UTexGrad Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I just installed the 3.0 upgrade, but it looks like the software was only partially updated. I'm assuming the version number should have been updated to 3.0, but the opening screen still shows me having 2.20. Also, It looks like the pdf for the 3.0 version was installed, but I don't see any of the new camera angles, KIA panel, etc. in the game. I have tried reinstalling with no success. Are there any rollbacks or anything like that I should try to complete the upgrade? Thanks!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIATpunk Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 you have upgraded to the new 3.0 engine if it's showing 2.20 (you would have previously been on 2.12). Enjoy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTexGrad Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 Thanks for the quick reply. It's much appreciated! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 It's pretty confusing that the "3.0 upgrade" upgrades you to 2.20. I wonder why they did that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhmorneau Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Yeah, this is highly confusing. When I started the game after patching it, my first thought was : "I must have done something wrong". After patching a second time and still seeing this v 2.20 on the opening screen, I decided to start a QB and check it out ingame. Bingo! And mind you, I've been buying CM games since CMAK. So what about newcomers (poor lads !!!) ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 One's an engine upgrade (3.0) and the other is a game upgrade, as I understand it. Even so, it still is confusing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Yes; it's confusing. I'm not sure how to make it clearer, though, as the only way I can see to make it so that the game versions and engine versions synched up for all games would have been to do something like call the initial release of CMFI v2.0 (which then would also be engine version 2.0, and the corresponding CMBN upgrade would be CMBN v2.0), and then the initial release of CMRT would have to be called CMRT v3.0 (and engine version 3.0, and the corresponding upgrades to CMBN and CMFI also 3.0) It seems to me this would be about equally confusing as the current system since the initial release of a software is almost always called version 1.x; people would be buying CMRT 3.0 on release day and wondering how the hell they missed CMRT 1.x and 2.x... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelican Pal Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Yes; it's confusing. I'm not sure how to make it clearer, though, as the only way I can see to make it so that the game versions and engine versions synched up for all games would have been to do something like call the initial release of CMFI v2.0 (which then would also be engine version 2.0, and the corresponding CMBN upgrade would be CMBN v2.0), and then the initial release of CMRT would have to be called CMRT v3.0 (and engine version 3.0, and the corresponding upgrades to CMBN and CMFI also 3.0) It seems to me this would be about equally confusing as the current system since the initial release of a software is almost always called version 1.x; people would be buying CMRT 3.0 on release day and wondering how the hell they missed CMRT 1.x and 2.x... They could simply list version number and game engine number. Alternatively, keep with 1.0 but when you upgrade to an engine then the patch number jumps to the engine number. So CM:RT is 1.0 CM:FI is 1.0 at V2, but becomes 3.0 at V3, and CM:BN is 1.0, jumps to 2.0 with V2, and jumps to 3.0 at V3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 I am visualizing how much fun this will be when there is another two or three families of CM2 games to regularly upgrade (along with upgrading each family's mods)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 My understanding is that the "3" is silent, like the "e" in "scheme". Okay, the second "e" in "scheme". So, writing 733t means "leet", a shorthand for "elite". Following through, if something is silent, it is often unnoticed. Being unnoticed, it is often unseen. Since "3" in "leetspeak" is the substitute for "e", then "3" is often invisible. This is why computer programmers use binary systems, not trinary systems. The silently invisible 3 would make a hash of their work. So...that's my best guess. K3N. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 While having CMFI start at v2 and RT start at v3 (and BS start at v4...??) would initially cause a double-take, having the version numbers different causes confusion every time there's a reference to an engine version. And calling BN and FI 2.2 and 1.2 respectively is just perverse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Perversity is under-rated. Did you really never wonder if this entire game series was created by a brain in a jar merely so it could give them different v numbers so it could be amused by our discomfiture? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilM Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 While having CMFI start at v2 and RT start at v3 (and BS start at v4...??) would initially cause a double-take, having the version numbers different causes confusion every time there's a reference to an engine version. And calling BN and FI 2.2 and 1.2 respectively is just perverse. Exactly!! And, it may just be the way my mind works, but - even sticking to the present methodology of seeming to have more than one engine, though there isn't really - a simple nomenclature change for the "public face" of the game, rather than the code build version, would help get around this. It would have been confusing to have "CMRT: v 3.0" be the first iteration of RT. But what if it was called "CM2 v3.0: RT" ... i.e., it's not v3 of RT we are seeing, but v3 of CM2, which is first implemented in RT. Then later we get CM2 v3.0: BN and CM2 v 3.0: FI; etc, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Perversity is under-rated. Did you really never wonder if this entire game series was created by a brain in a jar merely so it could give them different v numbers so it could be amused by our discomfiture? The brain in a jar is sufficiently intelligent and singular that it can cope. And it doesn't seem to consider how we lesser, multiple intelligences who have to use the stilted medium of words on a screen to communicate manage to be as important as some arcane numbering structure which could be maintained internally. And calling BN/FI x.20 feeds the "paid for patch" brouhaha as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 What release should be given after you have updated to 3.0 and then added the new "Upgraded 3.0 upgrade"? I am still getting 2.20 which leads me to believe the hot fix was not applied. As an ex-SW product manager for a large software company, I admit to being totally dumbfounded by the release naming convention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 What release should be given after you have updated to 3.0 and then added the new "Upgraded 3.0 upgrade"? As an ex-SW product manager for a large software company, I admit to being totally dumbfounded by the release naming convention. 2.21 or 2.20.1...Who knows anymore, and it might not even change on the new download. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 What release should be given after you have updated to 3.0 and then added the new "Upgraded 3.0 upgrade"? I am still getting 2.20 which leads me to believe the hot fix was not applied. As an ex-SW product manager for a large software company, I admit to being totally dumbfounded by the release naming convention. It is my understanding that the "upgraded 3.0 upgrade" is a replacement for the "stodgy original 3.0 upgrade". As such, it is taking its place and uses the SAME version number as ol' stodgy: v2.20. Yes, the naming convention is...non-traditional. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 What release should be given after you have updated to 3.0 and then added the new "Upgraded 3.0 upgrade"? I am still getting 2.20 which leads me to believe the hot fix was not applied. 2.21 or 2.20.1...Who knows anymore, and it might not even change on the new download. The correct version number for the upgraded CMBN is 2.2. It does not change with the hot fix being applied. I tend to agree that not being able to tell the hot fix from the initial release is not a super awesome thing. This whole version number thing it damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing. Sort of like keeping the causalities in the squad list: some people love it some people hate it. The last time they used a different strategy and it generated a tone of confusion. I personally have opinions on version numbers but really who cares: Do the version numbers go up as time goes by and changes are made - yes - check. Can you tell if you have the correct version installed - mostly - sorta check. Nothing more to see here. I like C3K's take - personally I am surprised he is sharing so much information - skirting the edge of the NDA there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rss334 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) sorry posted in the wrong forum but this post was very helpful a while back Edited November 23, 2016 by rss334 wrong post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.