It seems now that every DLC pack Frontier release the game build goes up by 0.1. Which means after 2 more DLC updates we will be at Planet Coaster build 2.0, if they keep the current build numbering the same, which I see no reason they would change it now.This does not necessarily mean Planet Coaster 2, but I would maybe expect some engine upgrades or the sort when we go to version 2. This is something usually done in the industry. But given their release schedule and timing it would mean Planet Coaster will reach 2.0 sometime early next year.I would like to see full DX12 implementation and some of the shortcomings addressed which may be engine limited. Such as, not being able to change the height of tower rides. Maybe some lighting upgrades and other areas addressed that fall a bit sort due to engine shortcomings. I would also for sure like all my assets that I have brought to be useable in 2.0. Would Planco 2.0 maybe be a major paid update with new content, features and engine improvements? That is more expensive than regular DLC, I and many others would certainly buy it if the improvements and or updates were good enough. I would be interested to hear other peoples opinions, because unless they stop after two more DLC items we are going to be hitting the 2.0 milestone. Historically that has always meant major updates to software in some way or another,
What is in store for Planet Coaster 2.0?
- Thread starter DistortAMG
- Start date
Nothing, I don't think we will see a PC 2.0 anytime soon.
Numbering will go from 1.9 to 1.10
The only thing a change is really good for is having DX12 support, but the target market is to small for that (win 10 only).
I think anything else can still be done within the existing game, if they even want to.
Numbering will go from 1.9 to 1.10
The only thing a change is really good for is having DX12 support, but the target market is to small for that (win 10 only).
I think anything else can still be done within the existing game, if they even want to.
Last edited:
It won't be 1.10 as that makes no sense to the current numbering system and basic maths in relation to how they are numbering it now. If it was going to be 1.10 the latest dlc update would have been version 1.0.7 with the latest update being 1.0.7.3. But it has not, it was version 1.7.3, after 2 more dlc updates they are going to be at version 1.9, after that when counting with basic maths it will be 2.0. Version 1.10 could be abbreviated as 1.1, we have already had that a few years ago. Lastly, saying not enough people have DirectX 12 so it is not worth doing is a really really mute point. The adoption rate of DX12 has been large and is growing and will always grow as people upgrade hardware ect. So at some point they are going to have to upgrade their engine at least as a matter of fact. We all know Planco would benefit from it massively, so why would they not do it.It is a given fact their engine will go DX12 at some point, it would be suicidal for any games company not being able to take advantage of the latest hardware and graphical effects, especially in triple A games. Then I am certain we will see a version of Planco with DX12 at some point too. As it really needs it, and will really help the longevity of the game.
How do you know?
You are part of the development team?
It would be suicidal to invest money into something that has no real point in the end.
I think your expectations are way off.
Besides, it's only speculation what you do, while you make it sound like a definite something that it would become 2.0.
I still don't see anything wrong with the version number being 1.10.0
Actually 1.10 is pretty possible given the way minor version numbering works (and I've seen it happen in another game (Skylines)). Version numbering often doesn't follow mathematical rules I've found.
Shane
Shane
it makes pretty much sense if you know how software versioning works. "1.9" in software versioning doesn't equal 1.9 as mathematical number. it means 1 for the major version and 9 for the current state of that version. so next state would be 10, and the entire version number would lead to 1.10.
in software development, a decision to change the major version number from v1 to v2 is based on a major change of the core software which helds everything together. at least, that's the logic for professional programming.
I don't but I am applying basic logic into what I think this will happen, I have never said I am part of the development team, so by using a very small and basic bit of logic it is very easy for anyone with half a brain to ascertain what I am saying is opinion. Without having to explicitly state it.I do not see anything being wrong with it being 1.10.0 either. But I do not think they will name it like that. I think given the huge success of Planet Coaster, they are either going to be looking at ways to increase its longevity in some way or another. Given ALOT of peoples gripes and suggestions for improvements are engine limited based, it makes absolute sense they might look at upgrading the engine side at some point, alleviating some of the limitations.
Logic would be not to invest more money than you can earn, so either, it will be a full standalone, which makes no sense, as the current game is still being updated, or it would be a DLC, but I doubt that, with the amount of work that might be needed to change to DX12, it will become profitable, and though many say they would invest more money into a grand update, it's not likely they will in the end.
And as a free update? No chance.
So in the end, untill full support is stopped for this game, I don't think we will get a major overhaul, but like many, I wouldn't mind if that update comes, I'm just saying, that there is no point into hoping something unlikely would happen.
*ps. sorry about the earlier posts, which might come over as rude, but are not intended of being so.
Didn't come across as rude, just a fair retort to a questionable statement. [up]
He is correct, every company does it differently. We use a three digit system now at my current company. I've seen a two digit system that goes way past 10. It all comes down to how you want to convey how extreme the version changes are for your application to your stakeholders . At the end of the day its semantics.
In all honesty i don't want a planet coaster 2 before this game is finished in the tracked ride and coaster aspect[wink] and especially water rides(NOT waterslides).
makes sense but they should start with .09 cause .10 is smaller than .9
Im more interested in hearing about the 2 year anniversary hopefully they add some big stuff this winter!
I'm hoping a sequel will be backward compatible with all our current parks and blueprints, otherwise it would be pretty disappointing
I also want to see challenge mode applied to every scenario so players can pick there own difficulty on any and all parks
To answer the original question, for me the most important part is a question of creativity and making best use of what we have. We run the risk of too many objects and difficulty finding them. For example, the sci-fi animatronics in the studio pack don’t show up when selecting the sci-fi filter. I’d prefer a major QOL update on what we have to fix these minor annoyances that, when compounded, will have a huge impact on enjoyability.
I’d also be curious if the system support manual scaling. For example, being able to click and drag any object to decrease / increase size. This, again, is making the most of what we already have.
Not that I want to put the fantastic art team out of a job!
To hammer the other point home, 1.10 is correct. The number after the “.” simply denotes the build number. So whilst in mathematics it may be smaller, in game development it is bigger.
I’d also be curious if the system support manual scaling. For example, being able to click and drag any object to decrease / increase size. This, again, is making the most of what we already have.
Not that I want to put the fantastic art team out of a job!
To hammer the other point home, 1.10 is correct. The number after the “.” simply denotes the build number. So whilst in mathematics it may be smaller, in game development it is bigger.
HeatherG
Volunteer Moderator
2.0 is just a term people use. As in “version 2.0.” Anyways, we’d have to have 93 more updates before we hit a “2.0”, since we’re at 1.7.
They add DLC’s instead of Expansions. Thats how they give us new content. Nobody knows, except Frontier, what new stuff we’re going to get. There’s no use for me to guess
Read the OP (again), it's not about a new PC just about the version number of the current game.
Making it backward compatible would very likely mean some limitations we currently have would have to stay in the sequel. If there ever will be PC2, I hope it won´t try to be backward compatible and rather try ti fix flaws of the current game properly...
I think 2.0 is more of... a very very large major overhaul of the engine.
As many have pointed out, it is not same as comma in math. It is another type of separator, to separate different groups of numbers. Every developer have their own order. But the first digit group is the major one that happens rarely.
As many have pointed out, it is not same as comma in math. It is another type of separator, to separate different groups of numbers. Every developer have their own order. But the first digit group is the major one that happens rarely.