1.0 in 2060 A.D. !!1!

[Dilvish]

Applying some very complicated mathematical analysis (key points being ~10 months from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5, and 55 more such releases until 1.0) I estimate we'll be releasing 1.0 in the year 2060 or so! (I'll publish an epilogue with all the analytic details later.) Does that not seem cool and sci-fi like! 2060!

Of course, even if the project is still extant in 2060, I might not be. We've made pretty good progress this past year, and I was wondering someone might take pity on me and move our version designations ahead a little faster?

[MatGB]

Well, I've said in the run up to each release I've been involved in that we need to do them more often, last year it was "let's try to do it every 6 months" and now, well, 11 months later...

On the other hand, it's not meant to be a "the next release is 0.4.+", we're supposed to have got certain things in place then we move on to 0.5.0, etc. Geoff put a list of the things he thought we ought to have achieved in one of the threads, several of them are done.

On the other hand, I personally quite like the game as is, sort the UI and balance issues out, get the tutorial/scripted events going and we've got 1.0

[adrian_broher]

key points being ~10 months from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5, and 55 more such releases until 1.0

Version numbers are not floating points and patch -> minor or minor -> major increments don't happen at decimal overflows…

[Dilvish]

Version numbers are not floating points and patch -> minor or minor -> major increments don't happen at decimal overflows…

I know Marcel, lol. 2060 is a reductio ad absurdum **edit: absurd extension (not really a reductio ad absurdum I guess)** from our current path. But, that's my essential point, we can choose to advance the version number more rapidly. Although the nominal roadmap may still consider us to be in 0.4, and so we feel constrained to merely make this next increment from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5, I don't think the existing roadmap is really that good of a guideline for us. And advancing our version number from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5 for this past years work seems to not reflect the actual progress.

[Aquitaine]

That is why this project was founded by, and remains periodically monitored by, cyborgs.

[Vezzra]

That is why this project was founded by, and remains periodically monitored by, cyborgs.

And this post is a subtle remainder that they, the legendary founding fathers of FreeOrion, are still silently watching over us, their descendants.

Nice to see you stop by, Aquitaine!

[The Silent One]

That is why this project was founded by, and remains periodically monitored by, cyborgs.

Greetings, fellow zombie!

[adrian_broher]

But, that's my essential point, we can choose to advance the version number more rapidly.

Sure, we could increase the numbers more rapidly, but what's the point of this? The version number indicate, depending on context:

• API changes within a library. Depending on what part of the version number changes either compatible or incompatible API changes.
• Feature additions within an application. The minor indicates new features, the patch level usually only internal changes, that the user only recognizes rarely (improved performance, improved behaviour of the application, etc).

Increasing the version number for the sake of having a higher number is pointless.

Although the nominal roadmap may still consider us to be in 0.4, and so we feel constrained to merely make this next increment from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5, I don't think the existing roadmap is really that good of a guideline for us. And advancing our version number from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5 for this past years work seems to not reflect the actual progress.

So what is the game changing feature that isn't written down in the roadmap but warrants a minor version bump? If you think that the version number hasn't changed 'for the better' maybe it's because we got a bit lost in progressing the actual application?

[Dilvish]

Increasing the version number for the sake of having a higher number is pointless.

I don't think my points deserve such mischaracterization and ridicule. I didn't say "I just want a higher version number," I said

advancing our version number from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5 for this past years work seems to not reflect the actual progress.

I would further add that "0.4.5" does not seem to me to adequately reflect our progress towards what would reasonably be expected for 1.0 (though I'll grant there is no clear definition of that), totally irrespective of whatever our most recent release designation had been.

So what is the game changing feature that isn't written down in the roadmap but warrants a minor version bump? If you think that the version number hasn't changed 'for the better' maybe it's because we got a bit lost in progressing the actual application?

It seems you have a harsh view of our progress.
The only substantial candidates/approximations we have for roadmaps are (i) this drastically stale official roadmap that skips from 0.4 to 1.0 (and which surely deserves to be updated), (ii) utilae's valiant attempt at updating the roadmap, whose visions for current work were heavily focused on what appears to me to be now-defunct 3D combat issues, and Geoff's statement of features that would be "more than enough for v0.5"-- of these we have surely not completed all, but we have also completed other things not on the list, and it seems like the issue should be a reasonable topic for discussion.

[MatGB]

Hmm, API changes, recent, off the top of my head: Galaxy Generation has been moved to Python, making it possible to script a galaxy layout. An Events API has been introduced (although it's currently undocumented), allowing announcements, objectives, etc. Effects priorities have been enabled (and need to actually be implemented by us scripters ASAP). That's just what I can remember.

We've switched from Ogre to SDL, and there've been other, substantial, backend changes that've improved performance.

The AI has been vastly improved over the last few versions, the current behaviour is substantially improved and the new part capacity meters allow for scripters to change the costs or power levels of individual core parts and have the AI take these changes into account directly (allowing me, very recently, to redo the costs and power levels of the shield parts, for example).

I don't think we're ready for 0.5, for that we need to be using the scripted events, be using the effects priorities, have finished the balancing passes we're doing on various build costs, etc.

But I do think we could justify the next release after 0.4.5 as being 0.5.0 if we can tidy up the current there-but-not-in use systems, etc and complete a few of the ongoing projects Geoff and others have mentioned.

[Flash]

I'm just a player, but still would like to share my humble opinion.

I would really like to see more frequent releases. It doesn't have to be big stuff, but a stable/playable version every 4-6 month would be great.
Release often release early is what I would like to see.

And regarding the Version: 1.0 is not the end of the road. It just says that 100% of the necessary features are available. You could still add more in Versions following 1.0

[MatGB]

For what it's worth, 95% of the weekly test builds are stable and playable, it's very rare that one isn't working, the 'stable' release is basically a much more heavily checked version, we put development on hold for a few weeks while we all seriously bug hunt instead of just looking out for them while we do stuff.

Having said that, yes, I agree more releases is better when possible, but sometimes there are a few major projects that need to basically be completed in entirety before you can call the new version 'stable', in this case the biggest change was one I had nothing to do with, a complete revamp of the graphics engine.

Seriously, try the most recent Test release, it runs fine, but it isn't compatible with savegames from the last 'stable' release, too many changes.

[Aquitaine]

*necro thread handwave*

Since I don't recognize many of the folks doing the real work these days, here's a little something for ya'll that you may not know:

FreeOrion came about 15 years ago sometime around now after tyreth, myself, and others bitched about MOO3 on the MOO3 forums.

There was even an hourlong (or so) phone call with Alan Emerich about what happened with MOO3 and some cautions about being overly ambitious. Alan didn't want us to run out of money!

"HAHAHA," we said, "money."

Happy 15 and I'll have to check out one of the newer builds!

[Oberlus]

Yay, the legendary Aquitaine. Greetings.

FreeOrion came about 15 years ago sometime around now after tyreth, myself, and others bitched about MOO3 on the MOO3 forums.

There was even an hourlong (or so) phone call with Alan Emerich about what happened with MOO3 and some cautions about being overly ambitious. Alan didn't want us to run out of money!

"HAHAHA," we said, "money."

Happy 15 and I'll have to check out one of the newer builds!

Indeed. I'd say you won't be disapointed.

[Vezzra]

Hi Aquitaine, nice to see you drop by once in a while...

Since I don't recognize many of the folks doing the real work these days

Well, AFAICT there are only three left from The Ancient Days Of The Founding Fathers, who are still active: Geoff, TheSilentOne and Krikkitone.

FreeOrion came about 15 years ago sometime around now

Ah, I've always wanted to know more exactly when FO was "born". I knew from what I came across in old threads and on the wiki (IIRC) that it must have been 2002. So May 2002 it is. I've to remember that.

after tyreth, myself, and others bitched about MOO3 on the MOO3 forums.

Yeah, I remember reading something someone wrote somewhere (never been able to find that again) about how you guys were frustrated with MOO3 and then (I think) Tyreth made the suggestion: "Let's make our own game!". And this is how it all got started...

There was even an hourlong (or so) phone call with Alan Emerich about what happened with MOO3 and some cautions about being overly ambitious.

I think I read something about that too somewhere... didn't remember it has been a phone call, but that there has been some exchange with Alan. IIRC he'd been watching the project with quite some interest, at least in the beginning.

Alan didn't want us to run out of money!

"HAHAHA," we said, "money."

That's definitely a good one, indeed! We're far more likely to run out of time. The end of the world might still beat us...

Happy 15 and I'll have to check out one of the newer builds!

Thanks! You can claim to have started one of the longest running open source game projects in existence I guess. Don't think there are that many left which have been started in 2002 or earlier.

And yeah, you definitely should give one of the recent versions a try. 0.4.7 has just been released, it would be interesting to get some feedback from the original lead designer.