that volunteer managing it are a big part of it) The staff's purpose is to vet tickets that come in for key factors dealing in the reproduction of the issue. This includes specific repro steps (of which you had none), a repro mission (if applicable) focusing on the bug in question that clearly shows the issue without any other code etc. (your submission was a demo mission for ECHO) These things you view as obstacles are basic requirements of QA testing. (I actually know, I worked as one) If anything, the CIT is actually lenient on the requirements, as it doesn't expect everyone to be a properly trained QA specialist. The requirements exist to minimize the amount of time wasted by the developer addressing the issue. If Suma has to spend ~30 minutes making a specialized test mission to reproduce an issue, that is a failure and waste of resources. This is an area that kju is directly responsible for, verifying tickets are in a suitable state for the dev team to process, before they are sent off.

In any case, the foundations and standards of the CIT aren't personal, try not to treat them as such. Without them, BIS would get nothing done because the place would be a mess. The requirements for reporting have always been here (http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki), so it is bewildering that you are crying 'conspiracy' here.

Please reconsider your opinion. If you'd like to say kju, et al suck, by all means do that. But please don't bring the CIT down with you. The CIT and it's volunteer staff have done far too much good for this game to be treated like that. (I'm not expecting you to love them either!) As a side note, I bet you could volunteer yourself to get a taste and perhaps gain a new perspective on why things are done the way they are.

With the utmost respect,
oktane
(a user and reporter on the CIT/ex-full time QA employee)

[Evil_Echo]

Included in this thread is a poll asking for opinions of whether to support BIS developers via CIT. I gave my opinion and as a courtesy expressed why I hold that opinion.

Dwarden:
I do note the efforts of the other CIT staff and your endorsement of them.

I find the fact the non-BIS people are altering anything in a ticket report -- uncomfortable.

I provided a detailed report that took hours to prepare and write up. To have kju dismiss it as incomplete was incorrect, and noisy was his opinion. Including those derisive comments as well as down-grading the status reduced the likelyhood of that problem and the one by Das Attorney being investigated by BIS.

Furthermore the inference that I needed to know how to make a bug report is frankly insulting. I worked for nearly a quarter century in supercomputing center that was subject to quality-assurance audits and routinely graded as world class. I know what a professional trouble ticket system is, how to interact with users ( including the difficult cases ), and what data a programmer expects to debug a problem. I can back up these statements by PM if you doubt me.

oktane:
While kju was the person involved in my complaint it's not about him. This case just highlights a systematic problem and that makes it worthwhile to bring up on the forum. Otherwise I'd deal with it between kju and myself.

You note my stature in the community. That is the opinion of others, if anything it's appreciation for working hard for them trying my best to provide good code and backing that up with the kind of support I gave when I worked for a living. If my complaint offends, understand I complain on behalf of the users I serve.

In honest disclosure, part of the distrust of CIT is due to overt and documented defacement of tickets for another project by members of that team. I'm not saying that the same parties are involved in this instance, I have no proof of that and it'd be wrong to make that claim.

But there is the fact that people other than BI staff feel obligated to comment on the worth of ticket and set the status is a problem. It smacks of goal-keeping, blocking access to the real developers.

As per downtime rate of server. It's notable and rarely explained why the frequent outages occur. Building a system that provides 4 nines of reliability ain't that hard. DH should maintain that level or better if it's to be taken seriously.

[Dwarden]

anyway to debunk Your post

"non-BIS people are altering anything in a ticket report -- uncomfortable"
then You shall feel same about posting on this forum where moderators are 'non-BI' also

"kju dismiss it as incomplete was incorrect, and noisy was his opinion"
if it was dismissed it would be rejected or closed ... seems like You miss the point of status types again ...
kju is CIT manager and one of the key persons behind it and does this daily on CIT and it's correct in 99% cases ...
maybe You shall recheck Your text to make report more easier to read or be understood

"CIT is due to overt and documented defacement of tickets for another project by members of that team"
i find this as offense against myself because i'm taking active part in the CIT and in whole time it exists i have yet to see usable ticket to 'vanish'

"notable and rarely explained why the frequent outages occur."
...there is 24/7 wave covering the server outages of any DH service ...

downtimes happen especially when You upgrading to 'stabler' releases which breaks more than it solve ...
happens to any website around web from time to time ...

anyway it seems You have grudge against DH group and decided to project it thru CIT and these forums

did you even noticed Your ticket is set to Feedback, that mean You shall improve such ticket ?

"feel obligated to comment on the worth of ticket and set the status is a problem. It smacks of goal-keeping, blocking access to the real developers."

seems You not aware aware of redmine limitations or CIT management rules or staff etc?

anyway unless You have anything contructive to say ... i consider the case closed :jail:

[1in1class]

Think somebody could post up an ticket about the AH-1 Cobra not having any hud view for the instruments. AH-64 hud view is fine but the AH-1 has no hud instruments. Iv post an topic on this link http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=108817 with an pic showing that there is no hud for the AH-1 Cobra. I cant log into the tracking sit for some reason. This would be an very nice fix.

[Whiteraven]

Yay for the 10,000th poster

Edit: woops, viewer even.

[Silverloch]

The last time I played arma was the steam demo.
It left a black and yellow loading bar in the middle of my screen(s). I wasn't sure it was arma, until I again tried to load the program, and now I have these huge black and yellow bars for my desktop. Windows (7) won't load a fresh desktop theme. I tried uninstalling the game, restarting the game several times and nothing changes now.

I haven't seen the problem posted.

System:
I7 920; Radeon 5870;triple screen mode. 12gigs of ram; creative sound; dual SD raid with an areca raid card. MB=Asus Rampage Extreme II

[Dwarden]

The last time I played arma was the steam demo.
It left a black and yellow loading bar in the middle of my screen(s). I wasn't sure it was arma, until I again tried to load the program, and now I have these huge black and yellow bars for my desktop. Windows (7) won't load a fresh desktop theme. I tried uninstalling the game, restarting the game several times and nothing changes now.

I haven't seen the problem posted.

System:
I7 920; Radeon 5870;triple screen mode. 12gigs of ram; creative sound; dual SD raid with an areca raid card. MB=Asus Rampage Extreme II

could You post it on CIT? and please include screenshot ...

---------- Post added at 00:40 ---------- Previous post was at 00:18 ----------

i'm also going to stress out
if You know bug, which is not yet listed on CIT then please post it there !

thanks

[Dwarden]

updated the main new CIT ticket picture to cover latest changes

roadmap now covers progress on DLCs too ...

[Hanzu]

How many reported issues I need to become listed here as a reporter here:
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis

My reported issues is now 6 and I found atleast 10 people on that list that have reported only 0-4 issues.

This is not a competition, but it would be nice to feel myself beeing part of the big project to make Arma 2 series even better.

[Dwarden]

it's just giving you ability to assign tickets including to yourself
it's nothing that special, any usable report counts

[Dwarden]

as of today OpenID login is supported by CIT !

[])rStrangelove]

Fix SetMimic command

So something that is only effecting cutscenes depicting soldier's faces is the most important bug to fix?

Oh cmon :)

[[FRL]Myke]

IMHO voting should be disabled completely as it turns the Bugtracker into a popularity contest. The only instance i would accept to judge about importance are the developers themselves.

Just to make it clear: even if it would be handled this way i wouldn't see the "features" i've reported any higher than they are right now. So don't jump on the "myke is frustrated that his reported bugs are rated rather low" train.

[Sickboy]

As pointed out by Suma, voting is one of the key aspects that makes CIT useful to him; he is interested in what the community is interested in.
But it is only used as an indication - BIS has their own set of priorities, vision, etc.
http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki/CIT#Why-participate (http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki/CIT#Why-participate)

[Jedra]

Myke;1990312']IMHO voting should be disabled completely as it turns the Bugtracker into a popularity contest. The only instance i would accept to judge about importance are the developers themselves.

Just to make it clear: even if it would be handled this way i wouldn't see the "features" i've reported any higher than they are right now. So don't jump on the "myke is frustrated that his reported bugs are rated rather low" train.

I was always slightly puzzled about what the users of systems I have supported in the past wanted fixing as apposed to the things that I thought they would have wanted fixing!

Someone has to decide what the priority is, and its arguable that the users of the system are best placed to decide. The developers will also have their 'secret list' of stuff they know needs fixing that the users either don't know about or don't understand the impact of. The developers will also have their 'pet bugs', i.e bugs they know are there and have always wanted to fix.

Then there are the bugs the developers know are there that they hope no-one will find ;-)

[.kju [PvPscene]]

A few more points to consider here:

# The fixes of this list should be seen an investment in the future.
The reason is as almost all of them will most likely apply also for TakOH and ArmA III.

# Of course only limited resources are available to address issues.
The approach Jedra suggests sounds like a sensible solution.

# If you see a bug report as not good enough, tell us Suma so that it can be improved.

# If you think the effort for a bug is not feasible after reading it, set it to target "future".
The people will prefer clarify and openness rather the non-true-impression of being ignored.

# While it is understandable the issues introduced by recent versions or are easy to fix get priority.

# At the same time it seems only fair that the effort of people put into the CIT is valued.
So bugs with high votes and good repros should get priority over badly reported ones
(no matter in the CIT or in the forum here). This list is the combination of the two.

# Number of votes and the quality of a report are obviously a good element to indicate priority.
Of course they are not the only ones already explained above.

# As Sickboy notes the reason to build the CIT and having spent hundreds of hours
of our free time on the project was and still is the request of Suma for both voting
and a system to increase the quality of the reports.

All in all it seems only fair to me to act along this way rather to give priority to people
here in the forum that rage and spam most.

[[FRL]Myke]

# At the same time it seems only fair that the effort of people put into the CIT is valued.
So bugs with high votes and good repros should get priority over badly reported ones
(no matter in the CIT or in the forum here).

Fixed that for you. ;)

[.kju [PvPscene]]

Can you please stop being ignorant.

As explained by Sickboy it is a key element desired by Suma.
If you don't like it, fine keep that to you.

[GossamerSolid]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the list is already way too long. We may be able to fix approximately 10-20 bugs for Arma 2 OA, depending on a fix complexity. If you will choose about 5 bugs from the list above, it may help me prioritizing, but in current form I am unsure how do you expect this list to be helpful.

Then I feel no need to report any more bugs, because I know they won't get voted up in time.

[[FRL]Myke]

Can you please stop being ignorant.

As explained by Sickboy it is a key element desired by Suma.
If you don't like it, fine keep that to you.

Please accept my apologies, i thought the smiley would be clue enough that is meant more like a joke than being serious.
Also i wasn't aware that i'm definately not entitled to have an opinion, as far as i remember i just stated a opinion and didn't asked that voting have to be disabled or something similar.

Again, please accept my apologies.


Sincerly

Your Slave.

[Jedra]

lol - this is starting to give me flashbacks of the 'priorities' meetings I used to run!

Managing resources, bug fixes and ongoing development is not an easy task. Votes shouldn't be the only indicator. The impact of a bug has always got to be the highest consideration, but when you have hundreds of bugs you have to choose some method of prioritising them and voting is as good a method as any. Otherwise you just stare at the long list, take another gulp of coffee, grab your coat and go home muttering 'oh god, oh god'...

[Nyles]

Hey Suma,

I think it is really unfortunate that there are so many remaining issues in CIT still that could be fixed by a dedicated designer in 2-3 days of work without any code or art support.

Many of those really shouldn't be hard to deal with, but could greatly enhance the gameplay and actually make certain game components usable again, which are broken or buggy for ages.

It would be really awesome, if you could go through the items below and perhaps talk to some of the designers about the impact of investigating them. I can assure you that there are gems on that list, a large part of mp community has been hoping would get fixed for a long time.


make weapons lose less power over distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11479)
increase range for all manually guided missiles beyond 1500m (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18656)
AT weapons in T90 and BTR90 not working (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14436)
Reduce off-road speed for vehicles on Takistan to match experience on Chernarus (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13834)
Reduce bouncyness of handgrenades (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3513)
Tweak down countermeasures (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12692)
Add important soldier classes to factions missing them, like engineer (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16577)
Balance pass on AA-12 to tone down range (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16538)
Set up backup ironsights for those weapons clearly featuring them on them models already (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13857)
Fix Mi24 Falanga missiles almost always missing locked targets (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11850)
Increase Little Bird airspeed (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11767)
Don't allow carrying AS50 and AT weapons at same time (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15969)
BAF medic cannot equip handguns (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15666)
Fix double the amount of flares in 120rnd flare mag (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13914)
Change standalone grenade launchers to be sidearms (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13216)
Balance all TI-equiped weapons by treating them as machineguns in the inventory (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15970)
AS50 damage not matching damage from M107 sniper (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14888)
Add range-adjustments to grenade launchers (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15184)


I am sure others could expand that list with a large number of other minor issues that should be easy to fix, but could have a very positive impact on playability, like for example stronger ballistic curve and reduced range on infantry AT weapons, allow using the FAL's nightsight during daylight, etc.

Also, it would be really sweet, if you guys would consider making some units available to other factions as well. For example, the PMC-introduced Ka-60 would be perfect as an EAST unit as well without the need to do any texture adjustments.

Thanks!

[.kju [PvPscene]]

Nyles please create a new thread.

These are not only bugs and mostly content issues.

Ty.

[Nyles]

Sorry, but that is arguable, seeing that there are plenty duplicates on this list that match items on the original list (i.e. damage drop over distance too aggressive, missiles not guidable beyond 1500m, etc).

To be honest, I think what's really important here is that we do not forget about maintaining playability. I dare to say that game balance adjustments (many of which are in fact due to bugs) should be more important than let's say fixing the SetMimic, just because it has 78 votes. From a gameplay perspective I personally couldn't care less about that. Sorry.

Another point is that ideally many of those gameplay related issues come down to faulty parameters rather than code bugs, and might hopefully be fixable without having to bother any coder, who could then focus on proper code issues instead.

[GossamerSolid]

Sorry, but that is arguable, seeing that there plenty duplicates on this list and the original one (i.e. damage drop over distance too aggressive, missiles not guidable beyond 1500m, etc).

To be honest, I think what's really important here is that we do not forget about maintaining playability. I dare to say that game balance adjustments (many of which are in fact due to bugs) should be more important than let's say fixing the SetMimic, just because it has 78 votes. From a gameplay perspective I personally couldn't care less about that. Sorry.


Pretty sure they aren't going to fix content errors... we've had the BTR-90 with it's white windows since release.

Missiles not guidable beyond 1500m isn't an error in my opinion, it's more scaling to the size of arma 2 worlds.

[Big Dawg KS]

Pretty sure they aren't going to fix content errors... we've had the BTR-90 with it's white windows since release.

I could live with these model related errors if only the MLODs were available for the community to fix them, but sadly you're more or less right. I doubt we will see any of these fixed by the devs.

Also, I kind of agree with Myke. The voting just seems to drown out a lot of the more feasibly fixed issues and more often than not the most popular ones are the most vague (setMimic definately not one of them). Unfortunately though I can't think of a better way to involve the community in prioritizing bugs.

[Nyles]

Thing is, I am not even talking about changing anything on the model geometry. This would be a different topic, yes.

I am talking merely about fixes/tweaks on the config layer, which should not have any impact on art or programming resources and could be dealt with by a dedicated designer.

[.kju [PvPscene]]

Do you understand the difference between content and engine fixes?
If so, what area is Suma as lead developer responsible for and what area not?

So again please don't derail this thread any further.
No one stops you make your own thread about content fixes, right?

[DM]

Do you understand the difference between content and engine fixes?

No one stops you make your own thread about content fixes, right?

Protip: configs == content ;)

[Nyles]

My point is, that if only a limited amount of issues can be fixed, let's rather focus on those that make sense and help the GAME, than fixing those with the most votes.

There is thin red line between what you describe as content or code issues. Many issues on your original list can in fact be fixed easily by doing config adjustments, but that doesn't necessarily make them content issues, like for example fixing geometry. The same is true for most items I presented (which at the risk of repeating myself, match many items on your list :) )

We are talking semantics here. I just want to steer this discussion more into a gameplay-focused direction, because ultimately this is where I believe the game needs more attention. Using the example of the top-voted item SetMimic again: just because it got voted high doesn't necessarily mean it should be one of small number of items that we could get fixed.

I think I made my point. Enough from my side. :j:

[GossamerSolid]

My point is, that if only a limited amount of issues can be fixed, let's rather focus on those that make sense and help the GAME, than fixing those with the most votes.

There is thin red line between what you describe as content or code issues. Many issues on your original list can in fact be fixed easily by doing config adjustments, but that doesn't necessarily make them content issues, like for example fixing geometry. The same is true for most items I presented (which at the risk of repeating myself, match many items on your list :) )

We are talking semantics here. I just want to steer this discussion more into a gameplay-focused direction, because ultimately this is where I believe the game needs more attention. Using the example of the top-voted item SetMimic again: just because it got voted high doesn't necessarily mean it should be one of small number of items that we could get fixed.

I think I made my point. Enough from my side. :j:

As we keep telling you, they AREN'T going to fix config/content issues. They are down to bugs in the engine now.

Accept the answer or don't, but repeating yourself with different words won't change what's happening.

[.kju [PvPscene]]

A few more tips:
Content fixes are done by other people.
Content fixes require pbo patching rather than the exe.
Content fixes are not necessarily useful for future products.

I am not against content fixes, yet I have little hope to see more in OA.
A working merge config implementation or addon sync or MLOD of p3ds
would be more meaningful to see though IMO.

In any case make your own thread. It is not that hard, is it?

[Tankbuster]

)rStrangelove;1990311']So something that is only effecting cutscenes depicting soldier's faces is the most important bug to fix?

Oh cmon :)

Agree completely. It's comical that this bug gets so much attention. Vote it down right away!

[-=seany=-]

As we keep telling you, they AREN'T going to fix config/content issues. They are down to bugs in the engine now.

Accept the answer or don't, but repeating yourself with different words won't change what's happening.

I will be extremely annoyed if this is the case. In fact, this would make me not want to get arma3. Every time, and I mean EVERY time, I play OA I put up with the same old Content bugs for a year. Some that other developers like EA would fix, beacuse they are so in your face.

The damning thing is, I'm no developer, but I know very well that most of these content bugs are easily fixed by some one in a few minutes.

Content bugs are far more important than engine fixes right now. Not bothering to fix content bugs is a massive insult to the community. I don't want to put up with shitty visual and irritating content errors every time I play. Yes...I PLAY the game...maybe most of you who don't care about content fixes just make mods or missions, or play about in the editor.

Imagine every enemy in BF2 had a white face at over 50m away...hmm I'm pretty sure EA (or any Dev) would fix that.

[Nyles]

Exactly my point.

If the policy is not to fix config/content bugs anymore (and I can fully understand this stance with complex issues), then we as a community should try to put this up on the agenda and communicate our misgivings to BIS rather than pick at each other.

[Sickboy]

Content stuff could be largely remedied with community content (MLODs would help the situation even more),
where-as engine related problems can only be remedied by BIS, plus they are perhaps useful for A3 too :)
Distribution of content fixes is also more involving than engine (exe / dta) changes.

Ref Votes and important fixes - aren't they mostly the same thing?

[DMarkwick]

Come on guys. I'm pretty sure there is a filter betwen "most voted for issues" and issues that actually get fixed. It seems there's been an immediate fixation on the notion that the top 5 issues will be fixed, based on a dev's remark about how he tries to work. Therefore threads like this appear that try to muscle their own bugbears to the top, or others down.

I don't believe this is helping :)

[MadDogX]

Well, it seems this thread has at least served the purpose of getting the setMimic command fixed. See the DevHeaven ticket. (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/6638) :)

[DMarkwick]

Well, it seems this thread has at least served the purpose of getting the setMimic command fixed. See the DevHeaven ticket. (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/6638) :)

Thank God for that. Never heard of it 'til 6 hours ago, and now this enormously annoying problem is gone. Whew :)

;)

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------


The list contains:
[LIST]
Only bugs
Only engine issues (not content related)
Only tickets with good description, repro steps and demo mission provided.

I cannot know what search elements you used, but my own personal bugbear (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/2410) didn't make the grade, despite fitting all the requirements above. 14 votes but didn't enter the list in the expected position.

The list is very, very long, and yet seemingly incomplete :D

[Muahaha]

great, now at least the cutscene will at least have some sort of expression instead of the "stoned" faces

[GossamerSolid]

Now what would be great is if BIS could give us the MLODs, we could fix the issues and then submit them for an official patch. That way BIS has almost no work to do, we do it for free and then EVERYBODY gets to enjoy it.

I'd for one love to see the BTR-90 windows fixed, backpacks (models showing) on A2 units, proper TI imaging on all A2 content, Zeroing on all A2 content, engineer repair ability on A2 characters, etc.

Even some simple reskins or new units make their way into patches? I know there's a pretty good BMP2 reskin with Russian camo.

[Nyles]

That would be fanstastic indeed. But the key here really is that this fixed content would be released via an official patch, otherwise there is no point for online gaming since no-one will download it. Simple but sad truth.

We could even go further with this: (click!) (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=111230&highlight=nyles) :omg:

[.kju [PvPscene]]

A working merge config implementation or addon sync or MLOD of p3ds
would be more meaningful to see though IMO.

The content delivery is the key problem. This is why I think any effort on the side on BI should focus on it.


As first step until a3:

> Provide a simple interface to support community addon download tools
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17496

And for a3 if still necessary:

> Implement Addon Syncronization
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/5520

[Coffeecat]

even if its not my favourite one,
shooting a person 500-800 distance in the face, 2-3 times without any effect is really something which should not be in a milsim;)

[mr.g-c]

When i read that list of the OP, i get goosebumps all over my body in a fear that all those endless and often "very old" (since OFP or Arma1) bugs and design-flaws will persist in ArmA3 aswell :-(

Thats why i fully agree with the statement by the OP later:

# The fixes of this list should be seen an investment in the future.
The reason is as almost all of them will most likely apply also for TakOH and ArmA III.

I actually wanted to write down some suggestions for ArmA3, in which actually one was the top one, maybe the only one i would have written down -> It was to simply fix ALL Bugs/Design-Flaws and add "some of the features" listed in the ArmA2:OA CIT for ArmA3.

Its the same i asked for during ArmA2 development, but the main thing i received was being bashed by the endless, mindless, loud-screaming fanboys here on that Forum. Even though i just told the truth, like its done very "natural" on other ArmA realted Forums.
So this time i keep my mouth shut, my expectations for ArmA3 on this side (to have finally fixed all old ArmA2 and older Bugs/Design-Flaws) are simply "none", even though i would highly suggest BIS to do this.

[NoRailgunner]

Make it simple:
1) Select/find the 10 most important engine bugs and post/vote them here + DH.
2) Select/find the 10 most annoying content bugs and post/vote them here + DH.
No discussion - just action.

[GROM64]

When i read that list of the OP, i get goosebumps all over my body in a fear that
all those endless and often "very old" (since OFP or Arma1) bugs and
design-flaws will persist in ArmA3 aswell :-(


Yes, my feelings are pretty much the same.
It is generally depressing, to see: this amount of bugs and issues (http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/issues),
in a game that has a potential.

I, bought a game through steam some months ago. Then found out, that
development is still ongoing, and product still suffers from many bugs and other issues.
I decided to give it some time and come back later. I see progress, but not enough IMO.

I understand BIS'es need, to finance further development through DLC's.
But, it's like paying someone to paint my car, while it's the engine, that needs fixing.

Hopefully BI's devs will take it seriously, before ArmA 3 is released.

If not..., hopefully free market will. :)

[Tankbuster]

What's frustrating is that a good proportion of these bugs could be fixed by a line or two of code. A minute or twos work. Yet, BI spend time on setMimic. Crazy.

Take one dev guy off the line, lock him in the room with the CIT and tell him he's there for a week to fix as many of these simple ones as possible.

[.kju [PvPscene]]

There are some content bugs (mostly config ones) that are true to your statement.
Most others require first confirmation of the issue, the change/fix and testing - along with
a working dev environment for OA. Most/all work on ToH or ArmA III for a long time by now I'd assume.

And I think you underestimate the effort involved with packing, patching and delivery.

[Big Dawg KS]

Take one dev guy off the line, lock him in the room with the CIT and tell him he's there for a week to fix as many of these simple ones as possible.

Isn't that Dwarden's job? :p

[Muahaha]

Now what would be great is if BIS could give us the MLODs, we could fix the issues and then submit them for an official patch. That way BIS has almost no work to do, we do it for free and then EVERYBODY gets to enjoy it.

I'd for one love to see the BTR-90 windows fixed, backpacks (models showing) on A2 units, proper TI imaging on all A2 content, Zeroing on all A2 content, engineer repair ability on A2 characters, etc.

Even some simple reskins or new units make their way into patches? I know there's a pretty good BMP2 reskin with Russian camo.

+1 on this. To save BIS from extra work and have the community satisfied, why not allow the communities fixes those content issue that are none engine related be made official maybe via a BIS-Community released patch ?

[Rough Knight]

One of the problems...It seems Suma and Dwarden are the keys to resolving programming issues. I am sure they are being used on ARMA3 stuff as well as the new interpolation features being investigated + existing bug problemsoving.

There are only so many hours in a day, and quite a lot of bugs to filter through. I imagine just trying to manage the evolving bug list even from CIT is a nightmare because the most important engine bugs to fix are not nessesarily the most popular or voted for ones.

I don't think they are going to be able to please us all at once purely becuase I doubt they have enough immediate time, man that list is extensive.

[Sickboy]

+1 on this. To save BIS from extra work and have the community satisfied, why not allow the communities fixes those content issue that are none engine related be made official maybe via a BIS-Community released patch ?There should be no need to involve BIS with such patches, I think it would nullify the point of not having to do content patches.

[alef]

I'm happy to see so much activity (http://dev-heaven.net/activity?user_id=372) in this time by the lead programmer, thank you BI.

About the quality of tickets. If you players see an issue you want fixed, also if not your ticket, please read this (http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki/CIT#How-to-report-a-bug) and try to provide a good "repro", which means a detailed description of how to make the issue happens.

You may take for granted that when describng a problem to people like developers, who wrote the game, they will understand "on the fly" the problem. But it's not always the case. Just think if you can remember what you exaclty wrote down somewhere 5 years ago, and try to remember about a grammar error in a particular sentence in there. This is how it works also in programming, with the difference that you, as player, don't know exactly the "sentence" the programmer wrote, but you know there is an error.
Translated for other devs: "sentence" here doesn't mean the source code, which is available, I meant the design, or better, the reason why the code was written that way, the purpose.

I personally did repros for other people CIT tickets in the past, because I know what does it mean for a dev to recreate the issue in his lab. Just imagine he needs to "copy" the result you got when your bug happened, but this time he has some instrument attached to the game to spy exactly what's happening. Whit that, the dev can modify the code in seconds, or start a day long analisys to find the root causes, with the result that he may refuse to fix it because too difficult or will cost so much time & money that in their opinion it doesn't worth the effort. Now, they are producing ArmA3, so probably they even need to branch, merge and backport things, which is another difficult aspect for me to explain with examples.

We play the game. Give away time to work for free for BI it's not something everyone can or want to do. But this may change along the time, expecially when you see the results coming back.

alef

[Sickboy]

Nice post Alef!

I would like to supplement that it's important for people to vote on important issues, as it is one of the main uses for BIS; getting a 'feel' of important issues.

Also it can be a long process, between posting an issue and actually having it fixed - so no immediate response/fix is no cause for alert - documenting the issues is half the work, and an important step,
often leading to workarounds and insight.

[Nyles]

Without BI there is no chance for any community effort to be able to reach the majority of the players and be in widespread use on online servers (where it's really needed). Just take a look at all the problems that persist to this day with many (new) players not managing to connect on Combined Ops servers.

In my opinion, any discussion about possible content updates or additional community-provided content (fixes, reskins, etc) has to go hand in hand with the distribution method - be it a free DLC, patch or other official channel.

Ideally this is process is combined with further code fixes and rolled out over the regular and proven patch process.

[Sickboy]

100's of servers use mods, 100's if not 1000's of users use mods, mod distribution/installation/updating tools etc are improving as well, so personally I don't see that high need for official distribution, but I suspect not everyone agrees :)

[[FRL]Myke]

100's of servers use mods, 100's if not 1000's of users use mods, mod distribution/installation/updating tools etc are improving as well, so personally I don't see that high need for official distribution, but I suspect not everyone agrees :)

Hmm...personally i do think that bugfixes should be provided by BIS as official patches. More Mod's/Addons would only improve the already existing confusion and making the "required Mod's" list on servers even longer.

Let me just dream for a moment: it would be nice if some of the minor bugs (which most are just annoying but do not break anything) could be fixed by community members and then sent to BIS for including in the next patch. Maybe a central point (website/Community Bug Solving) with a trusted member being in direct contact, giving source files to trusted community members....well, i guess you get the main plot how this could go.

As said, this was just dreaming a bit, well aware that nothing of this will happen as even if the community would be involved this way, there would be still much effort be required by BIS....but i guess a little dreaming is allowed.

[Dwarden]

but some of the modules and script / functions fixes provided by community were and are already used ...

so while it's not happening as often as You wish, yet it is happening ...

[[FRL]Myke]

but some of the modules and script / functions fixes provided by community were and are already used ...

so while it's not happening as often as You wish, yet it is happening ...

I'm sorry, didn't knew that.


:EDITH:
Any chance to volunteer for fixing model bugs? Out of my head i know quite one i could fix within minutes. ;)

[Sickboy]

Well yes, the ideal solution comes from BIS.
But as many other things in life, the most ideal option isn't always possible / going to happen.

IMO it is unlikely that content fix patch will come from BIS, looking at history, and that A3 is scheduled for in 1 year.
Even if the fixes would be provided by the community. But I could very well be wrong, BIS has surprised us before ;).

I personally find it unrealistic and useless demands of people, to expect+demand such patch, and even using it as a reason not to buy A3 or whatever.
BIS has always supported their games, and IMO much better than most if not all other companies out there, so you do get your money's worth, and more times over if you consider the scope and possibilities of the game.

I stick with my opinion; content fixes, additions etc, can be handled by community (regardless of mod management/distribution complexity, it is possible).
Where-as engine issues cannot be solved by the community, and they are therefore IMO of greater importance, also considering that AFAIK most content bugs are rather minor.

[[FRL]Myke]

Well yes, the ideal solution comes from BIS.
But as many other things in life, the most ideal option isn't always possible / going to happen.

IMO it is unlikely that content fix patch will come from BIS, looking at history, and that A3 is scheduled for in 1 year.
Even if the fixes would be provided by the community. But I could be wrong.

I personally find it unrealistic and useless demands of people, to expect+demand such patch, and even using it as a reason not to buy A3 or whatever.
BIS has always supported their games, and IMO much better than most if not all other companies out there, so you do get your money's worth, and more times over if you consider the scope and possibilities of the game.

I'm sorry, didn't meant to expect nor demand anything at all. Was just stating my opinion about "community made & distributed fixes", that's all. Also i'm well aware that a lot of non-critical bugs probably wont be addressed anymore, as you say, A3 being announced.

And about supporting: preordered ToH, not that i'm overly interested in that game but "to make sure" that BIS will not run out of money and development of A3 would have to be stopped. :D ;)

EDITH:
Bah, Sickboy, shameless edit. ;)
I do agree to your opinion fully, also realizing that we're stuck to config fixing as we don't have the MLOD's which would be required for model-related bugs. I don't expect (nor do i demand) BIS to release the MLOD's to the public and this is a point where some trusted community members could come into play. But as said previously, it's a dream, dreams are surely allowed and i do not expect nor demand it to happen.

[Sickboy]

Wasn't meant personally, I was speaking in general, 'people' :P

I even agree with the wish for an official community content patch, but also think like you pointed out that it might not come for the same reasons.
MLOD's would be useful in any case, with or without an official community content patch :)
Hopefully we will see these near or after A3 release, though perhaps, as iirc BIS had issues with their models appearing in other commercial products, we might never see them :)

[[FRL]Myke]

Hopefully we will see these near or after A3 release, though perhaps, as iirc BIS had issues with their models appearing in other commercial products, we might never see them
Aye, i do remember that. That's why i fully understand that BIS will not give the MLOD's out to public.

[RobertHammer]

Myke;1991334']Aye, i do remember that. That's why i fully understand that BIS will not give the MLOD's out to public.

Its been confirmed , those will be released ,but noone knows when :(

[Big Dawg KS]

You know it is ironic though:


Suma on CIT (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/7578#change-102499)
Note: the repro would behave even better if some vehicles config bugs were fixed, eg. MLRS correctly marked as not presenting any significant threat to aircraft. Currently the Su34 will use R73 once other missiles are depleted, as it feels "desperate" (considers MLRS threatening it significantly).

Devs complaining about content bugs. :D

[Killswitch]

You know it is ironic though

...Funny thing ... did you know that a M1030 motorcycle is more threatening to aircraft than a T-72 tank?

M1030 : threat[] = {0.5,0.5,0.5};
T72: threat[] = {0.9,0.8,0.2};
(Of course, the bike could be driven by a very angry player with a Stinger) :D

EDIT: ticketed, see 22873 (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/22873)

EDIT 2: apparently, threat values are not absolute. See Suma's comment in that ticket.

[Suma]

You know it is ironic though:

Devs complaining about content bugs. :D

I have to admit I do not find it that ironic. I have analysed the cause, fixed what I could and recorded other observations in case they may become usefull later for anyone, esp. for content creators in general. I do not assume it is worth fixing at this point, and I find it understandable with the huge amounts of content there are various values which are not tuned as good as they could be.

[OMAC]

I have to admit I do not find it that ironic. I have analysed the cause, fixed what I could and recorded other observations in case they may become usefull later for anyone, esp. for content creators in general. I do not assume it is worth fixing at this point, and I find it understandable with the huge amounts of content there are various values which are not tuned as good as they could be.

I find this conversation about content bugs vs. "engine" bugs very interesting, and Suma's quote is quite illuminating in this regard. His quote tells me that "other" devs are responsible for bugs in content, which consists of thousands of tunable values, and of course lots of mission scripts. Anyone who reads the beta forums knows that Suma is constantly developing new things and fixing old things having to do with the engine, and engaging the community wonderfully while doing so.

I started with A2 late in 2010, and have played through everything in SP. About halfway through the A2 campaign, I thought to myself about how awesome the engine, modelling, and graphics were for the most part, and how so many (but not all) of the maddening bugs had to do with content and mission design, which I thought would be relatively easy to fix, and have greater immediate impact on players than esoteric engine issues.

So, IMHO, the good news is that the engine tech is more than 90% there, but the "content" lags behind, at least in A2, PMC, and BAF. I think that BIS should allocate more resources to mission design/fixing, content development, and playtesting in general. Just my two cents.

[nettrucker]

I find this conversation about content bugs vs. "engine" bugs very interesting, and Suma's quote is quite illuminating in this regard. His quote tells me that "other" devs are responsible for content bugs, which consist of thousands of tunable values, and of course lots of mission scripts. Anyone who reads the beta forums knows that Suma is constantly developing new things and fixing old things having to do with the engine, and engaging the community wonderfully while doing so.

So, IMHO, the good news is that the engine tech is more than 90% there, but the "content" lags behind, at least in A2, PMC, and BAF. I think that BIS should allocate more resources to mission design/fixing, content development, and playtesting in general. Just my two cents.

I agree with OMAC. More ressources in mission design and playtesting (quality control). BIS is lacking under that point of view which is bad for business. If the campaign of ArmA II wasn't broken on release it would've been a bigger success. IMO.

[twisted]

BIS provides support like no other game. That, and the amazing vision of their games, is why i will gladly spend money on their sim games without a second thought.

but no matter how amazing their support they do not have unlimited time. not making excuses for them just setting up a line of thinking.

The poster who suggested getting a trusted group of modders to 'fix' the problems that are fixable by configs is making a very smart suggestion.

Look at how skilled the modders in Arma2 are. And the offer is free and high quality labour from people who know the game almost as well as the devs. Only payment would be the honour of having their credits in next bis game that incorporates such patch/changes.

the thing is to aim big and remove as much workload on the issues that are important to community and then make it easy for BIS to review and accept them. The less work BIS has to do on such a lot of problems the more value they can get out of the situation.

how many issues should be aimed for - as many as possible. couple hundred if that many are important. and then these get properly documented and ticked off as they are done and incorporated in beta patches for community testing.

i hope BIS does see the sense in this if it can be made to mean minimal extra work for them for quite a good return. But if they choose not to then that is their business decision to stand by.

[OMAC]

If the campaign of ArmA II wasn't broken on release it would've been a bigger success. IMO.

I agree 100%. See GameSpot A2 review. More polish/less bugs = happy players = good reviews = more sales = more beer for Suma and Dwarden.

I should add that AI behavior is included in "engine" development, is integral to gameplay, and is still being improved, but still I think that BIS will get the biggest bang for the buck by concentrating on fixing content issues, given the already incredibly high quality of engine/environments/modelling.

Some of the best things about the A2 campaign are the plot, characters, and mission design. It is these which moved A2 from "game" to "triumph" category. All the best games have well-developed, intricate plots and gameplay, including non-linear play, sandbox environment, and choices with consequences. Unfortunately, many of the campaign missions have flawed objective triggers and other little bugs that deleteriously effect gameplay. All of those problems could have been removed with better play testing from smart, dedicated players - like those in these forums. I hope A3 has equally complex plot and gameplay. Note how OA is a world ahead of A2 in terms of bugs.

The way ToH is being developed with community previews is unparalleled in the history of gaming, AFAIK. Community feedback will guarantee a better game and more sales. I really, really hope that A3 goes the same route.

[Innomadic]

I agree 100%. See GameSpot A2 review. More polish/less bugs = happy players = good reviews = more sales = more beer for Suma and Dwarden.

Actually if they had more time with the game, waited for everything to be patched, then we'd see better reviews, however reviewers simply don't stay around for long, which is exactly NOT what Arma is about really.

Reviewers these days need everything delivered on a silver platter...

[OMAC]

Actually if they had more time with the game, waited for everything to be patched, then we'd see better reviews, however reviewers simply don't stay around for long, which is exactly NOT what Arma is about really.

Reviewers these days need everything delivered on a silver platter...

Well said. But at least sites like GameSpot include player reviews, and averaged overall game scores including those of players, which I usually find to be quite accurate overall (exception - see BAF score below).

GameSpot scores (PC versions only):

A2 - 8.0 ("great")
OA - 8.5
-----------------
Crysis - 9.5
Crysis Warhead - 9.0
F.E.A.R - 9.1
Far Cry 2 - 8.5
Doom 3 - 8.5
Operation Flashpoint: Red River - 6.5 ("fair" = crap)
Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising - N/A (total extreme crap)

User Scores (GameSpot scores not available):

PMC - 8.5 (loser boy critic score - 6.9, silver platter delivery needed)
BAF - 7.1 (inaccurate; critic score - 8.5, my score - 8.5, would have been 9.0 if it was longer)

Edit:

Compare scores of OA and Far Cry 2. Given engine/graphics/modelling, OA should be a 9.5 compared to FC 2. The only reason it isn't is short length and lagging content. I personally think that if the scenarios are included for evaluation, OA should get a 9.0 score.

[No Use For A Name]

I say let BIS decide since they're the ones that made the damned thing lol...

Something that sounds as easy as "changing a little bit of code" or whatever can have drastic results in the end-product, and BIS devs are the only ones that see/know that.

Let them do their work in peace

Personally I'm happy that they're still supporting a 2+ year old game with constant patches/updates, whilst most companies MAYBE patch their games once or twice and then move on

[OMAC]

I say let BIS decide since they're the ones that made the damned thing lol...

Something that sounds as easy as "changing a little bit of code" or whatever can have drastic results in the end-product, and BIS devs are the only ones that see/know that.

Let them do their work in peace

Personally I'm happy that they're still supporting a 2+ year old game with constant patches/updates, whilst most companies MAYBE patch their games once or twice and then move on

I agree. BIS rules. Best support in gaming history. But Freedom Fighters MUST BE FIXED. :eek:

[NoBrainer]

It's great to see the dev's explain things here!

I like the support that BIS provides. It's unique.
I also think that content fixes should have a higherpriority, since I belive you actually get rid of "that" bug once and for all.

Then BIS could consentrate on engine fixes en development afterwards.

Get rid of the obvious things.
BIS missions that is reported in the servers RPT log, that says "missing ;", things like that should be gone a long time ago.
Vehicles missing texture or other things. Just so BIS could consetrate on developing the game further.

But I may be wrong. I don't work as developer so...

[nettrucker]

I love BIS games but it's a fact that still a lot of things needs fixing. have a look at the CIT tracker. BIS has my full support because they support me their customer.
Just looking from the business point of view. The quality control is their weakest spot. If there would be an aproppriate quality control ArmA II would have blown and gone really big. The first days after release, the forum was one single rant. Todays customers are more and more demanding and today you can't allow yourself to release a faulty or malfunctioning product. BIS keeps up with it by supporting their games on a longterm run. They have lost a lot of sales due to the initial buggy or sometimes broken SP campaign. People couldn't play or finish the missions in the campaign and that has caused some heavy casualties in sales IMO.


Some of the best things about the A2 campaign are the plot, characters, and mission design. It is these which moved A2 from "game" to "triumph" category. All the best games have well-developed, intricate plots and gameplay, including non-linear play, sandbox environment, and choices with consequences. Unfortunately, many of the campaign missions have flawed objective triggers and other little bugs that deleteriously effect gameplay. All of those problems could have been removed with better play testing from smart, dedicated players - like those in these forums. I hope A3 has equally complex plot and gameplay. Note how OA is a world ahead of A2 in terms of bugs.



@<hidden> OMAC

They have never reached the strenght of CWC or Resistance IMO. I was able to identify myself with Armstrong and Troska the 2 main characters in the OFP campaigns. I couldn't in ARMA II nor in Armed Assault I also believe that people would be a lot more satisfied if the campaigns would have the epic lenght of the OFP campaigns. I hope in ArmA III they are going back to the roots when it comes to campaigns.:)

[Sniperwolf572]

The quality control is their weakest spot. If there would be an aproppriate quality control ArmA II would have blown and gone really big. The first days after release, the forum was one single rant. Todays customers are more and more demanding and today you can't allow yourself to release a faulty or malfunctioning product. BIS keeps up with it by supporting their games on a longterm run. They have lost a lot of sales due to the initial buggy or sometimes broken SP campaign. People couldn't play or finish the missions in the campaign and that has caused some heavy casualties in sales IMO.

While I do agree with you on the campaign/mission/showstopper bugs (I find those a bit more relevant since they're the first impression on people), you also have to realize how many things the engine exposes to the players/modders. A 100% bug free product is unreachable goal for any developer with that in mind.

With most games a bug-free story mode and missions is enough, while with ArmA there's the editor and the entire modding capability. If you look at the (abridged) list PvPScene made, you'll see that great many bugs listed there are not huge deals when you just look at the core campaign/missions, but are very important to the contributing community at large.

[nettrucker]

While I do agree with you on the campaign/mission/showstopper bugs (I find those a bit more relevant since they're the first impression on people), you also have to realize how many things the engine exposes to the players/modders. A 100% bug free product is unreachable goal for any developer with that in mind.

With most games a bug-free story mode and missions is enough, while with ArmA there's the editor and the entire modding capability. If you look at the (abridged) list PvPScene made, you'll see that great many bugs listed there are not huge deals when you just look at the core campaign/missions, but are very important to the contributing community at large.

I'm fully aware that a bugfree ArmA is an unreachable undertaking given to it's nature. It doesn't have to be bugfree but at least the SP campaign must be extensively tested in order to avoid the show stoppers. This can be only reached by quality control in this case. It's the first thing someone new to the game tries out. The missions or the campaign. If the campaign would have fully worked from the beginning and without gamebreaking issues the sales would have been much higher. Unfortunatly BIS already got labeled as a developer with a bugy release history, and believe me it's really hard to get rid of such a label.

OFP and the ArmA series are the best game investment I've ever made in my life. I love this game and I'm playing for 10 years now without ever getting tired.

But there are things which haven't been really resolved since OFP. For example AI can't drive for shit. Also the variety of "bugs" is astounding.
AI behaviour needs still to be improved IMO. It is already good but there's still room for improvement.:)

[OMAC]

I'm fully aware that a bugfree ArmA is an unreachable undertaking given to it's nature. It doesn't have to be bugfree but at least the SP campaign must be extensively tested in order to avoid the show stoppers. This can be only reached by quality control in this case. It's the first thing someone new to the game tries out. The missions or the campaign. If the campaign would have fully worked from the beginning and without gamebreaking issues the sales would have been much higher. Unfortunatly BIS already got labeled as a developer with a bugy release history, and believe me it's really hard to get rid of such a label.

The above quote should be carved on stone tablets and hung in the BIS CEO's office. Well said.

I have just played through the awesome CWR2 demo. Highly recommended for OFP lovers. I have never played any OFP game or Arma 1. Maybe I should!?

I also strongly agree with the last paragraph of nettrucker's post. AI driving is not good - not good at all (see GameSpot official review of A2). It massively effects game play and MUST be fixed.

My earlier posts here, and several of those by others since, are focusing solely on the showstopper/gamebreaker bugs, especially those in the SP campaigns and scenarios. Nobody here is whining about fixing every little bug. Forums are inevitably mainly about complaints - few write in to say how awesome the games are - they are too busy playing and having fun. All of us here wouldn't even bother writing if the A2 series wasn't a work of genius, something that we now find difficult to live without. We are all armaholics here. The BEST thing about BIS forums is the beta forums, where our voices are heard, problems solved, and the game is improved for everyone's benefit, including BIS.

[Tankbuster]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the list is already way too long.

Forgive me for speaking plainly but you're simply going to have to do better.

There's 977 open tickets on the CIT at the time of writing. To say you can actively address 5 or 10 of those (between 0.5 and 1%) is just not acceptable.

[.kju [PvPscene]]

Tankbuster .. did you check how many he fixed in this week?

[fabrizioT]

Suma is doing a massive work here. I wonder how meany developers are actively helping him in fixing engine bugs, it would be interesting to know.

I think BIS as a company would make a clever choice by investing resources to fix by now as many major bugs as possible. That will make actual customers more than happy to buy next BIS product and new customers will finally get (with ArmA3) a more polished product straight out-of-the box. Hence better reviews and less users ranting.

I know money is a key factor here, but what about partially financing more bugfixing/optimization through selling a new DLC? ArmA3 is still far enough.

[Tankbuster]

Tankbuster .. did you check how many he fixed in this week?

No, but I expect it was a tiny proportion. Are they being fixed quicker than they are being created?

The setMimic thing is just comical. If I'm honest, it's that that has led me to such overt criticism.

[DMarkwick]

I hope you'll forgive me for similarly speaking plainly TB.


Forgive me for speaking plainly but you're simply going to have to do better.

I'm pretty sure he's not slacking. I don't know what you expect to happen for saying such a thing.


There's 977 open tickets on the CIT at the time of writing. To say you can actively address 5 or 10 of those (between 0.5 and 1%) is just not acceptable.

Acceptable is a term bosses & shareholders use, I don't believe you have any levarage to use that term in a meaningful way. 977 tickets created by users, and most of what I see in those tickets, I never notice or don't use. I expect others have the same experience, albeit a different subset per person. I've worked in software development, and there are ALWAYS hundreds of issues needing looking at, most of which do not get fixed. That's a simple reality, not everything gets fixed.

Now, you might say that Suma's estimate of 5 or 10 sounds low, but from reading the various fixes that make recent betas, it seems a very low estimate for him. I doubt his natural modesty has benefited from your post.

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------


No, but I expect it was a tiny proportion. Are they being fixed quicker than they are being created?

The more people play, the more issues get raised. It's a double edged sword :)


The setMimic thing is just comical. If I'm honest, it's that that has led me to such overt criticism.

It's sometimes possible to look at an issue and see that it's a relatively minor or easy fix. If that's the case, and the CIT reveals it to be important to more people than other tickets raised, why not fix it? I, like you, couldn't care less about setMimic. But, if voting is all Suma has to go on RE popularity of fixes, then that's what he goes by.

[Tankbuster]

I don't think he's slacking DM. Perhaps I should clarify. I do think, with no real evidence other than being a customer for 6 years, that BI need to prioritise bug squashing higher than they do now.

I have no leverage, other than my credit card. :) And Suma, you and I all know I'm going to snap up the next title voraciously, but nevertheless, I think the word 'unacceptable' is fairly well chosen.

Those 977 tickets, that's just open tickets, so there's plenty more that aren't even actively being considered right now. You're right of course, many of both the former and latter are pretty minor, but I still maintain to be looking at 5 to 10 out of nearly a thousand is quite a low strike rate.

I don't want to offend Suma. As you say, he's a modest chap and I like that in him, but he's also the top of the tree at the company. That position, has it's challenges and reading stuff like this is just one of them

[NoRailgunner]

Maybe somekind of advanced tools could help to reduce testing certain things and features. But developing such tools takes away devtime on (next) game.
Guess BIS already know that there is no point in reinventing wheel. Imho they need to have a very close look at their A2OA content and make those things right. Otherwise A3 is going to be just "the old sandbox again - with X new features minus Z broken things or old issues/bugs." But there is hope that BIS devs will spend some time playing with A2OA and using the content from a customers view. Something that can be very effective in development. :)

[Jedra]

I worked in supporting systems all of my corporate career - there was always a desire to fix all of the open issues on every system. Fixing bugs takes resources and resources have to be paid for. This makes resources finite and requires that open issues need to be prioritised somehow as it is simply not cost effective to add more resource to fix them all. Also, in every organisation I have worked in, rightly or wrongly, support resources are always seen as a 'loss' as they do not appear (to shareholders etc) to be activiley contributing to revenue. Also often support resources were also required to take on new development duties as well, further limiting their ability to 'go at' open issues.

I am sure that BI have a similar approach where resources are tightly controlled with regard to fixing open issues, especially those considered to be not cost effective (either minor bugs, or large bugs that will take an unnacceptable amount of resource).

Taking all this into account, the amount of bug fixing that does actually happen on this game is far in excess of what I have seen for any other game. BI also actively involve the user base in deciding which bugs may be a priority - this is extremely rare. The developer/user relationship for Arma far surpasses any other mainstream game that I know of.

Bottom line is that BI will have to prioritise the issues as they will not be able to fix all the open bugs.

[Suma]

I have no leverage, other than my credit card. :) And Suma, you and I all know I'm going to snap up the next title voraciously, but nevertheless, I think the word 'unacceptable' is fairly well chosen.


From a business point of view, what you write is contradictory. If you still buy products from us, and are still decided to buy even more, you show us with your credit card then they are not "unacceptable" for you. "Bad", "shame", and other words could describe what you feel, but "unacceptable" does not seem to fit.

I understand we could do many things better than we do. However, let me present the same choice in other words. Let me, for the sake of argument, assume that we are unable to fix more bugs and polish the product more than we currently do. Would you prefer the scope of the product to be reduced in all areas (landscape size, number of vehicles, number of weapons, number of missions) to 30-50 % of what it is now? We are not only a bussiness, we are still to certain extent (even if it is now less than say in 2001) a kind of "partisan" company, a bunch of guys playing with their toys. We sometimes do some work just for the heck of it. Yes, I could perhaps fix some bugs instead of implementing butterflies, but the downside of it could be I would pretty soon leave the job because of frustration.

As for the leverage, I would say you have other leverage. You have leverage of voicing you oppinion, and you also have a leverage of the option to help us. I cannot repeat it often enough, for many bugs the most important thing to have them fixed is to have a high quality bug report with good repro steps in it (I intend to write a blog article about it soon, which should explain this in more detail).

I agree with DMarkwick that having 977 open issues by itself does not mean much. Almost each shipped product has a huge list of open issues. As long as the issues are "annoyances", and not "showstoppers", such situation seems acceptable to me.

[CameronMcDonald]

hai suma if a3 dosent has butterflys i wll not bye

[nettrucker]

One thing that is also a bit disappointing to me is, that a lot of bugs weren't there from the beginning they broke due to new patches. For example the "doTarget" command worked from release right out of the box. it has been broken later on by a patch, can't recall right now the version number and I opened also a ticket for it. In any case what I'm saying is that fixing bugs is a very delicate matter in question. I'm not aware about what is the keyfactor or what leads to the fact for breaking stuff that formerly worked fine. The openess and vastness of the game concept of ArmA definitely lead to more bugs, by that I don't want to give the impression to excuse that fact. I personally believe that a good quality control is a gain in every sense to a companies business and on a long term you can dedicate more of the company resources to take care of new projects you have running.

If I look at the situation strictly on business terms a good quality control is a must. If the product I'm selling isn't competitive or even faulty to some extend I'll be out of business on a long term run and whoever thinks that this might not apply to the gaming industry is wrong IMO.

Given the actual situation on the video game market where a lot of developers have no business ethics at all and are out for the quick buck BIS is standing out from that crowd. BIS has gained his position on the market. They just have to adjust slightly some internal issues. Give the quality control more importance. Second during all these years I've seen more and more developers taking out content rather than adding it to their games. This is a point that could be easily turned against them. BIS has always given a lot of content for my buck and that I do appreciate.

One other thing I've noticed is that after Resistence the importance of the SP campaign changed. The campaigns have become shorter and shorter. In my point of view the SP campaign is vital for the sales of a game. CWC and Resistance were so outstanding due to their lenght, the plot and the extraordinary fact that the player could easily identify himself to the character of the plot. It was so rich in mission content it was impossible to finish the campaign in 4-5 hours. I remember when playing myself the first time CWC. I was just wow. The more I played the more intrigued I got. The epicness of the OFP campaigns were also due to their lenght. A plot that was carried out throughout + 30 missions was so awesome. The more I played the more I wanted to play. Sorry if I got maybe a little bit off topic.
Final thought. I would give first priority to easy to fix bugs to reduce the quantity of open tickets, then dedicate my resources to the "icky" ones.
just my 2 cents:)

[.kju [PvPscene]]

Experience in (complex) software tells us for every bug you fix, you will add two new ones (for shipped/released software).

[nettrucker]

Experience in (complex) software tells us for every bug you fix, you will add two new ones (for shipped/released software).

The average customer doesn't care about that, they judge the final product. I can agree with SUMA that annoying bugs are acceptable to a certain degree show stopping bugs not. If you want to increase sales, the product can't have showstopping or gamebreaking bugs.

[.kju [PvPscene]]

I would argue that probably none of the listed bugs in the first post are
showstopping or gamebreaking bugs - not to the average gamer and
not even to almost everyone in here.

The showstopping or gamebreaking bugs were and are different ones.

The CIT and this topic are mainly about annoyances to different degrees.
The list was not created by the average customer, almost all of them no longer
play arma at this point, but very dedicated and to a large degree very capable people.

Your point is not what this thread is about - even though most people posted in here
didn't care about the goal of this thread and moderators don't feel like splitting
the new discussion to its own thread.

[nettrucker]

I would argue that probably none of the listed bugs in the first post are
showstopping or gamebreaking bugs - not to the average gamer and
not even to almost everyone in here.

The showstopping or gamebreaking bugs were and are different ones.

The CIT and this topic are mainly about annoyances to different degrees.
The list was not created by the average customer, almost all of them no longer
play arma at this point, but very dedicated and to a large degree very capable people.

Your point is not what this thread is about - even though most people posted in here
didn't care about the goal of this thread and moderators don't feel like splitting
the new discussion to its own thread.



Yeah I know . . . sorry didn't intent to derail this thread.

[Nyles]

Your point is not what this thread is about - even though most people posted in here
didn't care about the goal of this thread and moderators don't feel like splitting
the new discussion to its own thread.

What are you complaining about? Your top issue of SetMimic was fixed!

Sorry. Couldn't resist. :whistle:

[.kju [PvPscene]]

In case you read the first post (and the clarification) you should understand that these
are simply the highest voted engine bugs. Not mine.

[alef]

Maybe somekind of advanced tools could help to reduce testing certain things and features. But developing such tools takes away devtime on (next) game.I've did a testbench to help my testing.

... most people posted in here didn't care about the goal of this thread and moderators don't feel like splitting the new discussion to its own thread.
CIT has its own thread, which is now linked it from CIT homepage (http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/wiki/CIT) too.

[Nyles]

In case you read the first post (and the clarification) you should understand that these
are simply the highest voted engine bugs. Not mine.

I was being provocative.

As you know, I am simply not convinced that this should be the exclusive order in choosing what to fix (see SetMimic example).

Not sure, but I actually like that this thread has turned into a much general constructive discussion with a lot of good feedback and interesting suggestions, including a repeated plea to continue fixing important content/config issues not just engine issues - especially also focusing on those issues that help gameplay.

edit: thread, not threat....d'uh

[PeterBitt]

i think we can quite happy that arma2 is getting still patched after this long time scince release, cant think of many (non indie) developers with that suppport.

suma, you want good repro missions for the bugs? please look into these :p
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18075
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18118
dont got many votes with them, but it is annoying me every single time when i use my goggles or scopes with crosshair floating activated

[dontknowhow]

I understand we could do many things better than we do. However, let me present the same choice in other words. Let me, for the sake of argument, assume that we are unable to fix more bugs and polish the product more than we currently do. Would you prefer the scope of the product to be reduced in all areas (landscape size, number of vehicles, number of weapons, number of missions) to 30-50 % of what it is now? We are not only a bussiness, we are still to certain extent (even if it is now less than say in 2001) a kind of "partisan" company, a bunch of guys playing with their toys. We sometimes do some work just for the heck of it. Yes, I could perhaps fix some bugs instead of implementing butterflies, but the downside of it could be I would pretty soon leave the job because of frustration.

Far point. However, being someone who can afford to use the word "unacceptable" (I'll prove it when Arma 3 comes out), I would like to counter this argument with two objections.

1) to me part of the job of a software developer, something to be proud of, is to write something that actually works. It might be nice to implement the "cool" things, but what use does it have if what you implement is not usable? And besides the toys, how about properly managing the complexity that is one of the biggest challenge in software development? I'm not sure this is included in the definition of toy, but to me it should be

2) another point: customer satisfaction. And I don't mean it from a business point of view, but just from the point of view of someone who does, or is supposed to do, something for other people. Sure, many people are happy with the current situation and want to be loyal to the game; however, this thread proves that some are at least not so happy. And if people are not happy that's a big part of the motivation that goes, at least for me.

So okay, playing with toys can be nice, but maybe the job consists of other things too. And, again, there is no need to have a business point of view to look at it this way. I'm not exactly a businessman.

As a user, I would personally seriously consider the 30-50% option, but maybe we can settle for 60-70 :)

[CarlGustaffa]

...I think the word 'unacceptable' is fairly well chosen.


"If you still buy products from us, and are still decided to buy even more, you show us with your credit card then they are not "unacceptable" for you. Bad", "shame", and other words could describe what you feel, but "unacceptable" does not seem to fit.

The LOL factor was high on that one :D


One other thing I've noticed is that after Resistence the importance of the SP campaign changed. The campaigns have become shorter and shorter.

But inmission content and complexity has grown considerably. Manhattan mission alone would consist of pretty much one mission per objective back in OFP days. I don't think they compare very well.


In my point of view the SP campaign is vital for the sales of a game. CWC and Resistance were so outstanding due to their lenght, the plot and the extraordinary fact that the player could easily identify himself to the character of the plot.

Regarding identifying, I think Resistance was better than CWC, and resembles Arma2 pretty well. CWC was more like OA, and to less extent Arma1. Hell, I'll even say that Arma2 was a bit more realistic in terms of what we set out to do. CWC was the ultimate in it's time because it was so damned unique, combined with unheard of freedom. OA was fun I guess (but short, and lacked the Arma2 campaign/mission complexity), but multirole playing will never take me as far regarding identifying with those I portray as playing within the same unit.


It was so rich in mission content it was impossible to finish the campaign in 4-5 hours.

I think Razor Two (I only use HMMWV though), Manhattan, and Dogs of War take that time for me, each, even now when I pretty much know how to do them. You must be one hell of a player if you can do the whole campaign (at expert difficulty - OFP had only one user save - oh, and I hated it, lol) in 4-5 hours. Also that Bear mission (name eludes me) can take many many hours to complete if trying to do it careful.

I sincerely hope Arma3 will be dynamic enough to last as long as we want it to last. Like Oblivion - you can "complete it" in a matter of hours/days, or you can spend months/years in it if you want. And random and dynamic enough to allow awesome replayability. Possibly with some kind of character development to help us identify with whom we play.

[Big Dawg KS]

I intend to write a blog article about it soon, which should explain this in more detail

Yes, please do this ASAP. IMO if everyone who reported the bugs optimized their reports it would probably get a lot of the simple fixes fixed faster.

However it would also be nice to get some official word on content bugs too (like whehter they have any change of being fixed and how to best report them).

[Tankbuster]

From a business point of view, what you write is contradictory. If you still buy products from us, and are still decided to buy even more, you show us with your credit card then they are not "unacceptable" for you. "Bad", "shame", and other words could describe what you feel, but "unacceptable" does not seem to fit.

I understand we could do many things better than we do. However, let me present the same choice in other words. Let me, for the sake of argument, assume that we are unable to fix more bugs and polish the product more than we currently do. Would you prefer the scope of the product to be reduced in all areas (landscape size, number of vehicles, number of weapons, number of missions) to 30-50 % of what it is now? We are not only a bussiness, we are still to certain extent (even if it is now less than say in 2001) a kind of "partisan" company, a bunch of guys playing with their toys. We sometimes do some work just for the heck of it. Yes, I could perhaps fix some bugs instead of implementing butterflies, but the downside of it could be I would pretty soon leave the job because of frustration.

As for the leverage, I would say you have other leverage. You have leverage of voicing you oppinion, and you also have a leverage of the option to help us. I cannot repeat it often enough, for many bugs the most important thing to have them fixed is to have a high quality bug report with good repro steps in it (I intend to write a blog article about it soon, which should explain this in more detail).

I agree with DMarkwick that having 977 open issues by itself does not mean much. Almost each shipped product has a huge list of open issues. As long as the issues are "annoyances", and not "showstoppers", such situation seems acceptable to me.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, especially when we're using my first language and one I've been using for 40 years. :) Unacceptable or not, it's a pretty poor show.

You will see me on the CIT and I do run betas, though not now as often as I used to. I try to do my bit, but battling the bugs isn't fun for me, creating content and playing the game is the fun I paid for.

I accept that resources are finite. If your chaps are working flat out then perhaps, if I'm suggesting your priorities need looking at, yes, I'm saying I'd prefer a little less content and a little more polish. I don't need to say that the more content is released, the more bugs are made, do I?

I realise I'm leveraging right now. (What a horrific phrase! :) )And don't think that I and others don't appreciate you getting down and dirty with the users. It's worth more to us than you realise, I think.

I'm going to make a point again that I made earlier. There are apparently a number bugs in the CIT that could be fixed by the bashing of a couple of bytes. And stuff that used to work gets busted down the line. These things don't do you, us or the game justice.

[alef]

I cannot repeat it often enough, for many bugs the most important thing to have them fixed is to have a high quality bug report with good repro steps in it (I intend to write a blog article about it soon, which should explain this in more detail).

Yes, please do this ASAP. IMO if everyone who reported the bugs optimized their reports it would probably get a lot of the simple fixes fixed faster.

However it would also be nice to get some official word on content bugs too (like whehter they have any change of being fixed and how to best report them).
In the meantime, you may want to read his article "Killing Bugs (http://www.bistudio.com/index.php/english/company/developers-blog/81-killing-bugs)".
The last sentence there reflect probably what's happening these days:"... sometimes there are short periods of time dedicated to bug fixing either by individuals, or by small teams.".
So, now that they seems to have such time, let us give them something to do, like PvPscene attempted to do with this thread.

[DMarkwick]

So what's the correct way to pimp issues for more votes?

I still see problems using the Merlin for example. (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17373) Many scenarios I make get broken because of this.

*edit*
Meh, I guess this is a BAF-specific bug? Are the DLC's being worked on still or is that all done now?

[OMAC]

You want "killing bugs"? Try this one.

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18491

Please vote. That is my first and only filed bug, meaning that 1) no other bugs got me very pissed off, and 2) others are doing a great job filing all the bugs for me, allowing me to sit back and be a lazy bastard while playing A2 CO/RNF.

[Nyles]

Hey Suma,

I think it is really unfortunate that there are so many remaining issues in CIT still that could be fixed by a dedicated designer in 2-3 days of work without any code or art support.

Many of those really shouldn't be hard to deal with, but could greatly enhance the gameplay and actually make certain game components usable again, which are broken or buggy for ages.

It would be really awesome, if you could go through the items below and perhaps talk to some of the designers about the impact of investigating them. I can assure you that there are gems on that list, a large part of mp community has been hoping would get fixed for a long time.


make weapons lose less power over distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11479)
increase range for all manually guided missiles beyond 1500m (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18656)
AT weapons in T90 and BTR90 not working (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14436)
Reduce off-road speed for vehicles on Takistan to match experience on Chernarus (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13834)
Reduce bouncyness of handgrenades (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3513)
Tweak down countermeasures (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12692)
Add important soldier classes to factions missing them, like engineer (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16577)
Balance pass on AA-12 to tone down range (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16538)
Set up backup ironsights for those weapons clearly featuring them on them models already (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13857)
Fix Mi24 Falanga missiles almost always missing locked targets (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11850)
Increase Little Bird airspeed (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11767)
Don't allow carrying AS50 and AT weapons at same time (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15969)
BAF medic cannot equip handguns (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15666)
Fix double the amount of flares in 120rnd flare mag (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13914)
Change standalone grenade launchers to be sidearms (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13216)
Balance all TI-equiped weapons by treating them as machineguns in the inventory (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15970)
AS50 damage not matching damage from M107 sniper (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14888)
Add range-adjustments to grenade launchers (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15184)


I am sure others could expand that list with a large number of other minor issues that should be easy to fix, but could have a very positive impact on playability, like for example stronger ballistic curve and reduced range on infantry AT weapons, allow using the FAL's nightsight during daylight, etc.

Also, it would be really sweet, if you guys would consider making some units available to other factions as well. For example, the PMC-introduced Ka-60 would be perfect as an EAST unit as well without the need to do any texture adjustments.

Thanks!


Can we please get an official word on content bugs and whether they are still being fixed or not?

If not, this saves us all a lot of trouble spending our free time to look for and report new content issues.

If yes, it would be nice to understand the criteria for content bugs being reviewed and worked on. It is understandable that no content bugs are included in beta patches, but it would be great to know, if any further patches will include config and asset fixes or only code changes.

[Dwarden]

some content bugs are and will be fixed some not ...

this all depends also on free manpower (which is atm. occupied by working on Gamescom builds for A3, ToH, CC:GM titles)

also some of the 'bugs' listed are often 'design' decision thus not bugs but features

[CarlGustaffa]

It would be nice to see devs comment on the stuff that are design decisions, and why they are what they are. Like the issues regarding the AS50. Us mission makers use equipment by their real world counterparts, we don't examine their config data for weird entries suggesting otherwise. If it has unique stuff going on, should it be visible or hinted at in the weapons library text?

[Dwarden]

again, that's BAF content, which is now ARMA 3 team
it might be fixed for 1.60 content update as part of BAF 1.03 update ...

[-=seany=-]

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17538 Is it safe to assume this will be a content fix for 1.60? I promise I wont ask for any more fixes, well maybe just one or two more :D

[Nyles]

Hey Suma,

I think it is really unfortunate that there are so many remaining issues in CIT still that could be fixed by a dedicated designer in 2-3 days of work without any code or art support.

Many of those really shouldn't be hard to deal with, but could greatly enhance the gameplay and actually make certain game components usable again, which are broken or buggy for ages.

It would be really awesome, if you could go through the items below and perhaps talk to some of the designers about the impact of investigating them. I can assure you that there are gems on that list, a large part of mp community has been hoping would get fixed for a long time.


make weapons lose less power over distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11479)
increase range for all manually guided missiles beyond 1500m (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18656)
AT weapons in T90 and BTR90 not working (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14436)
Reduce off-road speed for vehicles on Takistan to match experience on Chernarus (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13834)
Reduce bouncyness of handgrenades (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3513)
Tweak down countermeasures (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12692)
Add important soldier classes to factions missing them, like engineer (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16577)
Balance pass on AA-12 to tone down range (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16538)
Set up backup ironsights for those weapons clearly featuring them on them models already (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13857)
Fix Mi24 Falanga missiles almost always missing locked targets (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11850)
Increase Little Bird airspeed (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11767)
Don't allow carrying AS50 and AT weapons at same time (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15969)
BAF medic cannot equip handguns (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15666)
Fix double the amount of flares in 120rnd flare mag (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13914)
Change standalone grenade launchers to be sidearms (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13216)
Balance all TI-equiped weapons by treating them as machineguns in the inventory (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15970)
AS50 damage not matching damage from M107 sniper (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14888)
Add range-adjustments to grenade launchers (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15184)


I am sure others could expand that list with a large number of other minor issues that should be easy to fix, but could have a very positive impact on playability, like for example stronger ballistic curve and reduced range on infantry AT weapons, allow using the FAL's nightsight during daylight, etc.

Also, it would be really sweet, if you guys would consider making some units available to other factions as well. For example, the PMC-introduced Ka-60 would be perfect as an EAST unit as well without the need to do any texture adjustments.

Thanks!

Just received a CIT update mail regarding issue #15969 (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15969). Thanks for the fix and keep up the effort! :)

[Dwarden]

yes there was some BAF fixing these days :)

[ruebe]

Some quick question, I didn't no where to put otherwise: How come some objects (for example "Land_Sack_EP1") do not respect gravity, once they've gained some velocity/momentum? They simply won't decelerate and fly away as if they were in space...

Probably some config error, but still... you'd assume such objects would simply inherit from a simple land-object class (where things are well defined) or something, so that was screwed up intentionally or what? :D

[Hanzu]

What is the difference when Status is Closed or Resolved (how do the moderators know which one to use)?

I see some World category tickets have Expired even though pretty much everyone here know World category bug fixes are really rare and maps like Charnarus are unlikely to get fixes regularly if ever.

I understand that some category issues are meant to be expired because changes in engine may fix them as a side effect or change original issue behaviour so much that issue ticket just comes obsolete, but could we have some exceptions here like World category issue tickets, so they would never have to expire?

Suma wants demomissions or good bug reprduction steps and says screenshots and videos are not as good evidence in CIT, however I feel that in World category demo missions or repro steps are pretty much waste of my limited CIT time or can anyone disagree that in World category issues GPS COORDS in title name and screenshots of the bug are much faster evidence than downloading demomission, extracting it and launching it in game? So basically what I want to hear here is that if provinding demo missions for Wold category issues increases chances to get them fixed or not?

CIT is also a great tool, but to improve activity there even more, it would be crucial that at least original reporter would automatically become watcher for his own issue also those who change title or description or provide replys should automatically become watchers. I personally set all issue tickets that I'm involved with any change or comment to Watch state so I can get email as soon as there is new info on the issue. I would like more people to do that too. For moderators it is understandable not to set everythting to Watch since they would be flooding in update email with all their great voluntery work.

[.kju [PvPscene]]

Resolved = Fixed (set by BI normally)
Closed = Confirmed fixed (by 2nd entity)

Expired = No enough evidence provided.
Normally only set after multiple requests to provide.

Normally one should be able to set to Feedback from Expired/Closed/Rejected.
This seems faulty right now. Investigation in progress.

[Sickboy]

You automatically receive notifications for tickets you create, depending on the notification settings you've setup in your account (http://dev-heaven.net/my/account).
"Only for things I watch or am involved in"

[Hanzu]

Resolved = Fixed (set by BI normally)
Closed = Confirmed fixed (by 2nd entity)

Expired = No enough evidence provided.
Normally only set after multiple requests to provide.

Normally one should be able to set to Feedback from Expired/Closed/Rejected.
This seems faulty right now. Investigation in progress.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.


You automatically receive notifications for tickets you create, depending on the notification settings you've setup in your account (http://dev-heaven.net/my/account).
"Only for things I watch or am involved in"

Thank you. I began to wonder how is it, since I have barely never seen orginal ticket creator for some old ticket to wake up and comment when I add or change something in there. Maybe their notifications go to some email they do not use anymore or maybe they just do not care anymore.

[Hanzu]

Just a humble opinion:

Filter->Status->closed should show only Closed and Expired tickets, not Duplicates. It is confusing to see both Duplicates of open tickets and Duplicates of closed tickets under same filter.

I have 3 different suggestions to improve this:

1) The best way to do it would be to make Duplicates show up in open or closed filter depending on their host issue status (the issue that made them Duplicate in the first place)

2) Filter->Status->closed function could be fixed to not to show Duplicates.

3) Adding new filter called Filter->Status->closed excluding duplicates

What do you think?

Hopefully I don't need to use time for writing what I need it for, but believe it is for common good. :)

[Sickboy]

Thank you. I began to wonder how is it, since I have barely never seen orginal ticket creator for some old ticket to wake up and comment when I add or change something in there. Maybe their notifications go to some email they do not use anymore or maybe they just do not care anymore.Long gone, or otherwise not interested / lazy are perhaps other reasons.

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 ----------


Just a humble opinion:

Filter->Status->closed should show only Closed and Expired tickets, not Duplicates. It is confusing to see both Duplicates of open tickets and Duplicates of closed tickets under same filter.

I have 3 different suggestions to improve this:

1) The best way to do it would be to make Duplicates show up in open or closed filter depending on their host issue status (the issue that made them Duplicate in the first place)

2) Filter->Status->closed function could be fixed to not to show Duplicates.

3) Adding new filter called Filter->Status->closed excluding duplicates

What do you think?

Hopefully I don't need to use time for writing what I need it for, but believe it is for common good. :)

Filter -> Status -> Is -> Closed. Apply.
You can also click the small +, to select multiple statuses.

You can save the filter for ease of use.

[.kju [PvPscene]]

Hanzu simply do:
# Status
# is <- the key
# Select as desired, like: Closed or a combination.

[Hanzu]

Filter -> Status -> Is -> Closed. Apply.
You can also click the small +, to select multiple statuses.

You can save the filter for ease of use.


Hanzu simply do:
# Status
# is <- the key
# Select as desired, like: Closed or a combination.

Aha! Thank you guys. Never realized there can be multiple filters of same type and only now I noticed that there is indeed square + gadget (in my resolution it was just too tiny for my eyes to comprehend).

What a great tool this is. Probably the best bug managing system in whole world we got here. :)

Save filter seems to demand filling out the fields once more before there is actually something to save. So I think I'm going to keep on using browser bookmarks of set filters like I have done, just because it is easier for me ( again there could be something better in CIT I have not realized).

[Sickboy]

Aha! Thank you guys. Never realized there can be multiple filters of same type and only now I noticed that there is indeed square + gadget (in my resolution it was just too tiny for my eyes to comprehend).

What a great tool this is. Probably the best bug managing system in whole world we got here. :) ;) Redmine is indeed rather powerful, for those willing to dig a little deeper :)


Save filter seems to demand filling out the fields once more before there is actually something to save. So I think I'm going to keep on using browser bookmarks of set filters like I have done, just because it is easier for me ( again there could be something better in CIT I have not realized).Strange, normally if you click Save, the filtering that is currently active should appear in the Save filter page.
What browser are you using and what exact version?

[Hanzu]

;)
Strange, normally if you click Save, the filtering that is currently active should appear in the Save filter page.
What browser are you using and what exact version?

Firefox 6.0.2 and now that I look it again, I realize I was just fooled by all those blank lines and it does save the filters and the only thing you need to do is to write name for save and manually set is "Sort" which in Browser bookmarks is automatically included. Save seems to be great feature too. I will utilize it now on.

Browser booksmarks for set filters will however stay in use too, because I can share them with others and this is something I can't do with CIT query saves.

[Hanzu]

Should any of these be changed from World category to Model category?
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18666 Chernarus GPS COORDS 068128 Chernogorsk International Hotel ID 969757 ladders not working and soldiers float on roofs
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/1619 Chernarus GPS COORDS 096016 Pobeda Dam gap between bridge parts ID 70492 and ID 70496
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3961 Chernarus GPS COORDS 101100 Staroye traffic sign arrow point Msta west when it should point east
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/2143 Chernarus GPS COORDS 103117 Topolka Dam gap between bridge parts ID 354791 and ID 354797
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16344 Chernarus GPS COORDS 103117 Topolka Dam water sticking out of the wall on dry side tunnels
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/24864 Chernarus GPS COORDS 120062 Berezino advertising pillar ID 262127 is completely missing collision
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/2143 Chernarus GPS COORDS 103117 Topolka Dam gap between bridge parts ID 354791 and ID 354797
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17099 Chernarus GPS COORDS 133024-133025 Olsha house ID 96480 has terrain inside all over furniture
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/19886 Utes GPS COORDS 042018 (and other locations) stonepilefences prevent going prone when standing near them

I have hard time identifying what is World issue and what is Model issue. If some model like Popeda Dam or Topolka Dam is not used in any other map is that World category issue then?

Or if two models are set inside each other it is ofcourse World issue and not Model issue, right?

When same Model in various locations of a map is lacking collision always in a same way it is Model issue, right?

Also now that I have gone through whole World category by cleaning titles & descriptions, adding screenshotting or missing repro demos. It feels kind of bad to give away issues to Model category which is more of a mess to look at and contains 4-5 times more open issues, but ofcourse if you are sure something should go to Model category please change category for above issues.

[Nyles]

Hey Suma,

I think it is really unfortunate that there are so many remaining issues in CIT still that could be fixed by a dedicated designer in 2-3 days of work without any code or art support.

Many of those really shouldn't be hard to deal with, but could greatly enhance the gameplay and actually make certain game components usable again, which are broken or buggy for ages.

It would be really awesome, if you could go through the items below and perhaps talk to some of the designers about the impact of investigating them. I can assure you that there are gems on that list, a large part of mp community has been hoping would get fixed for a long time.


make weapons lose less power over distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11479)
increase range for all manually guided missiles beyond 1500m (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18656)
AT weapons in T90 and BTR90 not working (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14436)
Reduce off-road speed for vehicles on Takistan to match experience on Chernarus (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13834)
Reduce bouncyness of handgrenades (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3513)
Tweak down countermeasures (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12692)
Add important soldier classes to factions missing them, like engineer (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16577)
Balance pass on AA-12 to tone down range (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16538)
Set up backup ironsights for those weapons clearly featuring them on them models already (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13857)
Fix Mi24 Falanga missiles almost always missing locked targets (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11850)
Increase Little Bird airspeed (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11767)
Don't allow carrying AS50 and AT weapons at same time (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15969)
BAF medic cannot equip handguns (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15666)
Fix double the amount of flares in 120rnd flare mag (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13914)
Change standalone grenade launchers to be sidearms (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13216)
Balance all TI-equiped weapons by treating them as machineguns in the inventory (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15970)
AS50 damage not matching damage from M107 sniper (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14888)
Add range-adjustments to grenade launchers (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15184)


I am sure others could expand that list with a large number of other minor issues that should be easy to fix, but could have a very positive impact on playability, like for example stronger ballistic curve and reduced range on infantry AT weapons, allow using the FAL's nightsight during daylight, etc.

Also, it would be really sweet, if you guys would consider making some units available to other factions as well. For example, the PMC-introduced Ka-60 would be perfect as an EAST unit as well without the need to do any texture adjustments.

Thanks!

Marked the faulty damage drop over distance off as well, now that this got addressed in the last beta. Turned out to be a code issue afterall and not related to assets and config setup, so let's keep that in mind for the future... ;)

Any chance to get some more issues from that list looked into before 1.60 ships? :)

[Sickboy]

1.60 is supposed to ship asap because of the huge improvements and it has been already a long time since the last official patch.

So currently only regressions, and bugs introduced with 1.60 are mainly handled.

[DBGB]

I was wondering about the way that users at dev-heaven in the community issue tracker can vote a bug/feature/etc. up in the same way that a Product Owner (as viewed within a Scrum development framework) decides priorities for a product backlog item?


So th BI devs use the CIT tickets to monitor potential product backlog items and pick 'public CIT' items for the next sprints ?

Just curious about the similarities - Don't know if this is the right forum for this post.....feel free to move this post to the sprint backlog ;-)

[.kju [PvPscene]]

BI checks high voted tickets more likely yes. Yet it is not the only aspect for that.
Very important is ticket quality (short, precise, required info present), as well as type
(CTD/AI/engine and a few others have high(er) chance, model/world and a few others
are unlikely to get look into at this point).
Finally there is also personal interest of the coder and usefulness for future products.

I cannot answer your main question, but from what I can tell they dont use strict
SCRUM product backlog principles.

[[GLT] Legislator]

I'd like to ask a question. Will someone of the devs browse through the CIT to close tickets which won't be taken care of anyway? This way it would be far more easier to browse the latest issues.

[OMAC]

In dev-heaven, how does one add a project to one's Favorite Projects list?

[.kju [PvPscene]]

You need to get member status for it. Ask a manager of the project to make you tester or another role.

[OMAC]

You need to get member status for it. As a manager of the project to make you tester or another role.

Got it. Thanks.