Since I haven’t seen anyone post this, I thought I’d share the new Star Engine demo video from Cloud Imperium Games.

      • @t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        78 months ago

        I mean, no? Version numbers don’t dictate the release readiness of something.

        You want them to just call what they have now 1.0, before they implement the Alpha 4.0 features shown there? Because that’s the gist of what you said.

        • Space Sloth
          link
          fedilink
          78 months ago

          Conventional version numbering (afaik) lead up to 1.0 as the release candidate.

          • @Cagi@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Most often in gaming, yeah, but there are no rules. PURE CHAOS, BABY!!!

          • JohnEdwa
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Usually yes if you use only numbers, but when you use alpha/beta/release cycles etc, it’s not that uncommon to have them start from 1.0 as well.

            As an example, the fifth phase of minecraft dev started with “Minecraft Alpha v1.0.0” and once it got to v1.2.6, the next was “Minecraft Beta v1.0.0”. The proper Minecraft 1.0 came after Beta 1.8.1.

          • @t3rmit3@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            That was a standard that existed because of older, ‘linear’ SDLCs. It stopped being the case when Agile development took over. When you’re using Waterfall, and all your milestones are planned out before a single line of code is written, you can do that.

            Modern software development doesn’t work like that, and it’s silly to use nth-degree nested decimals (0.1.0, 0.1.1.2) when you can just use 1.1, 2.13, etc, and call something RC1.0 and 1.0 on release without bothering with internal version numbers or project codenames (or just keep the working version numbers anyways).