This topic contains 7 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  hobbesme 10 years ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #5902

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    It seems some people just can’t come to terms with the fact that S3D is version 41. It always seems to be become 4.1 or 0.41 or something.

    Anyone think a renumbering is in order. Perhaps to v4 or 2007 or something?

    #45469

    The AI
    Participant

    well, I am not sure, version 42 is the next in line, and 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything.

    Or you could go with the year, but a version isn’t going to be yearly, you could go with a random generated version name, they make those things.

    Or you could simply get a stupid stick, and mail it to the next of kin for those who mess it up, I have designs for one if you need it.

    #45470

    Bobirov
    Participant

    Note, if you truncated it to 4.1, it would line up exactly with the Apoc version that works with that version. I’ve tryed to keep Apoc’s version number == S3D version / 10 since they lined up at v40.

    But really, I never really cared for using the year or date as the version number, always seemed like what people who couldn’t settle on a versioning system did.. 😉

    I’ve never really had a problem with S3D’s versioning system. Lots of games use all kinds of things, and I tend to just call them whatever they use. Or just say ‘the next version’ if its something too terribly long and complicated. In that sense, S3D’s versioning is perhaps one of the easiest to remember, nice whole numbers for the major updates and decimals for the smaller (usually) updates.

    I’ll go with whatever the majority decision is here, but really, I don’t see much of a reason to deviate from the current system? 😛

    #45471

    Thrax
    Participant

    @gcamp wrote:

    It seems some people just can’t come to terms with the fact that S3D is version 41. It always seems to be become 4.1 or 0.41 or something.

    Anyone think a renumbering is in order. Perhaps to v4 or 2007 or something?

    I would have thought v41 was a logical step in the version-systems.

    The last was v40, with a few partials. and leading to v40.1d.
    Then you did a core rewrite and it has a new phyisics engine. plus a ton
    more… Stepping it to the next whole-number higher is appropriate, for
    any type of software.

    If others cannot grasp that, then so what… It’s yer work, tell them to
    stick it. 🙂

    #45472

    Irishbandit
    Participant

    I like the version system that is being used.

    #45473

    BigBear
    Participant

    I can’t really see any problem either with the current version naming convention. Full speed ahead I say!

    #45474

    KTM Rider
    Participant

    I don’t see much of an issue either. But a different name could be interesting.

    You could name it like Intel Processors. The week and the year. 29(week)07(year).

    Or like many of our military weaponry, just skip numbers if you have a good idea.

    Names could be confusing. Like Firefox’s Gran Paradiso. What the heck is up with that?

    In all seriousness, version 4.1 makes the changes seem small (vs 4.0). But version 41 appears to be a larger jump from 40. Its just perception, but hey.

    #45475

    BOY
    Participant

    I absolutely love the quest for perfection here, although I don’t really know of the instances of the mistaken versioning gavin is talking about here, I can only say..

    Do what makes you feel good inside, Gavin.

    I do like the thought of Scorched3D 2007, as new title, and there is no reason that v41 really even need to dissapear, you can force all the modders to use it somewhere :).

    #45476

    hobbesme
    Participant

    Be careful of modifying a version numbering scheme after so many years/versions. Perhaps adding a secondary sub-name like “Scorched 2007” while keeping the same basic version numbering scheme might be a solution.

    And so what if online references misquote the current version number of V41 as V4.1 or V0.41 or whatever. If they link to this site, people will overlook the version numbering error.

    Anyways, changing the numbering scheme won’t prevent anyone from screwing up & misquoting a new numbering scheme.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.