Since I haven’t seen anyone post this, I thought I’d share the new Star Engine demo video from Cloud Imperium Games.

  • Space Sloth
    link
    English
    68 months ago

    I think my point still holds. :D

    • @t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      78 months ago

      I mean, no? Version numbers don’t dictate the release readiness of something.

      You want them to just call what they have now 1.0, before they implement the Alpha 4.0 features shown there? Because that’s the gist of what you said.

      • Space Sloth
        link
        68 months ago

        Conventional version numbering (afaik) lead up to 1.0 as the release candidate.

        • @Cagi@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Most often in gaming, yeah, but there are no rules. PURE CHAOS, BABY!!!

        • JohnEdwa
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Usually yes if you use only numbers, but when you use alpha/beta/release cycles etc, it’s not that uncommon to have them start from 1.0 as well.

          As an example, the fifth phase of minecraft dev started with “Minecraft Alpha v1.0.0” and once it got to v1.2.6, the next was “Minecraft Beta v1.0.0”. The proper Minecraft 1.0 came after Beta 1.8.1.

        • @t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          That was a standard that existed because of older, ‘linear’ SDLCs. It stopped being the case when Agile development took over. When you’re using Waterfall, and all your milestones are planned out before a single line of code is written, you can do that.

          Modern software development doesn’t work like that, and it’s silly to use nth-degree nested decimals (0.1.0, 0.1.1.2) when you can just use 1.1, 2.13, etc, and call something RC1.0 and 1.0 on release without bothering with internal version numbers or project codenames (or just keep the working version numbers anyways).