It is all down to poor programming practise

[eyes]

For reasons I will not go into here, I cannot upgrade my computer from DirectX 9.0b to DirectX 9.0c. What does this mean in terms of graphics ? Microsoft say very little - the only difference is an upgraded Shader Model 3.0(prettier lighting effects). BUT, PE force you to upgrade before allowing access to the most recent upgrade. In other words they have committed one of the cardinal programming sins in not providing for backward compatability. This is not rocket science, it's one of the most basic considerations in programme distribution and I am completely bewildered at MindArks approach.

Think of almost any other programme on your computer, especially those with auto update, and imagine the chaos if every time you tried to use them they crashed because the upgrades were not backward compatible.

The Solution? - Don't replace during upgrades unless the class interfaces and dependancies are exactly the same, add options. In other words add a different User Interface and let the User decide which control panel to use, allow for previous versions of DirectX even if some graphics may be less pretty, etc etc.

Way to Go MindArk - keep this up and your programmers will be able to keep all the loot for themselves - they will be the only ones who can get on the site. I just hope someone from MA gets to read this. It could be the start of the begginning. Of course it could also be totally ignored - which appears to be another major beef on this site.

Get control of the smart boy whizz kids you employ at present get a decent, professional system analyst or project manager to oversee them at the top level.

No wonder this site is littered with so many dissatisfied and angry users, many of whom (including me) cannot even gain access to the site any more.

Entropy - Measure of the disorientation or disorganization of the universe.
Entropia - Measure of the chaos brought about by poor programming practices

[Tigerman]

Microsoft is NOT the only company that enforce a "you must have minimum directX version x.yz" reqirement. Even microsoft make games with such requirements. Its called "system requirements" for a reason. The only difference is that the previous version of PE required an older directX version than the new version does. Thats just a result of the game not being finished when it goes public..

[aridash]

actually, i have little problem with the upgrade to 9c, as change is inevitable. In fact one reason i lothe MS is its constant attempts to keep backward compatiblity rather than jetison old, crap technologies.

however what i do have a major problem with the lack of communication that the upgrade was required. this should have been put out there weeks ago.

oh, and its poor project managment, not the programmers. they are told to do this, or else they are doing without authority, either way its the managers at fault.

[wanda]

I agree with your idea of giving people options.
The game engine actually allows for lots of user options, but for some reason MA don't think we should have access to these options.

Even a simple option like running the game in a window - why can't players have this option?

I don't really see why unless its just laziness.

[Samantha Carter]

For reasons I will not go into here, I cannot upgrade my computer from DirectX 9.0b to DirectX 9.0c.

*Sniff Sniff* I smell a pirated copy of XP that can't be upgraded to SP2 therefor cannot be upgraded to DX9c.

I do agree that MA should have given warning that the next upgrade would force the install. But when were they ever open about things that are upcoming.

My suggestion would be to buy yourself a legit copy of XP pro and get it upgraded. (or at least find yourself a pirated copy that checks as valid against MS's database so you can get yourself SP2 on that thing)

[Squee]

As far as i can make out most of what your on about is about directx, and not other backwards compatible stuff.

I cannot agree on the directx portion. Directx9.0c is not new, and expected to be used by many games these days. To be exact a new article about its release was published on 5 october 2005.

As for it's backwards compatibility. DirectX 9.0c does not need to use SL3.0 so unless they put in a basic check i think there wouldnt be a problem there, and i think they did make that. Otherwise PE would probably crash when trying to use those functions.

And as updating to 9.0c you have full compatibility with all interfaces of directX, there is no real reason not to use it unless there is something very, very, verrrrry strange with your system configuration.

I cannot find one founded reason in your post for not updating your DirectX if you havent already. I am wondering what the reason is your running the old 9.0b instead of c and having such a problem accepting it.

I would guess you have problem running EU cause it cannot find a 9.0c interface on your computer, the reason for this post about it here. But Alot of games forced you to upgrade 9 months when it was released.

So my question, why cant you upgrade?

All i can imagine is some 3d software emulator because of an old 3d card or windows emulator ( or the likes ) that doesnt support 9.0c. Thus having a system thats not according to the specs at all.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by eyes

...In other words they have committed one of the cardinal programming sins in not providing for backward compatability. This is not rocket science, it's one of the most basic considerations in programme distribution and I am completely bewildered at MindArks approach.
...

Well, you're wrong. (IMO)

Providing backward compatability is an option, but is often very expensive, since it adds to code complexity, AND makes testing a lot more difficult and time consuming.

MA has chosen not to provide it, and is thus saving some time&money. Good choice imo.

I'm sorry if their decision sucks for you, but for the 99.9% of us, it's really better this way.

It's not like MA really NEEDS more configurations to test.
*caugh*

[eyes]

After reading the replies to my post I felt I just HAD to reply to some of them because when I read it again I think I explained my complaint very badly.

To Tigerman : Of course - most software houses release games which have a minimum system requirement. But very few upgrade am existing game so that it no longer works then turn round and say "Tough! - you can't even run the older version any more" And my system was running PE perfectly OK before the latest upgrade.

To Samantha : Thank you for your advice to obtain a legal copy of XP. You are quite right - I don't have a legal copy of XP. But then I don't have an illegal copy either since I run Windows 2000. I said I would not go into the reasons I couldn't upgrade DirectX because I didn't see the point of explaining that I write software for industrial control and robotics installations and I have to support many older, non standard applications, some of which won't even run on later versions of DirectX.

To Vedder : OK, I'm wrong - that's your opinion.
You say that providing backward compatability increases code complexity and
makes testing more difficult and time consuming. Well this time YOU are wrong - the existing code is already written and tested - the new code has to be written and tested anyway - and have you never heard of "Classes"?

Thanks everyone for your replies - I think that in my original post I should probably have said I WILL NOT upgrade to version 9.0c rather than I CANNOT upgrade, then my subsequent comments may have been read in a slightly different light. I think I shall build another computer just for running PE.


Wise old proverb : It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[danceofdeath]

Yes Options Options Options!!!! Ive quit many virtual games in the past because the failure to provide these Options when they did upgrade.. But when I was able to update my own system or hardware I never seemed to go back. I mean why should I if i already found something new and different with these options...

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by eyes

...
To Vedder : OK, I'm wrong - that's your opinion.
You say that providing backward compatability increases code complexity and
makes testing more difficult and time consuming. Well this time YOU are wrong - the existing code is already written and tested - the new code has to be written and tested anyway - and have you never heard of "Classes"?
...

Ehm... And the 'code' that figures out what version of the class to run?
And you are sure that the 'old' code should not be re-tested after new version code has been applied?

Whatever... You believe what you want, but if you've found a way to provide 'cost-free' backwards compatability, then you're gonna be a wealthy man. Gratz.