Old 'fixed' bugs continue to re-appear

Brrokk

Brrokk
taniwha-qf said:
This shows only that decimal representation is only an approximation of fractions :) ie, 0.333... is not exactly 1/3, but infinitesimally shy of 1/3. Thus, we just don't worry about it and define that 0.333... is 1/3, and 0.999... is 1. It'll take a while for the error to cause problems ;)
Click to expand...
As I said, that was really an illustration, not a proof. The proof is that if we assume 1-0.999... is non-zero, we arrive at a contradiction. I stress that no "infinitesimals" are involved. The proof only uses properties of real numbers.

(My illustration really assumes what it wants to prove. Once we accept that 1/3=0.333... , multiplying by both sides gives 1=0.999... It's just that, to most people 1/3=0.333... is more intuitive than 1=0.999... - but if one is true, so must be the other)
 

cmdr milesred

cmdr milesred
ObiW said:
I reckon it's more to do with

Poor documentation (be that within the code or outside of it)
Poor knowledge retention (staff turnover with insufficient knowledge transfer)
Disorganised org structure (one team not knowing what the other does)
Poor version control - the amount of regression issues is truly shocking and I can't think of another game that has so many of them
"that'll do" / "good enough" attitude with a tendency to put band aids on issues rather than fixing the root cause
Quality is a low priority within the organisation (look at the paintjobs if you want a simple example, and unlike other bits in the game those are an actual income stream)
Skill levels? I don't want to step on anyone's feet but FDev don't apparently pay that well, and this will likely have an impact on the type of people they can recruit.
Click to expand...
this is the big one.
and why 'fixed' keeps coming back.
common in every industry. band-aide, turnover.
 

taniwha-qf

taniwha-qf
Brrokk said:
(My illustration really assumes what it wants to prove. Once we accept that 1/3=0.333... , multiplying by both sides gives 1=0.999... It's just that, to most people 1/3=0.333... is more intuitive than 1=0.999... - but if one is true, so must be the other)
Click to expand...
Ah, here we agree.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
cmdr milesred said:
this is the big one.
and why 'fixed' keeps coming back.
common in every industry. band-aide, turnover.
Click to expand...
It depends I guess what industry we're talking about - if the impact would be as strong on your product/service as it is in games development in certain other sectors (I happen to work in one of those), your company may end up with massive fines and penalties, worst case going out of business, and those responsible in prison. Lucky games devs, getting away with anything!
 

Brrokk

Brrokk
Obsessed now. The shortest I can make my proof for 1 = 0.999... is this:-

Consider E = 1 - 0.999...
Clearly E isn't negative. It must be zero or positive.
Assume E is positive: E > 0.
Then E / 10 < E
So E / 10 < 1 - 0.999...
Multiplying both sides by 10, E < 10 - 9.999...
Simplifying the left side by subtracting 9 from both terms, E < 1 - 0.999...
So E < E which is a contradiction.
The only remaining possibility is E = 0.

All I used was properties of decimals: (1) I can multiply by 10 by shifting all the digits to the left, and (2) I can subtract an integer from the leading digit and leave all the decimal places unchanged.

I think the result is unintuitive because we have at the back of our minds that decimal representations "are" real numbers. They aren't; every decimal representation refers to a real number, but a real number can be referred to by more than one decimal representation.

OK, I may be off-topic here, I hope it's interesting. :)
 
Last edited:

Mogen Teras

M
cmdr milesred said:
this is the big one.
and why 'fixed' keeps coming back.
common in every industry. band-aide, turnover.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's common. Not surprising, more like. But not common; most other games I play don't reintroduce old bugs with almost every single patch. Regression happen sometimes but not so frequently as to call it common.
 

Dommarraa

Dommarraa
taniwha-qf said:
That, of course, is a very good question.
Click to expand...
1. Possible but unlikely for any particular regression, but with the high number of regressions, that's not the issue

2. Even if it was the case, the unit test for the original fix should have picked it up.

The developers that put in all that effort in the year of bug fixing must be spitting feathers that their efforts have been urinated down the drain.
 

cmdr milesred

cmdr milesred
if they never play the game, why or how would they know?

as for old or new bug, who cares? it once was, then it wasn't and now it is.
If ANY of the coders played the game at all, they could bug test and make reports, instead of us doing it.

As far as I am concerned, it is 100% identical to the original bug.
And until it is fixed and the pause that goes with it is gone, it will never be fixed, only taped over.
fwiw when they 'fixed' it I pointed out the pause and that if you video this, you can still see incorrect modules for a split second.
you can fool some of the people all the time... its not an attempt to fool us, but there are many of us here that are actually good programmers.
And it is very hard as a programmer to NOT notice certain things.
Even if wrong from my perspective, it is broken as it once was.
its not about any coder's skill or anyones inadequacies, its only about this bug we had before is popping into view a lot, once again.
 

PRORABBIT67

PRORABBIT67
preying-mantis-animated-gif-4.gif
 

taniwha-qf

taniwha-qf
The problem is, unit tests, by definition*, cannot be used to test an entire system. And automating tests for most game systems is very difficult.

* Unit tests are for individual programming units (eg, a priority heap implementation, vector class, etc).
 

space voyager

space voyager
sallymorganmoore said:
Aaaaany instances of this continuing (and I'm sadly seeing a fair few right now) I am MASSIVELY interested in some like...more help nailing it down (so sorry to ask).
What I'm specifically looking for at the moment is anyone who might have exited after using the Suit extras shop at time of exiting or near to exiting. This is so tricky...
Click to expand...

Since we last spoke the lingering black screen happened twice more. In both cases all I did after disembarking was to run to the terminal, cash in the mission, get away from the terminal and exit the game. In neither case did I visit any of the stores/services in the station.

Just as a curiosity, two more "crashes" happened - once I tried to exit the terminal and found myself falling "down" through the floor of the station. The second was me getting "glued" to the terminal. I think I pressed ESC instead of exiting, resumed the game but there was no way to get away from the terminal. Exited to the main menue, solved.
 

veryDead

veryDead
This guy. Kills me.

Everyone knows for every new update at least 3 previously fixed game breaking bugs reappear and go unfixed for at least 6 months.

It's all part of the grind. It's not a bug, it's a feature, rinse repeat.
 

alexzk

A
Brrokk said:
Simplifying the left side by subtracting 9 from both terms, E < 1 - 0.999...
Click to expand...
How you did that?
I doubt u can "simplify" in that way.
You should do left/right sides at once, and for comparison equation that may flip compare sign too.

10 - 9.9999 == (10 -9) - (9.999-9) == 10 -9 -9.9999 + 9 == 10 - 9.9999

Proper would be

E = 1-0.99999 = 10 - 9.99999
E / 10 < E
E < 10 * E
 
Last edited:

Brrokk

Brrokk
alexzk said:
How you did that?
I doubt u can "simplify" in that way.
You should do left/right sides at once, and for comparison equation that may flip compare sign too.

10 - 9.9999 == (10 -9) - (9.999-9) == 10 -9 -9.9999 + 9 == 10 - 9.9999

Proper would be

E = 1-0.99999 = 10 - 9.99999
E / 10 < E
E < 10 * E
Click to expand...
Yes OK, I meant this:

E < 10 - 9.999...
= 10 - 9.999... - 9 + 9
= ( 10 - 9 ) - ( 9.999... - 9 )
= 1 - 0.999... = E

So E<E which is impossible.

I added and subtracted 9 at the same time, making no change.
 

Crank Larson

Crank Larson
Brrokk said:
Yes OK, I meant this:

E < 10 - 9.999...
= 10 - 9.999... - 9 + 9
= ( 10 - 9 ) - ( 9.999... - 9 )
= 1 - 0.999... = E

So E<E which is impossible.

I added and subtracted 9 at the same time, making no change.
Click to expand...
You can't mathematically prove that 1 = 0.999... because it can never be mathematically true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom