On version numbers

General information about Wing42's Lockheed Vega.
Post Reply
User avatar
Vitus
Posts: 241
Joined: 17 Jul 2017, 15:19
Location: Görlitz, Germany
Contact:

On version numbers

Post by Vitus » 30 Aug 2018, 15:43

I'd like to share my plans on the further versioning of the Lockheed Vega here and hear your opinion about it. The version numbers for the Vega, as well as for it's components follow the standard scheme (with the exception that I don't publish the build number):
<major version>.<minor version>.<revision>

Since the Vega is still in development, it's major version is still "0", and so version 1.00.00 will be the first version of the official release and mark the end of the Early-Access program. Changes in the minor version indicate significant updates. For instance the change from version 0.03 to the current 0.04 introduced many new systems and the walkaround panel. I use the revision number in case of necessary intermediate updates. I do hope that this will never be an issue, but if there was a major game-breaking bug introduced with one of the updates, I will release a new version with an incremented revision number.

Since minor version mark a new release, and since we're currently flying with version 0.04, you can work out that so far there were four significant releases of the Vega. It's noteworthy that the first two of those releases were distributed internally to our testers only though. To me, the version number was always just a tool to keep track of changes, I never saw it as an indicator to the "level of finishness" (yes, that's a word now).

Talking to some of you, I was made aware that this form of versioning might have a detrimental effect on the purchasing behavior of potential customers. The reasoning is that some flight simmers might look the number and draw conclusions about the degree of which the aircraft is finished. In other words, they see "0.04" and conclude that this aircraft is a half-arsed construction site. This is not how I feel about the current status of the Vega and I know that many of you would agree with me on that point.

So, I am thinking of changing the numbering-pace, starting with the next update. Since the next update will be the final touch to the simulation framework, there won't be much more fundamental changes to the underlying systems anymore, other than tweaking the numbers. After this update I will finally fork the 3d models to work on other variations (Winnie Mae, and such), the engine sound will receive a lot of attention and I'll incorporate the wear & tear module. Other than that, there won't be many more deep changes to the Vega.

My suggestion therefore is that the upcoming update will update the Vega to version 0.90.00 to mark the fact that the finishing line is in sight. :mrgreen:
What do you think?
Image Wing42 | The Simulation Company

User avatar
Tailspin45
Posts: 210
Joined: 16 Jun 2018, 18:28
Location: San Diego California, USA
Contact:

Re: On version numbers

Post by Tailspin45 » 31 Aug 2018, 01:50

Sounds like a good move to me. If the next release is 0.9, does that mean the following one will be 1.0 and "officially released" or 0.96?

YoYo
Posts: 39
Joined: 09 Aug 2018, 21:06

Re: On version numbers

Post by YoYo » 31 Aug 2018, 07:54

For me its clear and I like it. Honestly (when I didnt have Vega) I was thinking that it means ...40%, next will be 0,5, 0,6 till the 1.00. It was misleading (and it is!).
I think 0.80.00 is ok for example (for 0.4).
Last edited by YoYo on 31 Aug 2018, 15:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vitus
Posts: 241
Joined: 17 Jul 2017, 15:19
Location: Görlitz, Germany
Contact:

Re: On version numbers

Post by Vitus » 31 Aug 2018, 12:25

I think after 0.90.00 I continue counting as before, so 0.91, then 0.92.
Another option would be to call the next one 0.80.00 and increment by 5: 0.85, 0.90, 0.95 then 1.00

Honestly, I never thought about this number in that way before. As I pointed out, I just add another "1" to the minor version with every release, not thinking about the psychology :mrgreen:
Image Wing42 | The Simulation Company

Post Reply