Our ReVolt Pub

the problem wasnt just in Market1.

i made Ambient Audio mods for Petrovolt, Quake, & Venice. took me a long time. they are totally hosed thx to this bug


i see a pattern here ~ you seriously screwed up RV in 121225.
why are you screwing with so much chit!?
why?!

all we want is 1.2b with rev tracks and customs folder ~ thats all!
wtf?

---

[Vaid]: Split from "ambient audio volume" bug topic.

Dear sir,
You have mistakenly taken us for the workers of your own dream.
We are definitively heading in another direction. Deal with it, or clear off.

clearing off, 1.2a has become a waste of time.

ThugsRook @ 11 Mar 2015, 09:53 PM wrote:clearing off

This
MADE MY DAY...

ThugsRook @ 11 Mar 2015, 11:31 PM wrote: the problem wasnt just in Market1.

i made Ambient Audio mods for Petrovolt, Quake, & Venice. took me a long time. they are totally hosed thx to this bug 


i see a pattern here ~ you seriously screwed up RV in 121225.
why are you screwing with so much chit!?
why?!

all we want is 1.2b with rev tracks and customs folder ~ thats all!
wtf?

Great job creating a scene over such a simple issue.. When we upgraded the Miles library to a newer version in 12.1225 the sfx volume got lowered as jigebren explained. Very simple to fix if reported, why did you take so long to find it? (unfair to blame you for not finding a bug earlier? just playing your own game of unfair blaming ).

in v150131 tracks ambient audio is at a lower volume then it should be,

i made Ambient Audio mods for Petrovolt, Quake, & Venice. took me a long time. they are totally hosed thx to this bug

Ambient audio (i.e., sfx with range set to zero) is heard from everywhere at a constant volume, so jigebren's last explanation about red circles will likely not apply. So you'll get the same behaviour as you expect...
If you had reported the bug in a nicer way without all the blaming and below-the-belt hitting, we could have focused on the more important part of your report and avoided unnecessary confusion.

blah blah blah

im sick of finding tons of bugs caused by you guys. it has become a complete waste of time. 1.2a is a useless piece of chit. great job

ThugsRook @ 12 Mar 2015, 06:07 PM wrote:im sick of finding tons of bugs [...]

If you are sick of finding bugs, why on Earth are you using alpha software? In fact, have you noticed that 'a' in v1.2a stands for 'alpha'?

Alpha versions are intended to be tested, not to be played. Fortunately latest RV 1.2 alphas are good enough and have several interesting features, so they are worth playing, despite the fact that the developers do not guarantee anything about them. But the people who test them help the developers here - that is the goal of alpha releases. You are yourself helping RV 1.2 development by playing those alpha versions and reporting several bugs.

Don't cry like a child. Just keep helping RV like a man.

nevermind @ 12 Mar 2015, 02:19 PM wrote:

ThugsRook @ 12 Mar 2015, 06:07 PM wrote:im sick of finding tons of bugs [...]

If you are sick of finding bugs, why on Earth are you using alpha software? In fact, have you noticed that 'a' in v1.2a stands for 'alpha'?

Thugs; either you don't understand the meaning of Alpha quality software or don't belong to "alpha" testing.

ThugsRook @ 12 Mar 2015, 06:07 PM wrote: im sick of finding tons of bugs caused by you guys.

Its not like they included these bugs on purpose (otherwise I would seriously question the purpose of this project)
Bugs are a natural part of development, no matter how careful you check your code and plan ahead (and even if you get things right, environments change, even to a point where something might become buggy again).

The time you spent on finding those bugs certainly wasn't a big waste of time since they otherwise would be still in the game, possibly causing other things not to work properly or just go unnoticed over time and make people think that its an intended behavior.

I give you a little bit of credit though in the point that it has been way to long since the last "stable" (aka beta aka non-alpha) release.
Sure, as a developer you can always lean back and say "its an alpha release, these things are to be expected" but on the other hand so many things have changed/included in the alphas since the last beta release that one can hardly expect a stable release anymore.

Unless they stop introducing new features and go through all the changes that they made since the beta to thoroughly check for possible bugs which would justify a stable/non-alpha release.
But considering their development cycle so far I don't see it happening anytime soon.

With that being said

jigebren wrote:Dear sir,
You have mistakenly taken us for the workers of your own dream.
We are definitively heading in another direction. Deal with it, or clear off.

^this so much.
If you don't like the direction where the project is going you are free to voice your opinion and maybe come to an understanding or a compromise with the people who are working on this project.
But getting mad at them is certainly not the way to go when they don't share the same opinion or when they are more interested in other things.
You are always free to revert to the beta or even the original version, no one forces you to use any particular version (one of the many great advantages of the PC platform).

Kenny @ 12 Mar 2015, 03:01 PM wrote: You are always free to revert to the beta or even the original version, no one forces you to use any particular version (one of the many great advantages of the PC platform).

You can't if you want to play with others due to the network protocol breakage.

they fix one thing and break 3 others...this is getting nowhere.
and why are they fixing/breaking things that dont need to be fixed?

its gotten to the point that even developing additional content for the 'alpha' is a complete waste of time.

so why bother?
why bother even using A at all?
its a nice sandbox to play in, but thats all it is.

i do run B, have been since its release. A is only for the sandbox and as i said even that is a waste of time.

am i the only bug finder in here?
am i the only person that notices these things?
wtf?
ive got my own projects to work on and i dont see Huki or Jig helping to bug find my work.


alpha is fine for what it is, but for gods sake ~ do some damn bug testing!

Abc wrote:You can't if you want to play with others due to the network protocol breakage.

So? If you want to play with other people you can still do so by making them use the same version as you (not likely if you aim to play with complete strangers but these are rarely fun anyway).

If they don't want to play with a different version you can also bite the bullet and temporarily use the same version they prefer.

If both are not an option for you then you're out of luck. But then its not an issue caused primarily by the developers but rather your own stubbornness.

Again, multiplayer's protocol breakage forces the parties to agree in a single version ._.

Devs, please make a final 1.2 for once of all and end all this.

ps: this talk needs to be moved to future of 1.2 lol

ThugsRook @ 12 Mar 2015, 06:17 PM wrote: they fix one thing and break 3 others...this is getting nowhere.
and why are they fixing/breaking things that dont need to be fixed?

its gotten to the point that even developing additional content for the 'alpha' is a complete waste of time.

so why bother?
why bother even using A at all?
its a nice sandbox to play in, but thats all it is.

i do run B, have been since its release. A is only for the sandbox and as i said even that is a waste of time.

am i the only bug finder in here?
am i the only person that notices these things?
wtf?
ive got my own projects to work on and i dont see Huki or Jig helping to bug find my work.


alpha is fine for what it is, but for gods sake ~ do some damn bug testing!

^^ EXACTLY! :'o':

ThugsRook @ 12 Mar 2015, 06:07 PM wrote:blah blah blah

Ok, you have no leg to stand on but you're still trying to run.
And this is turning pathetic...

- You don't seem to be able to answer any of the valid argument everyone gave you, all we get is your usual whining, and it's going around in circles. It's a waste of time for everyone.
- Apparently you're giving Abc the opportunity to sound like a jerk again. He doesn't need that.
- You don't really get the meaning of "clearing off", do you?
- Bashing is definitively not welcome.

So I'll do you a favor and give you a chance to stick to your own words : one week of fresh air will do you (and us) some good.

Adios amigo.

ThugsRook wrote:ive got my own projects to work on and i dont see Huki or Jig helping to bug find my work.

Ha ha. Since the reason hasn't occurred to you, I'm giving you a clue: Maybe Huki and Jig have simply no need for your work. The opposite is apparently less true. Hence... I also don't remember you asking us any help that we refused.
Oh, and if that's the way you use to help people, then please, stop helping us.

Kenny @ 12 Mar 2015, 07:01 PM wrote:Unless they stop introducing new features and go through all the changes that they made since the beta to thoroughly check for possible bugs which would justify a stable/non-alpha release.

Why should we check code when no bug is reported? Re-Volt is not a security oriented library you know, there's no reason to be conducting an audit on such a piece of software.

And what would be the point in checking only our changes? As far as I know the number of bugs we've fixed from the original code is order of magnitude greater than the number of bugs we had to fix after having introduced them.

BTW, there's something like 104077 lines of code in Re-Volt (without comments). If I take - let's say I'm very fast - 3 seconds to read and check each line, it's 3 days and a half of non-stop work, without eating, sleeping or peeing... (Oh, and no need to demonstrate that this estimation made no sense because this or that. I know).

jigebren wrote:And what would be the point in checking only our changes?

As I said, it would justify a "stable" release. And security programs/libraries would undergo a whole different way of code review, by "checking" I merely meant reviewing the code change in your head and double check if it could cause any possible problems elsewhere, thats hardly in the same class of code reviewing.

jigebren wrote:BTW, there's something like 104077 lines of code in Re-Volt (without comments).
If I take - let's say I'm very fast...

Thats exactly the reason why I said that I'm hardly expecting a stable release anymore (stable as in you can't expect it to contain no bugs that were not included in the original version and that perhaps even affect the game experience in one way or another), no need to get dramatic about it

Abc wrote:Again, multiplayer's protocol breakage forces the parties to agree in a single version ._.

Doesn't mean that its impossible to play with any other version than the newest alpha which was my whole point.
But if "inconvenience" equals "we are forced to use this" to you then I guess any more discussion about this is leading nowhere.

jigebren @ 13 Mar 2015, 02:03 AM wrote:So I'll do you a favor and give you a chance to stick to your own words : one week of fresh air will do you (and us) some good.

That's one way of winning an argument... just simply suspending the person you're arguing with.

Would you at least consider all of these issues that have been around for a while to be sorted out in RVGL in the distant future? That would sound like a good compromise for everyone.

BTW, there's something like 104077 lines of code in Re-Volt (without comments). If I take - let's say I'm very fast - 3 seconds to read and check each line, it's 3 days and a half of non-stop work, without eating, sleeping or peeing... (Oh, and no need to demonstrate that this estimation made no sense because this or that. I know).

Do you want to work on updating 1.2/working on RVGL or not? You make it sound like a chore, as if you don't really seem to enjoy doing it at all.

-deleted-

ThugsRook @ 12 Mar 2015, 10:37 PM wrote: blah blah blah

im sick of finding tons of bugs caused by you guys.

When you find a new bug or quirk in Re-Volt, you smile at your new discovery, report it to us, then pat yourself on the back and go to sleep peacefully.. why should you worry your head about whether it's an "original" bug or "caused by us"? What difference does it make to the end user?

If you choose to return after one week, I don't want any more of this "caused by you" nonsense. Either trust our code as good as you trust the original code or stick to the old version...

nero @ 13 Mar 2015, 03:00 PM wrote: Do you want to work on updating 1.2/working on RVGL or not? You make it sound like a chore, as if you don't really seem to enjoy doing it at all.

See the quote below:

all we want is 1.2b with rev tracks and customs folder ~ thats all!

Although this quote is from ThugsRook, it's the general impression we get from the community.
So.. Do you want us to update 1.2/work on RVGL or not? You don't seem to enjoy it at all, instead you finding faults and ask: "why was this necessary?" or "why did this need to be done?". You make it sound like a chore...

I don't understand how on earth we got so far off track from 1.2 being an updated patch to "OH NOES, U GUIZ R BREAKING STUFF, PLS STOPPIT OR I GO RAWWWRR N STUFF!"

Honestly, a bug is a bug irregardless of who or how it's caused, it should still be reported with appropriate steps in order to reproduce said bug, it gets looked at (depending on the severity/importance), it gets fixed and we're all one happy family.

I myself would still like to see both 1.2 and RVGL come along nicely, I don't really "play" the game anymore these days as I'm basically a content provider (well, cars... whatever) but all of this nonsense just gets us nowhere. Isn't that the whole point of us being a "community" anyway? What good is it if we don't assist each other and instead engage in pointless bickering and saber rattling?

Now everyone freaks out

1) nero: you like to abuse power, dont you? you dont simply suspend someone because you can unless you're his/her boss (ONLY in that case).

2) yeah, will you guys be working on rvgl or 1.2? Will this be a never ending patch? PLEASE RELEASE A FINAL PATCH FOR ONCE OF ALL!!!

3) Bugs are bugs but you people dont see that y'all are OVERLOOKING them!

4) i also think that some people are getting tired/"sick" of all this discussion/topic and all this fuss.

nero @ 13 Mar 2015, 10:30 AM wrote:That's one way of winning an argument... just simply suspending the person you're arguing with.

Oh, I really really didn't expect that one... What a surprise!
Where do you come from, have you ever read the topic, have you ever read other topics involving this guy?
I bet you haven't... but still I presume you thought it will make you look smart coming here to play the Mr. defender of freedom or whatever. So start from the beginning, read all that, read again my post above, then let me know if you still don't get it.

nero wrote:Would you at least consider all of these issues that have been around for a while to be sorted out in RVGL in the distant future?

What issues? We're on a topic about a sound issue, that as I said had been dealt with even before this report. Oh yeah, there was actually an issue around for a while, and I've just kicked it out.

nero wrote:You make it sound like a chore

I didn't make it sound like anything. You are trying to make me sound like... The difference is not even subtitle.

Skarma wrote:I don't understand how on earth we got so far off track from 1.2 being an updated patch to "OH NOES, U GUIZ R BREAKING STUFF, PLS STOPPIT OR I GO RAWWWRR N STUFF!"

+1

Huki wrote: Although this quote is from ThugsRook, it's the general impression we get from the community.
So.. Do you want us to update 1.2/work on RVGL or not? You don't seem to enjoy it at all, instead you finding faults and ask: "why was this necessary?" or "why did this need to be done?". You make it sound like a chore...

You're not making any sense here.

Jig wrote:Oh, I really really didn't expect that one... What a surprise!
Where do you come from, have you ever read the topic, have you ever read other topics involving this guy?
I bet you haven't... but still I presume you thought it will make you look smart coming here to play the Mr. defender of freedom or whatever. So start from the beginning, read all that, read again my post above, then let me know if you still don't get it.

Warn people before suspending them.

Jig wrote:What issues?

I purposely phrased the question that way as a general question.

Jig wrote:I didn't make it sound like anything. You are trying to make me sound like...

Yes. That's the impression I'm getting, anyway. You're beyond fed up with something. I'm not sure what it is, but I can't really blame you after what you've had to contend with lately.

Regardless, it's time to lock the topic.

Or move it to a dedicated one.....
Well just lock it anyway, the discussion went way too offtopic.

Thanks vaid

nero @ 13 Mar 2015, 10:30 AM wrote:Do you want to work on updating 1.2/working on RVGL or not? You make it sound like a chore, as if you don't really seem to enjoy doing it at all.

nero @ 13 Mar 2015, 02:18 PM wrote:

Huki wrote:So.. Do you want us to update 1.2/work on RVGL or not? You don't seem to enjoy it at all, instead you finding faults and ask: "why was this necessary?" or "why did this need to be done?". You make it sound like a chore...

You're not making any sense here.

Oh yes he does. Unless you don't like eating your own dogfood.

nero wrote:Warn people before suspending them.

But this is a warning! This a one week warning before the two weeks warning before the four weeks warning...

nero wrote:I purposely phrased the question that way as a general question.

And I purposely phrased my question as a request for a specific answer, just to avoid this kind of easy-to-throw-up / harder-to-justify claim, which I'm actually fed up of hearing.

Locking topic? This topic seems to be the opportunity to get rid of some annoying people, so we'd better let it run for while...

Oh yes he does. Unless you don't like eating your own dogfood.

Not really, since he was directing that at the wrong person. I can't really remember the last specific time I complained about the patch. If my perception of the situation regarding your attitude towards RVGL/1.2 and the feedback that you receive was wrong, please say so now.

And I purposely phrased my question as a request for a specific answer

A general statement on the matter would make an excellent compromise rather than escalating the argument. Tell us what you won't fix and we'll stop bugging you about it, it's that simple.

Obviously, some will still persist about a certain, long-discussed aspect of the game... but that can be easily ignored at this point.

Skarma @ 13 Mar 2015, 05:25 PM wrote:Honestly, a bug is a bug irregardless of who or how it's caused, it should still be reported with appropriate steps in order to reproduce said bug, it gets looked at (depending on the severity/importance), it gets fixed and we're all one happy family.

Exactly.

Isn't that the whole point of us being a "community" anyway? What good is it if we don't assist each other and instead engage in pointless bickering and saber rattling?

Yup.

nero @ 13 Mar 2015, 08:47 PM wrote:

Oh yes he does. Unless you don't like eating your own dogfood.

Not really, since he was directing that at the wrong person. I can't really remember the last specific time I complained about the patch.

The "you" was a general "you" and not specifically targeted at you. Just like your general "issues"

Huki @ 13 Mar 2015, 05:16 PM wrote: The "you" was a general "you" and not specifically targeted at you. Just like your general "issues"

You're still missing the point. Read the second part of that post, and answer that part.

Anyway, now that Vaid split the topic, I can clearly see now the posts that lead up to ThugsRook's suspension. While I still think he should've been given a verbal warning first, I don't think it would've made much of a difference. I would like to apologise for not seeing this sooner, otherwise we wouldn't be having some of these arguments right now.