Dev Branch and Regular Branch seperate installations

[Broadsword]

Why on earth does A3 not work like A2 when it comes to the ArmA 2 beta and utilize a seperate install?

My gaming community runs two servers, a dev and regular branch. This makes it virtually impossible for any one of our adminstrators to be able to effectively get a grasp of what's going on in both servers, due to the fact that we constantly have a roughly 900 mb difference between the versions. Quite a few of us, including myself, don't have great internet connections, and downloading that could take anywhere between twenty minutes, to an hour depending on peak times.

I'm not entirely sure if I'm truly inconvenienced or just sort of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, so, what do you guys think? Is it a hassle?

[L3TUC3]

I too miss the beta as a mod system from A2. It's currently really annoying to switch between the two because of the size difference and the required downloads.

If I had to venture a guess it's because the steam download platform works differently when it comes to beta builds, and the old system is now incompatible. I would like to see the old system return as it was way more convenient for both users and admins.

Right now I'm just sticking with DEV because I don't like swiching back and forth so often, but I dislike not being on stable because the server population is on there. It's probably a good idea to stick with stable server if you have finished missions/mods that work. You would only have to update every other month or so depending on the patch cycle instead of daily like with DEV.

[ANIMALMOTHER]

Yeah Ice I have to agree with you on this one, as you are a respectable taxpayer I hope they value your input.

[Dwarden]

you can install STABLE. copy the Arma 3 folder to new one
then switch to the DEV branch, copy the Arma 3 folder to another one

problem solved now you can use both branches

[Broadsword]

And what happens when the regular branch updates, Dwarden? Must I download it again, copy the contents to a new folder, and wash, rinse, repeat every time?

The short answer is, no, you haven't solved anyone's problem by giving them an interim solution for something that should've been considered when the game was divided into the two branches. There was the forethought to do this with ArmA 2, and now you tell me I need to constantly mess with a work-around?

I'm sorry, but your typical BIS response of 'fixing it yourself,' generally results in a decline in product quality and produces an image most similar to Bethesda wherein the community expects any piece of work you put out to lack quality, produce bugs, and generally break more than what is fixed. So, tell me, should I expect BIS as a developer to fix the problem they've made, or to tell me I need to fix it myself? How do you think that affects your company's image?

[Dwarden]

first off nobody forces you to be on the DEV branch at all ...
second off i gave you way how solve if you need both or often switch ...

if that's not enough for you then i'm sorry

[Ninzus]

another way would be to use steamCMD and use the serverdownload appids. that way you can keep your dev version up to date and when there is a stable update, you can simply run your updater cmd and it will patch your stable.

still prefer the old method, but hey, at least we got something :)

[Dwarden]

Originally posted by GQRF SYSTEM:

another way would be to use steamCMD and use the serverdownload appids. that way you can keep your dev version up to date and when there is a stable update, you can simply run your updater cmd and it will patch your stable.

still prefer the old method, but hey, at least we got something :)

ye steamcmd is another solution how keep both ...
as long as the user knows how to use it (copy is simpler)

[Broadsword]

Originally posted by Dwarden:

first off nobody forces you to be on the DEV branch at all ...
second off i gave you way how solve if you need both or often switch ...

if that's not enough for you then i'm sorry

As a moderator of a server, I have an obligation to fulfill those duties on either server. Telling someone who has to deal with a team killer, hacker, or so forth, that I can't swap either to, or from the DEV branch without what usually amounts to a 900 mb variation between the two both sucks, and creates a less than positive image for the server and its caretakers. I am required, by my social obligations in this case, to do my best to keep our servers at their bests, and my personal bias towards either the DEV or REG branch shouldn't play in to that.

You listed off an application which, I guess as you're fairly unaware, isn't going to get high hits on google (hyperlinking, or linking in general, helps), and, more importantly, is a work-around for a dropped feature that was implemented quite solidly into ArmA 2. Whilst I believe one person agrees with you that it's possible that it's something that can be dealt with, I believe everyone here solidly agrees with the concept that having two installs, ready to play (practically) out of the box is a much better method than an interim solution - and it is a solution that was already implemented by BIS. What gives? Is it really too effort much to have a REG and Dev branch application on Steam?

[Mirudes]

I doubt whether the new method is better than the previous one.
But why should you use a lesser effective way?

The server for the "Beta" testing are nearly empty, (so generally fewer results) and you can't improve the NetCode, if you have only 3 players on the server.

Or is everything no matter because BIS is only doing what BIS wants?
Voting in the bugtracker ~ futile.

[Dwarden]

sigh,
you can have both DEV and STABLE branch server,
downloaded and updated separately via STEAMcmd

same goes for the client ...

[Mirudes]

I have opened the multiplayer with the dev-version a hour ago.
There was one player in the beta test. ONE. And even the name wasn't shown, because the function is deadly slow or bugged.

How can BI pull representative results out of that?

When you say, participate to the betatest or leave it, you are actually saying: We are anyway working on DayZ only and give a sh*t about your opinions.

There is a bug, when the player is next to a burning vehicle, windows starts to freeze and one can hardly end the ArmA3-process. F*cking windows is freezing.

There is a copilot-bug, that is a gamebreaker in every online mission.

You know, people become frustrated, because they don't see any effects in BI development anymore.

You recommend only ineffective methods instead return back to the better.
You act like a bureaucrat.

[Dwarden]

you act in non-sense way

the beta system in A2: OA is no different to beta system used now in terms of player numbers ...
same complains about when major version changes like 1.62 vs 1.63 lol ...

yet contrary to A2: OA betas, we can now push also data changes and more often

if we need do tests on same build, thenwe already do ... hence 1.08 perfomance server binary test
http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/648814213868664022/#c648816742618565217

so, you complain here about like 5 things at once completely difefrent things

either be constructive or just stop posting ...

[Broadsword]

...Dwarden, is any complaint truly non-sensical or is that your automatic response? In my honest opinion, despite his rather angry post, he has valid complaints even if some may be personal hard-ware related. The ones that aren't, such as the co-pilot desync issues, are still items that do a big hand to damage the playability of ArmA 3. They share some of the questions I do, and I believe some of the disappointment.

In my honest opinion, your comments do more to damage BIS' image than help it, as I believe that poster illustrates in an exaggerated fashion. I do not see why you couldn't push data changes more often with a seperate version, nor have I seen a link to a tutorial to set up STABLE or the regular branch, or, whatever you're calling it, alongside the dev branch.

For various reasons, the developer branch may be more ideal, even if finicky, to certain players, such that they could even be completely disinterested in testing the developer branch, but are rather interested in seeing how any changes affect their 'normal' play, hence why the group I moderate for has a developer branch.

Most applications on Steam that run beta/dev builds do so with seperate applications and even installs. Perhaps, if it were easier for players to have access to both versions simultaneously without having to utilize a work around that you'll bring up but not link to, or explain, you might have a better turn out for those tests. Indeed, I might decide to, out of the kindness of my heart, participate in order to help you make a better game; however, whether or not I will is most certainly an issue that is up in the air.

Instead of a real answer or solution, I'm getting told to 'fix it yourself,' that doesn't say how, by someone who seems to think that this constructive posting and not passive aggressive behaviour. Some of us are adults here, and can handle simple answers like, "No," "I'll discuss it with my superiors," "We can't do that, but here's a link[lmgtfy.com]* to help you," and etc, are all things that I believe most people are well within the realm of understanding quite readily and aren't thoroughly aggravated as they would be by the idea of someone attempting to politely tell them off - after all, I seem like an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, don't I?

*If you actually clicked that, I suggest the second[www.inc.com] link.

[Dwarden]

the complain is about issue which is easily resolveable on user/admin side

there are at minimum 2 ways how keep concurrently both stable and dev branch on client
and the same applies to dedicated server

in fact, there are 3 ways for server
(performance binary and profiling binary dedicated server available as compatible with stable branch)
over 60 server admins already runs it and helping us with testing for several months

your comment about applications on steam which use betas behave differently
hardly, if they have branch system then they got exactly same behaviour

>Most applications on Steam that run beta/dev builds do so with seperate applications and even installs.
name some of the 'most' please so i can take look (and please not games already out for years)

note: old steam system of -beta and special commandline switches is obsolete by long shot
and not many developers uses now the old 'have another appID for beta' unless it's internal / own testing team(s) build ...

[Dwarden]

btw.i fully understand where you going with
"it would be nicer to have new appID for Arma 3 Dev and use separate folder"

i'm atm. not truely sure it can be doable logistically (all the pipelines changes)