(07-25-2011, 12:53 AM)rama Wrote: [ -> ]Look Cristo4pcsx2, we fixed bugs in GSdx that made some games playable. They did not work before.
Now that also happened to make your game slower. That's too bad and we'll try to improve on that.
All clear?
that, and in the meanwhile stop trying to use an unsupported development alpha nightly build and use the latest official beta version. Those unsupported alpha dev versions are for DEVELOPMENT, thats why they are called "dev"... they allow the developers to experiment with code that breaks things, or fixes something at an unreasonable performance impact. They are well aware of that and will not put such code out in a beta or stable version. You should only dev alpha versions if you are a developer. Users should stick to the latest stable or public beta. And as PCSX2 is not "complete" yet it is only available in beta.
It's not quite like that either. It's more use at your own risk. The devs release it to the public simply because not only is it already there for their use but they appreciate the community as a whole acting like QA testers for them as well. So pointing out things it breaks isn't bad but continually pointing it out and asking about when it will be fixed is an issue. Plus it can have the added bonus of people in the community who are coders or learning to be coders being added to the project.
To put it simply the positives outweighs the negatives. Just be patient with those versions and unless some commit breaks literally everything don't expect any new bugs to be fixed promptly. It's okay to inform the devs about it though they might already of known of those issues from their internal QA team. It's not okay to bug them repeatedly about fixing it(well unless you are on the QA team and that is the next bug being worked on
).
(07-25-2011, 02:31 AM)dralor Wrote: [ -> ]It's not quite like that either. It's more use at your own risk. The devs release it to the public simply because not only is it already there for their use but they appreciate the community as a whole acting like QA testers for them as well. So pointing out things it breaks isn't bad but continually pointing it out and asking about when it will be fixed is an issue. Plus it can have the added bonus of people in the community who are coders or learning to be coders being added to the project.
To put it simply the positives outweighs the negatives. Just be patient with those versions and unless some commit breaks literally everything don't expect any new bugs to be fixed promptly. It's okay to inform the devs about it though they might already of known of those issues from their internal QA team. It's not okay to bug them repeatedly about fixing it(well unless you are on the QA team and that is the next bug being worked on).
1. The devs do NOT release a binary of development version. You have to build it youself from source code or get a 3rd party to do so. Only public beta is given in binary form.
2. The devs do NOT accept bug reports for development versions, only for beta versions. That is explicitly stated.
3. The devs make the source code for latest dev build available because this is how open source projects work. The code is GPL and must be made available.
1. Yes but that isn't hard for anyone who knows enough about computers.
2. Despite such statements they clearly do as long as it's verifiable as bug usually by one within the team and not related to an individual persons build. They do not however a Give suppport for those versions which is clearly different then bugs which can be verified by they their team.
3. Yes but that doesn't mean the benefits from doing so are null and void. Open source evolved in such a way becuase it good for the devs to have it such a way not because of the fact it's open source.
Do you guys while discussing "unsupported development alpha nightly build" mean official repository builds?
If soo then calling them "unsupported" isn't really true. There was a discussion about that previously ending with confirmation they are supported. Even support forum rules state that... And generally having common users use latest revisions = an army of testers which is always nice, hence "official buildbot" for those who can't compile it on their own(and for lazy ones).
Also saying new revisions tend to fix something by adding huge performance hit, would be quite an opposite of for example r4803 or r4822
both fixed stuff while giving nice performance boosts. Sure it's nice to try the game on stable release to to be sure the bug happened from some new change, but not testing those is a waste. @_@
Edit to confirm my words:
From support forum general rules:
You can talk about beta releases and official SVN builds in here, which are supported
From buildbot topic 1'st post:
Quote:Note from PCSX2 Team: Discussions of SVN builds on the forums is allowed as long as you're using official SVN builds (not hacked/modified 3rd party builds).
We encourage bug reports to be made using the latest SVN build.
Exactly one doesn't ignore verifiable bugs just because they don't come from the internal QA teams or because the release is the latest revision which may or may not break things. Infact the latest revision svn previously unknown bugs are in practice more useful to them then some bug on a beta revision that might of been fixed 50 submissions ago in the svn.
(07-25-2011, 03:25 AM)miseru99 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you guys while discussing "unsupported development alpha nightly build" mean official repository builds?
Well, we ended up talking about several different things.
The case in question is that of a 3rd party taking the latest SVN, modifying it, building it, and releasing the binary.
And as far as I know the only binaries available from official sources are the public beta. The rest is left as source code only to be built by developers as they need it.
Quote:Also saying new revisions tend to fix something by adding huge performance hit, would be quite an opposite of for example r4803 or r4822 both fixed stuff while giving nice performance boosts. Sure it's nice to try the game on stable release to to be sure the bug happened from some new change, but not testing those is a waste. @_@
I don't recall saying its the norm. But it can happen, as well as being completely broken (there was more then one build that simply wouldn't run). Changes are committed that bring both fixes and issues. You cannot expect to just grab the latest SVN and build it and have something as stable as an official beta or stable build.
(07-25-2011, 04:41 AM)taltamir Wrote: [ -> ](...)
And as far as I know the only binaries available from official sources are the public beta. The rest is left as source code only to be built by developers as they need it.
(...)
Wrong. Like most stuff you wrote, which I'm lazy to correct as would need to write an essay on half of them:3...
Soo check again, couse such discussions are getting old already...
http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-SVN-daily...-by-Orphis
^official source of latest binaries.
Not gonna spam about it more, couse by your words I have a feeling you dunno even what exactly SVN repository is and how it's used while trying to look knowledgeable over that matter heh. No hard feeling, but stop it, it's just sad:].
Anyway simple as that, this should end that topic as I don't really need to be right, pcsx2 team is
, you have it all in the buildbot thread above first post & forum rules + some random posts in previous discussions about this:3, soo don't confuse users that use latest SVN builds, that they're doing something wrong while they aren't.;]
And have more faith in the team, they aren't MS, they don't produce more bugs with each fix, belive it or not, latest "stable" is already stone age in "stability" to some later revisions.=_=;
(07-25-2011, 12:02 AM)Shadow Lady Wrote: [ -> ]It's using the GPU here, however what's the bottleneck with the new revisions is the CPU, probably why it's using much lower for your card.
Aimi, I see a big difference between r4819 and r4823.
+3-10 FPS on Soul Calibur III, Mortal Kombat Armageddon, Tekken 5...because of big gif transfer code rewrite.
Good work.