X3: Terran Conflict - Update 2.0 is here! (UPDATED)

General discussions about the games by Egosoft including X-BTF, XT, X², X³: Reunion, X³: Terran Conflict and X³: Albion Prelude.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

tim997
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu, 9. Jun 05, 01:23
x3tc

Post by tim997 »

pjknibbs wrote:Firstly, I didn't say that NOBODY else had his problem, just that most people didn't.
...but what are these statistics based on? Where's "99%" and "most people" coming from? I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying nobody else had the problem, but "99%" and "NOBODY" are only a stones throw apart. I just think it's unfair to dismiss someones problem without concrete statistics to backup your point. I also think though that if mpcribeiro is having problems that he should post a proper bug report with DXDiag somewhere, and hopefully has already done so :P
pjknibbs wrote:Secondly, patch 2.0 went through an extremely extensive beta testing phase, including (for the first time) a public beta where *anybody* could get involved. Why did none of those people find this mysterious crash/instability issue that apparently only exists in 2.0?
...and the public beta test was a great idea. Unfortunately, I don't think as many people participated in it as could have. Steam users like myself were unable to do so, which is unfortunate because I would have loved to help out. Looking at the public beta forum though, only a small handful of users seem to be doing most of the work so I don't think it's a good place to pull statistics. Just because the crash wasn't reported in the Beta forums doesn't mean you can deduce that most people now playing 2.0 don't suffer from it. I've seen a fair few posts across tech support about new problems introduced by 2.0 that were never reported in the Beta forums, but they're clearly still problems.

I just want Egosoft to be a little less eager to dismiss user problems as user-side issues rather than game issues, and not require a massive thread before they'll admit a problem is game-side. The flip side of the coin of course, is that users need to post proper bug reports with DXDiags and full details of an issue, rather than just ranting about how much things "suck"! :P

Cheers!
User avatar
perkint
Posts: 5191
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x3tc

Post by perkint »

tim997 wrote:Doesn't mean you can deduce that most people now playing 2.0 don't suffer from it. I've seen a fair few posts across tech support about new problems introduced by 2.0
The fact that there have only been a few (even a fair few) implies very heavily that most are not having the problem. If anything other than a minority were having sufficient problems to make it unplayable (which is exactly what was suggested in the post pjknibbs was replying to) there would be hundreds or thousands of users posting in there.
tim997 wrote:I just want Egosoft to be a little less eager to dismiss user problems as user-side issues rather than game issues, and not require a massive thread before they'll admit a problem is game-side.
The fact that they have managed to optimise the game does not mean that there was a problem. Just that they have been able to make some improvements - there are probably virtually no programs which cannot be optimised at least a little further. Recode something so it uses more ram, but less CPU for example. If it had been something bad enough to have been considered broken, I personally doubt very much that it would have been left till version 2.1!!

Tim
Struggling to find something from the forums - Google it!!! :D
eladan
Posts: 7168
Joined: Sat, 7. Jan 06, 16:01
x4

Post by eladan »

tim997 wrote:...but what are these statistics based on? Where's "99%" and "most people" coming from? I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying nobody else had the problem, but "99%" and "NOBODY" are only a stones throw apart.
...Actually, 99% and "EVERYBODY" are only a stones throw apart - there's quite a gulf between 99% of people and nobody. :P

However, it's true that no-one has hard figures on it, but given the scenario that pjknibbs mentioned, you would think that if there was some issue with 2.0 which caused the problems mentioned by mpcribeiro, that someone in the beta would have reported it. Given that I'm pretty sure there would have been more than 100 people involved in the beta, that suggests that if no-one reported such an issue, that 99% may actually be too low as an estimate.
I just think it's unfair to dismiss someones problem without concrete statistics to backup your point. I also think though that if mpcribeiro is having problems that he should post a proper bug report with DXDiag somewhere, and hopefully has already done so :P
No-one is dismissing his problem. They are merely saying that in all probability the problem is with his system, not the game. But yes - he should post in tech support if he wants to fix it (which he has.)
Looking at the public beta forum though, only a small handful of users seem to be doing most of the work so I don't think it's a good place to pull statistics.
If you count them, I think you might be surprised at the numbers. But I'm damned sure that considerably more people would have downloaded and played the beta than posted on the forum. Just as I'm damned sure that if they encountered issues such as suggested above, they would have posted about it.
Just because the crash wasn't reported in the Beta forums doesn't mean you can deduce that most people now playing 2.0 don't suffer from it.
I'm not a statistician, it's true, but I know enough about stats to be confident that the sample size of the beta test was large enough that the probability of a large percentage of people outside the beta encountering an issue which was non-existent in the beta test would be vanishingly small.
I've seen a fair few posts across tech support about new problems introduced by 2.0 that were never reported in the Beta forums, but they're clearly still problems.
All of them that I'm aware of are issues with specific aspects of missions or other position critical parts of the game, which of course not everyone in the beta will test, and quite possibly none will actually create the conditions required for the problem to appear. That's a long way different from a game troubled by ' instability, freezes, memory leaks and crashes'.
I just want Egosoft to be a little less eager to dismiss user problems as user-side issues rather than game issues, and not require a massive thread before they'll admit a problem is game-side.
Once more, no-one is dismissing his (or anyone elses) problems. But the fact is that most issues, especially the type mpcribeiro is reporting, are system problems rather than game problems. I assure you, every problem reported in tech support is taken seriously. You should be aware of this, as despite your initial concern that your own issue with performance wasn't being taken seriously, you now know that that wasn't the case.

(You knew I had to get involved, didn't you? :P)
escouflanfer
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu, 5. Aug 04, 17:43
x3tc

Post by escouflanfer »

Second and last part of suggestions to consider in a future patch.


1) Fix dialogs

It's almost impossible to hear the mission end messages as overlapped by the station welcome messages.

2) Fix formation ships with player ship

Always these ridiculous dances around the player ship ==> look instead at the magnificent fly of AI ships in formation.

3) Upgrade, fix interface. Lot of work remaining for quick / easy access, correct use of command and equipment.

3.1) Better encyclopedia

3.1.1) Command description

Add entry in encyclopedia to have a correct description of each command, which mean pre-requisite, parameters and expected endings listed.

3.1.2) Equipment description

Add the usefulness for player ship or own ship. For example: docking software useful only for player ship.

3.1.3) Formation description

Add description and typical use for each formation, with a 3D representation showing the leader position.

3.1.4) Activate entry towards encyclopedia

- Each entry in encyclopedia towards encyclopedia can be selected. For example, a ware of a factory can be clicked on and the associated page shows up.
- Each entry on ship panels towards encyclopedia can be selected. For example, the entries of compatible missiles on ship weapon panel.

3.2) Group management more useful

3.2.1) Command interface

- Have command names at group level idem command names at ship level (perhaps localization).
- Give access at group level to mining commands.
- Fix max refuel jump at group level value to 60 (instead of 55), same as ship level.
- Have the choice of the “leader” ships within the group ==> instead of an arbitrary choice.
- Have formation definition at level group applied at ship level (for ships added to the group, after change at group level) ==> seems to work random.
- Add direct entry to access the individual commands of the selected ship ==> it's more simple than browsing in the panel the list of the ships of the group, selecting the wanted ship, ask it temporary leaving the group then access its command interface...
- When adding a new sector in the patrol list, center the universe map on the last sector of the patrol list, if none, the sector of the group (where its base or “leader” is) ==> No use to center every time the sector where the player is…
- When ordering to attack, patrol, kill all enemies, choose in or without formation ==> not funny to see your lonely M5 attacking a heavy M1 while your big ships stay far.

3.2.2) Group ownership panel

Add access to sector or universe map centered on selected ship. This is already working on ship or station ownership panels.

3.2.3) For each ownership which can hold ship (carrier ship, station)

- Create a specific group for all ships which have the ownership defined as its base or which are landed on it ==> this preserves the 8 “colored” groups and give far more commands.
- Give access to the ETA of a returning ship to its base ==> scrollbar do not work.

3.3) Ownerships panels more efficient

- Add explicit access to sector or universe map ==> not documented on options showed when clicking on entry list.
- Add filter option to show / exclude sectors where enemy fleets are reported.
- Remove satellites from ships only view list and add a satellite only view list.

3.4) Ship position showed

On ship info panel and on trade panel, show the sector and the station where the ship is ==> not funny to look back the ownership list to get this info.

3.5) Give command access on best buy/sell panel list

- Add access to command as land (for current ship) and info for each entry list selected.

3.6) Add alternative commands

- Add command to auto map a sector ==> instead of finding the sector radius on map sector, then center the starting point of auto map, and then give the sector radius.
Edit << - Add enhanced command to auto map a sector logging ownerless ships, secret containers ==> would a player have enough time to follow its scouts one by one ? >>
- Add command to unfold only one satellite ==> instead of interrupting command to unfold satellite array.

4) Fix the monitors

Monitor targeted on player ship is changed to satellite newly unfold.

5) Add notes management

- Option to delete specific notes.
- Option to have automatic notes:
-- New sector visited, mapped...
-- Notoriety changed,
-- MK3 trader level progress.

6) Show more player properties

- Add notoriety of all corporations discovered, instead waiting first mission done.
- Add notoriety with the Yakis.
- Add estimated amount of cash of all properties (as player ranking).
- Add estimated amount of cash gained per hour (as player ranking).

7) Give correct player rankings

- Update the statistics accordingly to the profile submitted ==> some pages don’t change, for example, active satellites.
- Show timestamp for each page.
- If possible, show the timestamp of a profile.

With all ideas given by players, Egosoft has surely too much to do for a single patch :gruebel:

Last suggestion and hope : a vote :idea:

Edit << To the modos : if there is a more appropriate place to this kind of subjects, I would be happy to repost. >>

Escouflanfer
Last edited by escouflanfer on Sun, 19. Apr 09, 09:51, edited 1 time in total.
Quand il y a un problème avec des solutions, cela ne sert à rien de s'inquiéter, et quand il y a un problème sans solution, cela ne sert à rien, non plus, de s'inquiéter...
Proverbe tibétain
Targ Collective
Posts: 2973
Joined: Wed, 4. Feb 09, 21:42
x4

Post by Targ Collective »

Escouflanfer, ejected Freight Drones can be used to trade by commanding them directly.

CAG solves the hostile sector issue, so do jumpdrives and autofuelling at homebase.

There's more too. Try and find solutions to these problems, as they are out there.
escouflanfer
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu, 5. Aug 04, 17:43
x3tc

Post by escouflanfer »

Targ Collective wrote:Escouflanfer, ejected Freight Drones can be used to trade by commanding them directly.
Nice trick. An alternative for using ships as "big freighter drones". But as I wrote about the wish to have a better interface and less micro-management, the player should not have to command directly freighter drones. And to inforce that, why asking player the number of repetition when using drones, instead of quantity needed ?
Targ Collective wrote: CAG solves the hostile sector issue, so do jumpdrives and autofuelling at homebase.
I play vanilla game, so CAG is not a solution.

All my ships have jumpdrive (except size S). All my trade (MK3 & station) ships have 0 min - 60 max jumps defined with automatic jump (and station max jump to 30 jumps, so refuel is guaranteed).

AI player ships are stupid. They go without fear in sector where ennemies are reported. They don't flee if hostile ships go towards them. So my suggestions to declare forbidden sectors and better to define behavior.
Targ Collective wrote:There's more too. Try and find solutions to these problems, as they are out there.
If this thread is not the appropriate place to suggest what to do in next patchs, I would be happy to post at the right place.

Escouflanfer
Quand il y a un problème avec des solutions, cela ne sert à rien de s'inquiéter, et quand il y a un problème sans solution, cela ne sert à rien, non plus, de s'inquiéter...
Proverbe tibétain
User avatar
Cith
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu, 21. Sep 06, 19:47
x3tc

Post by Cith »

pjknibbs wrote:Instability, freezes, memory leaks and crashes which apparently 99% of the people playing this patch don't get, which suggests it's more likely to be your system than the patch.
I think you should take a look here. :P What system are you running TC on (lag free as you say)?
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish and he'll eat yours.
tim997
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu, 9. Jun 05, 01:23
x3tc

Post by tim997 »

Cith wrote:
pjknibbs wrote:Instability, freezes, memory leaks and crashes which apparently 99% of the people playing this patch don't get, which suggests it's more likely to be your system than the patch.
I think you should take a look here. :P What system are you running TC on (lag free as you say)?
Much as I hate to play Devil's Advocate Cith, that thread is primarily about performance. Pjknibbs is talking about "Instability, freezes, memory leaks and crashes". I still don't agree with his 99% statistic, but the performance thread isn't really a counter argument. If he were to say 99% of people have no performance issues though....

Cheers!
amirite
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu, 23. Oct 08, 22:01

Post by amirite »

Did anyone else just download a second update on steam just now? I already had the 2.0 patch but just now after restarting the game it made me download an update.
-TEVE
User avatar
fOSSil
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu, 10. Nov 05, 15:06
x3tc

Post by fOSSil »

amirite wrote:Did anyone else just download a second update on steam just now? I already had the 2.0 patch but just now after restarting the game it made me download an update.
Ignore it or read here :wink:.
mpcribeiro
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x3tc

Post by mpcribeiro »

pjknibbs wrote:Instability, freezes, memory leaks and crashes which apparently 99% of the people playing this patch don't get, which suggests it's more likely to be your system than the patch.
true is never software's fault... is always the hardware's fault when happens that same hardware and system has been happly running X3TC since its release version 1.01 until 1.4... of course happens that for unlucky time the same reliable system and hardware does seem to get fauly just when X3TC version 2.0 runs...

its really unlucky hardware... of course never software's fault... true!

thanks for your trusty comment of course... but certanly you have missed or not seen the tecnical forum where 99% of the posts seem to indicate a problem with guess what SOFTWARE!


but don't bother to comment this post coz I'm back to the RELIABLE X3TC GAME version 1.4 the patch version 2.0 was delivered into the BIN. Thanks

Cheers
User avatar
MegaJohnny
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed, 4. Jun 08, 22:30
x4

Post by MegaJohnny »

You have a point. I don't recall ever desperately looking for system settings modifications and other such in-depth tweaks to improve performance in any other video game.
tim997
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu, 9. Jun 05, 01:23
x3tc

Post by tim997 »

MegaJohnny wrote:You have a point. I don't recall ever desperately looking for system settings modifications and other such in-depth tweaks to improve performance in any other video game.
The necessary system modifications are a feature intended to increase the game's entertainment value - Just pretend that you're Han Solo, trying to fix the hyperdrive on the Millenium Falcon!

:twisted:
mpcribeiro
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x3tc

Post by mpcribeiro »

tim997 wrote:
Cith wrote:
pjknibbs wrote:Instability, freezes, memory leaks and crashes which apparently 99% of the people playing this patch don't get, which suggests it's more likely to be your system than the patch.
I think you should take a look here. :P What system are you running TC on (lag free as you say)?
Much as I hate to play Devil's Advocate Cith, that thread is primarily about performance. Pjknibbs is talking about "Instability, freezes, memory leaks and crashes". I still don't agree with his 99% statistic, but the performance thread isn't really a counter argument. If he were to say 99% of people have no performance issues though....

Cheers!
I have to be frank I didn't had performance issues while playing X3TC v2 last 3 weeks on my Quad Core in 2Gb of RAM and 768Mb video card

the only performance issue that I found (of course ignoring all other minor defects... loss of colours and seing 3D objects without colour and other minor irritating glitches ) ... I was saying the only time that I noticed some degradation in performance was when X3TC v2 freezed or jumped straight to desktop...

apart from the quick jump to desktop or jump my finger to reset button I've not see any other abnormal situation while playing the game.

But I'm sure that soon these small issues which make "players happy" will be solved on the next patch... so fingers crossed and then I (as individual and not as statistics number player) will be happy to join the 99% of those that played the game without a minor hardware problems... just to be part of the statistics.

I appologise for my language but reading that patornazing post really irritate me.

Anway X3TC v1.4 is estable enough and I'm happy to keep playing on my vast empire for next couple months until my hardware problems are solved on the patch version 2.1 or 3 or perhaps never.

Cheers
mpcribeiro
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x3tc

Post by mpcribeiro »

tim997 wrote:
MegaJohnny wrote:You have a point. I don't recall ever desperately looking for system settings modifications and other such in-depth tweaks to improve performance in any other video game.
The necessary system modifications are a feature intended to increase the game's entertainment value - Just pretend that you're Han Solo, trying to fix the hyperdrive on the Millenium Falcon!

:twisted:
well happens that millenium falcon is an obsolete model and wont have enough capacity to run X3 TC v2 :)

but a rig kitted with 4x 6 cores and 128Gb of ram might do the trick, I bet that if I use my new system I'll encounter exactly the same hardware problems that my quad core has... damn millenium falcon quad core... it always faulty :)
tim997
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu, 9. Jun 05, 01:23
x3tc

Post by tim997 »

mpcribeiro wrote: I appologise for my language but reading that patornazing post really irritate me.
You nailed the point I was trying to make right there with your use of the word "patronizing", mpcribeiro. I feel exactly the same way. We're always wrong, always a "minority" of sufferers and it's never a software fault - always our hardware!

Time and again it's been proven that there are very clearly a lot of software issues with the game. Yet whenever a new problem occurs, it's definitely not the game software at fault!
mpcribeiro
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x3tc

Post by mpcribeiro »

no worries I've been X player since X1 so I'm already used to have hardware problems on my hardware.

I do hope that EGOsoft loses a bit of EGO and gets down to what really is important and that is fixing my hardware problems on next patch release(which thinking in small statistics I guess that I'm not just the 0.0001% of those that have problems... just read the technical forum to be amazed)

But if EGO isn't bothered, I'm also not that much either... there are many other interesting game offers and some far more demanding of my "faulty "hardware and I'm happy player on them as well.

So all would hopefully end well in the end.

But for once stop patornising people with wrong statistics to cover sales of a faulty or broken game software claiming be hardware problems... that would be a good start... would be far more accetable aknowledge some glitches that will be attended in opportune time... at least would be a professional response.

<my last post on this pointless release thread>
User avatar
Carlo the Curious
Posts: 16999
Joined: Mon, 5. Mar 07, 22:03
x4

Post by Carlo the Curious »

mpcribeiro wrote:thanks for your trusty comment of course... but certanly you have missed or not seen the tecnical forum where 99% of the posts seem to indicate a problem with guess what SOFTWARE!
It's hardly suprising that a technical support forum has threads which are reporting problems.

If by 'software' you're also including drivers, codecs, virus scanners, and all the other software people have installed which can affect the game, then maybe your estimate would be reasonable.

Did you try any of the suggestions posted in your tech support thread?

EDIT: Incidentally, as far as I know pjknibbs doesn't work for Egosoft (and nor do I).
mpcribeiro
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x3tc

Post by mpcribeiro »

Carlo the Curious wrote:
mpcribeiro wrote:thanks for your trusty comment of course... but certanly you have missed or not seen the tecnical forum where 99% of the posts seem to indicate a problem with guess what SOFTWARE!
It's hardly suprising that a technical support forum has threads which are reporting problems.

If by 'software' you're also including drivers, codecs, virus scanners, and all the other software people have installed which can affect the game, then maybe your estimate would be reasonable.
I was hoping to be my last post on this pointless thread but looks like we have more...

then explain me why all the included "software" drivers, codecs, virus scanners do not cause 1.4 to crash but make v2 beserk?

where is my hardware problem then on the driver or on the game software recently patched?

Care a professional explanation? At least I've opened a thread on the tecnical reporting the issues I was having in hope that someone from EGO would hopefully look at it and who knows help fixing it... but if posting such threats is pointless because my X3TC v2 crahses because is a problem between a Keyboard and a Chair (and this means the user) then why bother comming here?

so where the problem lays? on the driver or on the hardware when the new game recently patched used full patch from 1.01 to 2 does crash and the previous release doesnt?

Thanks
mpcribeiro
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x3tc

Post by mpcribeiro »

mpcribeiro wrote:
Carlo the Curious wrote:
mpcribeiro wrote:thanks for your trusty comment of course... but certanly you have missed or not seen the tecnical forum where 99% of the posts seem to indicate a problem with guess what SOFTWARE!
It's hardly suprising that a technical support forum has threads which are reporting problems.

If by 'software' you're also including drivers, codecs, virus scanners, and all the other software people have installed which can affect the game, then maybe your estimate would be reasonable.
I was hoping to be my last post on this pointless thread but looks like we have more...

then explain me why all the included "software" drivers, codecs, virus scanners do not cause 1.4 to crash but make v2 beserk?

where is my hardware problem then on the driver or on the game software recently patched?

Care a professional explanation? At least I've opened a thread on the tecnical reporting the issues I was having in hope that someone from EGO would hopefully look at it and who knows help fixing it... but if posting such threats is pointless because my X3TC v2 crahses because is a problem between a Keyboard and a Chair (and this means the user) then why bother comming here?

so where the problem lays? on the driver or on the hardware when the new game recently patched used full patch from 1.01 to 2 does crash and the previous release doesnt?

Thanks
Further more why all that extra software does not crach X3 which I still have installed on my system and I still play it and only craches X3TC v2 recently patched?

Thanks

Return to “X Trilogy Universe”