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

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year 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
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Cagi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

      • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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).