Sunday, December 2, 2012

The Errata in me

So I'm big on details in game universes, one of the reasons I enjoy the BTU so much as its just soooo full of detail.  Anyway, I, like many of you, get a bit frustrated when I purchase a new product and find it filled full of errors.  I'd be ok if it was a PDF, and a new updated PDF got released every month or so with any errata that was discovered.  That is why PDFs are so great.

Anyway, to my point.  I started entering in the 3067 Unabridged stuff into my database and immediately start to see errors (FYI, I'm 27% complete now, but haven't updated the DB yet).  Not huge numbers, but not just a couple either.  I am not sure how they make them.  If they are using MegaMekLab or some other software to create them, the software is probably at fault.  If they are making them by hand, well, they are insane, and that'd be the reason for the errors.

I know CGL internally is frustrated by the lack of good software to make and print units and RS books.  I'm sure they are more frustrated than we are (and by some internal emails I saw a couple years ago, perhaps a LOT more frustrated).  I don't know what Rick Raisley's real world issues are, but they have pretty much killed any new HMP software.  Based on the way he writes them though, and the rate of new items being released from CGL, even if he does eventually get HMP 6 finished, it'll be outdated within a few months.  Heck, and that is only HMP.  What about infantry, battle armor, protomechs, space craft, support vehicles, buildings, etc, etc???  Yeah, dead end IMO.  Solaris Skunk Works is better these days in about every way, and even its pretty limited and slow going.

But all my recent work on TRO3063 really showed just how annoying it can be to create these applications.  There are just soooo many special case rules that have to be looked at.  Mechs are the hardest, as the critical slot diagram can be a real pain, but the other units aren't so bad.

I offered a couple years back to write them a HMP style replacement, for nothing, and my only request was that they can give me timely answers to issues that pop up with designs and missing information.  That is where it all died.  Since then, I've completed my database of equipment in a modular enough format that adding new stuff is a snap, and I even have data for all 5500 units or so that have been created done.  With the work on TRO3063 I've written code to calculate battle values, costs, years of introduction/extinction, and even the tech rating and 3 era availability codes. I can enter a mech, or *any* design possible in the BTU into a single line in excel (as its MUCH easier to update excel than a database), run a little script to update the database with the new unit and/or equipment, and bam, all finished.  The way I wrote the calculations is nearly identical for every unit type, with only very minor differences.  The code is all modular, and highly adaptable for an ever changing game system like Battletech.

So, wanna know why I haven't written software to do this (this being a designer for *everything* in the universe)?
#1.  (75%) No support from CGL.  Even when I posted questions on their "rule questions" forum it'd often take months to get answered, if it ever did.  No way I can write software, hit a roadblock, and wait 6 freaking months for an answer.
#2.  (15%) Nobody has asked me to.
#3.  (10%) I need to feel like what I'm spending my valuable time for is worthwhile to more than just a couple people.  If I dive into a project like this, I need a few dozen folks asking me every day "is it done yet?" to keep me on the project.  I don't like to let people down, but if nobody is counting on me I'll drift off into other projects.

13 comments:

  1. You won't get a response from CGL on that front for two reasons:

    1) You were kind of a prick on the forums occasionally, and "easy to work with" is still the #1 hiring issue for everyone out there. Hell, just your threats on this blog about reprinting copywritten material for your own personal MUL would take you out of the running.

    2) They DO NOT have control over the software end of things. Rick has control over the license to do the software support, and until he gives it up, there's nothing CGL can legally do. Even if they *wanted* to, they could not ask you (or anyone else) to create those programs. So way to be mad at them for something completely out of their control; an action that was undertaken by FASA that still binds CGL's hands.

    CGL isn't the perfect company by any stretch, but you should have done due diligence on your research before this rant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #1. Yeah, I wasn't always real nice. I was extremely frustrated like many users. Unanswered questions, endless errata, no updates, and the elitist attitude by some folks over there didn't help. Still tho, I'll take the blame for ever being non-cordial, that isn't in my real life idiom and I fell into the whole being on the internet thing. But this is all beside the point. The whole fiasco was started long before I started this blog, or lost patience on the forums, so while today I wouldn't blame CGL for not talking to me one bit, 2 years ago they had no such reasons.

      #2. Funny, I was asked to do something by official folks. I came back asking about getting my questions answered, then it died. I'm not 100% sure Rick has control over that. In fact, I think its MSFT that does all the control, Rick got permission from them, and CGL has nothing to do with it. And notice on my #2 comment in the blog, I said "nobody", not "CGL". If 100 fans started hitting me up, I'd code it without hesitation.

      Not sure what you mean about my due diligence, I said nothing that was incorrect, and in fact most of my blog was just me saying I understand what a PITA making record sheets and designs can be, and how it doesn't appear there is much coming out of CGL to rectify that. Feel free to show me where I made some mistake, I'll recant.

      Delete
  2. Getting the discussion back on track, i think you should try to talk George Blouin over at SSW out of his "i am not good at working with other people" attitude which keeps him from accepting help. No need to invent the wheel twice, and if 2 guys of your and his caliber are working together, we all would be glad to hear and test whatever you can bring to the table... even when the first tries are sh** :D I don't know how you relate to this teamwork stuff, but given the way programming is done these days (OoP and so on)it shouldn't be so hard to coordinate stuff. Ok, i am not the one to talk about this here since i have gained next to no knowledge after Turbo Pascal 4 but it's obvious that you've got talent and he's seems to have it too, so try to be nice kids and play together while we others take some x-mas-mulled-wine and enjoy the show :D
    Happy "days-before-xmas" btw ;)
    Flashhawk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well unfortunately the whole working with him on SSW is moot, as he's coding in Java, and I'm sticking with .NET (VB to be precise). Basically apples to oranges. And even though I've been coding at least occasionally for over 15 years, I have never worked on a single application with anybody else, so even if he *wanted* to work with me, its very possible he could look at my code, throw up in his mouth a little bit, and report me as spam to his email provider :)

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. If only 20 other people would try, I'd feel like there was enough audience to go ahead and code it :)

      That is my #1 issue with BT these days, it really just seems like there aren't very many fans, and many of those that do exist are so set in their ways and ideas that it kinda takes the fun out of the game (at least the last 3 gaming groups I tried have all tore the fun out of the game for me... though in their defense, it could just be me).

      Delete
  4. I've nominated you for a Liebster Awards, see my blog here for details.

    http://panther6actual.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/internet-transmitted-meme.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's a fan, for sure!
    After using your MUL application to render my Quick Strike miniatures to paper, I was disappointed at finding it didn't work any more.
    Finally, I found you and your good work over here :)

    I've got an error in your current work to report. 'Mechs and vehicles work fine, but when I try to create a battle armor (whatever type), I get reports like this:
    System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at BTE.modCommon.GetSummaries(cElement Unit) in C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\_Code Hobby\BTE\BTE\modCommon.vb:line 359 at BTE.mConverter.cElement.Calculate() in C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\_Code Hobby\BTE\BTE\mConverter.vb:line 1986 at BTE.mConverter.cElement..ctor(Int32 UnitID) in C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\_Code Hobby\BTE\BTE\mConverter.vb:line 2545 at BTE.mShowUnit.ShowUnit(Int32 UnitID, HttpRequest Request) in C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\_Code Hobby\BTE\BTE\mShowUnit.vb:line 10

    No matter if a use Internet explorer or Mozilla.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll look at it when I get my machine up and running again, errors like this are almost always a typo or small code change, and don't care what browser you use. Sorry for the issue.

      Delete
  6. Enyclopedia is off-line again :)
    Maybe you should implement a "heads-up button" on the blog page so that we do not have to clutter the comments :D
    Have Fun, I try to find 20 more people to push you into that recsheet proggi in the meantime ...8-D
    Flashhawk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I updated the link so it goes to my domain name instead of a hard-coded IP, it shouldn't "break" again... well, that link shouldn't break.

      Delete
  7. Sorry It took me so long to comment, busy with holidaysz and family till now, I know that myself and my 4 players (down 6 from 5 months ago people seem to be moving games allot lately) would love a non-HMP software for unit creation, they all hate using SSW, and if we had something made this decade that could give us easy customs would make the game a whole lot better for everyone

    ReplyDelete