What would you want to see for the next release cycle? VOTE!

[Buginator]

We know beta 4 has lots of issues, most of all, the path-finding is crap.
Here is a bit of a explanation.

The current release candidate 2.1, means that you can't use your old beta 4 savegames. This can be a big issue to some.
2.1 will not have FMVs.
2.1 does (should) fix the bad path-finding in 2.1 beta 4.

On the other hand, we could skip 2.1, and just go to 2.2.

All the fixes in 2.1 (since beta 4) are in 2.2 also.
2.2 savegames are the same format as 2.1 b4.
2.2 will have FMVs*.
2.2 will also have other enhancements.
(edit) releasing 2.2 will take longer to release than 2.1 (as the release cycle will have to start over again)

The only other problem with 2.2, is some of the features it has are untested by a wide pool of testers, so we may run into unforeseen issues.

In either case, there is going to be another beta, but if the beta is from 2.1 or 2.2, that is what I am attempting to find out.

So Vote NOW!

*on linux & windows at least, but we have no testing on macs yet!
p.s, sorry about the poll before, had to correct a few things.

[Deus Siddis]

FMV FTW.

[lav_coyote25]

so 2.2 is going to be released when?

[ratarf]

The bad pathfinding can really ruin skirmish games. The FMV's are cool, but not critical. I would really like a stable 2.1 that enables decent LAN and skirmish games!

[EvilGuru]

so 2.2 is going to be released when?

Depends — if we decide to skip 2.1 (which the poll seems to indicate is the desired direction) — then probably not too long. Feature wise it will just include FMVs and multi-threaded path finding (along with a netcode improvement or two by myself).

So if that is the route we decide to go a beta can be expected quite soon. Final release is another matter.

Regards, Freddie.

[ClockWork]

The 2.2 seems to have many edges over continuing with 2.1

But it seems a little one sided that 2.2 has a bunch of great deals, and 2.1 does not. I would like to know the advantages of continuing 2.1 over starting 2.2

[Buginator]

The 2.2 seems to have many edges over continuing with 2.1

But it seems a little one sided that 2.2 has a bunch of great deals, and 2.1 does not. I would like to know the advantages of continuing 2.1 over starting 2.2

As I said:

The only other problem with 2.2, is some of the features it has are untested by a wide pool of testers, so we may run into unforeseen issues.

[kage]

I voted for 2.2, but with an important note: we shouldn't postpone it any further than that.

The kicker for me was the savegame compatibility -- if I were doing a campaign, and were a typical end-user, that would be especially important to me.

[Zarel]

I can verify that 2.2's skirmishes and multiplayer are usable. The campaign is, of course, fairly messed up.

2.2 still has sync issues in multiplayer. The LasSat usually doesn't damage units (although I don't think it does in 2.1b4, either). The weird auto-repair thing. Flamer projectiles going everywhere. Flamers in Guard position turning back before they actually attack. Repair facilities being strange. Units ordered to Hold Position don't necessarily stop moving.

But most of these are also present in 2.1, and in my extensive testing, these are the only really annoying bugs I've noticed.

[EvilGuru]

I can verify that 2.2's skirmishes and multiplayer are usable. The campaign is, of course, fairly messed up.

2.2 still has sync issues in multiplayer. The LasSat usually doesn't damage units (although I don't think it does in 2.1b4, either). The weird auto-repair thing. Flamer projectiles going everywhere. Flamers in Guard position turning back before they actually attack. Repair facilities being strange. Units ordered to Hold Position don't necessarily stop moving.

But most of these are also present in 2.1, and in my extensive testing, these are the only really annoying bugs I've noticed.

I have a patch for the sync issues (https://gna.org/patch/?1088) and Buggy I believe has a patch for the flamer projectiles.

Regards, Freddie.

[Buginator]

I can verify that 2.2's skirmishes and multiplayer are usable. The campaign is, of course, fairly messed up.

Care to elaborate about the campaign? I played all the way through to cam 2, without issue, with the videos.

But most of these are also present in 2.1, and in my extensive testing, these are the only really annoying bugs I've noticed.

Yes, most of those are in both versions.

I have a patch for the sync issues (https://gna.org/patch/?1088) and Buggy I believe has a patch for the flamer projectiles.

I got a temp fix for it, yeah. The issue is with the projectile code itself, and well... maybe we should revert.

[Zarel]

Care to elaborate about the campaign? I played all the way through to cam 2, without issue, with the videos.

...okay, so I should update my copy of trunk more often.

[Buginator]

And the results are in.

The 7 people that wanted 2.1 beta 5, it will be released shortly.

For the 21 people that wanted 2.2 beta 1. Your out of luck.

For the 4 people who are indifferent, well,


Heh, just kidding, 2.2 ALPHA 1 has been released.
Giel has made a windows installer version, and it is on GNA right now.
DEBUG build:
http://download.gna.org/warzone/snapshots/warzone2100-TRUNK-r6074-debug-FMV5i.exe
RELEASE build:
http://download.gna.org/warzone/snapshots/warzone2100-TRUNK-r6074-FMV5i.exe
They are both ~188MB
The difference is a release build has optimized code, and runs faster, and 'crashes' less.
The debug build has debug info in it, is somewhat slower, and 'crashes' a bit more, since it has debug code in it, and we use that to tell us when something goes wrong. Or in other words, the debug build tells the devs more information than a release build.
Now, get out there and test!

[skellr]

Nice work you guys. Thanks

[Jimmbob]

ahh the next stage in the wonderful development of Warzone 2100 =) great work you lot it is very much appreciated