Major problems with recent update - Rust

We run a server, and here's what happening 1) People's FPS went to hell even with everything turned down. 2) I spawned in the air, with an air crate... when it landed I couldn't open it. 3) Can't build anything other than a foundation. Lots of "Failed !isinarea" for anything else 4) Animals can't move 5) Can't shoot guns While I appreciate all the work Garry and his team do... does anyone actually test their changes before pushing them to the trunk? I've been writing software for 15 years and when you have a community of people "testing" in Alpha... you at least log in to a server and test things before you push it to production.

I can't even get past the "respawn" button, crash's instantly when I press respawn after joining a server. Very broken update..

I like the devblog VERY much, but the FacePunch Washington server right now has fps issues, lots of invisible buildings/players, stuck animals, gun problems, etc.

Oh, is it Friday night then? That will explain it... Every Friday night for the last 4 weeks they have f@5ked up Rust for 2 days, then fixed it on a Sunday. It has become a regular event now... Seriously, what's with bringing down the game EVERY FRIDAY, for the weekend!? I'm seriously starting to think that the whole FACEPUNCH team go down the pub on a Friday night, get shit-faced, then go back to the office for a bit of coding and to push an update! Why else would it be every Friday night? Okay... rant over...

I have the same problem. Guys, next time test your dev before update. Now we cant play.

[QUOTE=Arbas;46434539]I have the same problem. Guys, next time test your dev before update. Now we cant play.[/QUOTE] You mean, you want garry to alpha test his alpha before releasing it to the public to test? Did you forget what Early Access means?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46434579]You mean, you want garry to alpha test his alpha before releasing it to the public to test? Did you forget what Early Access means?[/QUOTE] "Alright guys and girls lets just throw a bunch of shit code together and force-update thousands of player's to an update that we haven't even actually tried." ^ Your logic. Cynicalism and sarcasm, the only thing your able to produce I guess.

[QUOTE]You mean, you want garry to alpha test his alpha before releasing it to the public to test?[/QUOTE] No, but it would be sure nice if they could just launch the game via the client to see if it fucked up.

Come on, even if it is alpha you can spend 10 minutes on test before update. Its not much.

I understand this is an Early Access game and I do expect things like this to happen. It would just be nice to be given the option to downgrade a version if things like this happen. While I know that isn't the point of alpha testing, it makes it easier for those who simply want to play able to do so and the people who are actively trying to seek out the bugs and whatnot the same ability as they'd like.

[QUOTE=Arbas;46434638]Come on, even if it is alpha you can spend 10 minutes on test before update. Its not much.[/QUOTE] There have been some posts this past week from people suggesting that the dev team spend some time testing. The response from the community has been "thats what alpha is", "why would the developers test when they have the community to do that", etc... This is the reason. This release is one of the worst ones functionally, in a great while. People don't agree that they should spend time testing in development. A weekly iteration is not a good idea, when its broken for several days, imo.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46434579]You mean, you want garry to alpha test his alpha before releasing it to the public to test?[/QUOTE] Sorry [B]elixwhitetail[/B], I know you are always the first to remind anyone complaining that the game is in alpha, but I still don't believe that's an excuse for not trying out your own code to see if it runs, before pushing it to the trunk. Expecially right before the weekend, when you have already disappointed your audience by bringing the game down like this for the last 4 weekends in a row... I would be nice if at least one weekend per month, we actually got to play...

So maybe it'd be nice if garry moved the main-branch-push release dates and monthly devblogs to, say, Tuesday instead of right before the weekend, then? Would that make everyone happy? That way, if shit like this continues happening, there's more opportunity for a timely dev response without spoiling everyone's chances of playing Rust on the weekend. Note: I can't actually speak on behalf of the devs, I'm just proposing an alternate solution that doesn't require forcing garry to change how he runs his dev team and build release cycle -- because I don't think that'd be received well unless you really hit the bull's eye and gave garry a better way that works with his existing developers' work styles. Please do not assume that me saying this obliges garry to do it. Again, it's just a suggestion.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46434733]So maybe it'd be nice if garry moved the main-branch-push release dates and monthly devblogs to, say, Tuesday instead of right before the weekend, then? Would that make everyone happy? That way, if shit like this continues happening, there's more opportunity for a timely dev response without spoiling everyone's chances of playing Rust on the weekend. Note: I can't actually speak on behalf of the devs, I'm just proposing an alternate solution that doesn't require forcing garry to change how he runs his dev team and build release cycle -- because I don't think that'd be received well unless you really hit the bull's eye and gave garry a better way that works with his existing developers' work styles. Please do not assume that me saying this obliges garry to do it. Again, it's just a suggestion.[/QUOTE] Please stop Elix, you are just embarrassing yourself. All you got is reminding people this is alpha... whats it like playing that broken record? People have every right to question why this was not tested prior to shoving it into action.

These were known about before this hit the Main branch, Building has been messed up in the last few Dev branch updates, the next update building parts are place-able but have no textures you can see through them but they are solid(server build 801 with corresponding client build). did not think they would push these updates to the main branch.

[QUOTE=BleedingGreen;46434756]Please stop Elix, you are just embarrassing yourself. All you got is reminding people this is alpha... whats it like playing that broken record? People have every right to question why this was not tested prior to shoving it into action.[/QUOTE] While I didn't agree with Elix's first post in this situation, it seems that Elix was simply suggesting an idea as to how the Facepunch could possibly prevent this from happening again in a way that would still please us in his second post - I don't see anything wrong in that. However, I believe a better solution would just be if the Facepunch devs did a quick test to see if the game looks functional enough to deploy, and if so, they release these updates in their own time instead of having to meet a specific deadline and release updates that completely break the game.

[QUOTE=kulan;46434764]These were known about before this hit the Main branch, Building has been messed up in the last few Dev branch updates, the next update building parts are place-able but have no textures you can see through them but they are solid(server build 801 with corresponding client build). did not think they would push these updates to the main branch.[/QUOTE] Same problem with textures. Happy of new update >> angry of new bugs, lost players etc. Friday is not lucky day for Rust.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46434733]So maybe it'd be nice if garry moved the main-branch-push release dates and monthly devblogs to, say, Tuesday instead of right before the weekend, then? Would that make everyone happy? That way, if shit like this continues happening, there's more opportunity for a timely dev response without spoiling everyone's chances of playing Rust on the weekend. Note: I can't actually speak on behalf of the devs, I'm just proposing an alternate solution that doesn't require forcing garry to change how he runs his dev team and build release cycle -- because I don't think that'd be received well unless you really hit the bull's eye and gave garry a better way that works with his existing developers' work styles. Please do not assume that me saying this obliges garry to do it. Again, it's just a suggestion.[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with how he runs anything, it's pure and simple laziness.

I don't even understand what we got here?! I read the dev blog... they changed the grass? I'd rather have the old grass, and the option to be able to actually play this weekend.

[QUOTE=BleedingGreen;46434674] A weekly iteration is not a good idea, when its broken for several days, imo.[/QUOTE] I don't know how they do it, most other game devs that try update their game every week eventually lose their minds and come to the conclusion its counter productive and stressful to try get stuff done(and tested) in that short of a time frame. They should drop back to two weeks and release updates early in the week so by the time the weekend has arrived and people are itching to play rust.. atleast some bugs have been hotfixed out. + they need to rename Rust back to "Rust Experimental" in till its at least reached Rust Legacys benchmark.

i think it's all slow because there is trees everywhere. whose idea was it to put trees eveerywhere on the map?

[QUOTE=Kowie;46434970]I don't know how they do it, most other game devs that try update their game every week eventually lose their minds and come to the conclusion its counter productive and stressful to try get stuff done(and tested) in that short of a time frame. They should drop back to two weeks and release updates early in the week so by the time the weekend has arrived and people are itching to play rust.. most bugs have been hotfixed out. + they need to rename Rust back to "Rust Experimental" in till its at least reached Rust Legacys benchmark.[/QUOTE] If you opt into the development branch you get the live builds as they're committed, uploaded to Steam, and tweeted to @RustUpdates. When legacy was the default version of Rust, before garry switched it over to defaulting to launching experimental (which is now, simply, "Rust", I still call it exp because that's confusing), builds were promoted from the live dev commits to the main experimental branch two or three times a day, and then gradually a bit less often. When garry switched experimental over to the default, he changed it to a weekly release to go with the devblog, making the weekly post a patch summary post. [QUOTE=jacob2014;46435030]i think it's all slow because there is trees everywhere. whose idea was it to put trees eveerywhere on the map?[/QUOTE] With Unity 5's beta, they gained access to SpeedTree, and they're working the kinks out of it. And there are many, it seems, because SpeedTree's been giving them problems since the switch. Keep in mind that Unity 5 itself is still in beta, and they're in contact with the Unity devs, reporting bugs upstream. If you don't rough it out and figure out how to make trees run efficiently, the only thing you can do is cut back on them and make the map look much more sparse and unnatural. The game's still in development, so a little temporary inconvenience now pays off great dividends later when everything's been polished up and the engine's capable of gracefully handling everything the devs throw at it.

Building is sorted out in server build 806 and client 794. hopefully Garrys gonna push them to main, On a down note just checked as locks are still not loading on server restart.

Like I said, I really appreciate and enjoy being part of the whole development process. I think it's awesome we are able to impact the direction of the game. What I don't think makes sense is how massively broken versions are pushed to the main branch and released. Alpha, doesn't mean untested. Like any software cycle you have development, QA and release. It seems there is no QA, in any fashion, occuring. I don't expect "everything" to work and I do expect some things to stop working but when you literally break everything you can do in a game (building, fighting, etc) it shows that no effort is in place to test code. This means serious bugs can make it into your main branch undetected. If you take a week to bring up QA servers (things that test the final build before it's pushed), 10 minutes will tell you if the build is ready for the public. That's development 101 and why many people are so angry at Garry.

[QUOTE=Codepwned;46435191]Like I said, I really appreciate and enjoy being part of the whole development process. I think it's awesome we are able to impact the direction of the game. What I don't think makes sense is how massively broken versions are pushed to the main branch and released. Alpha, doesn't mean untested. Like any software cycle you have development, QA and release. It seems there is no QA, in any fashion, occuring. I don't expect "everything" to work and I do expect some things to stop working but when you literally break everything you can do in a game (building, fighting, etc) it shows that no effort is in place to test code. This means serious bugs can make it into your main branch undetected. If you take a week to bring up QA servers (things that test the final build before it's pushed), 10 minutes will tell you if the build is ready for the public. That's development 101 and why many people are so angry at Garry.[/QUOTE] This community unfortunately flames people who try to suggest development processes, beware.

[QUOTE=jacob2014;46435030]i think it's all slow because there is trees everywhere. whose idea was it to put trees eveerywhere on the map?[/QUOTE] Have you seen the horrifying undulating tree models at about 300 meters away? Those are speed trees in the works.

Fixed, new small patch sorted it out

A new patch is out? Doesn't DL for me.

Just downloaded the new dev server #807 and client #795 and the code locks not loading on server restart has also been fixed.

[QUOTE=Cheeze;46435429]Fixed, new small patch sorted it out[/QUOTE] This game might be in alpha but has it even passed alpha before? I don't think so, really you have been alpha before this new engine and still are but got worse with not testing your own code before releasing it.