This doesn't add up (versioning terminology)

[KITATUS]

@;220515

As mentioned above, we use semantic versioning (http://semver.org/), and so the release after 4.9 will be 4.10, not 5.0.

RE: Code names: They’re not product or version code names, but we have something like spirit animals for various features or subsystems:

• Animation Armadillo
• Blueprint Bear
• Camera Chimp
• Linker Lion (https://twitter.com/linkerlion)
• Loud Lemur
• Pathfinding Panda
• Slate Seal
• etc…

We should try to do a group photo some time.

Cheers,

That’s excellent. My vote for unofficial engine version code-names is being different types of cats / kittens

[qdelpeche]

@;220519

That’s excellent. My vote for unofficial engine version code-names is being different types of cats / kittens

My Inner Geek is screaming … I vote for Star Wars planets … wait would have licensing issues? D-a-m-n you George Lucas … 8-p

[SchnitzelDude]

Always fun to read those kind of threads. Starting with ‘serious’ complains and ending with kittens.

@;220515

RE: Code names: They’re not product or version code names, but we have something like spirit animals for various features or subsystems:

• Animation Armadillo
• Blueprint Bear
• Camera Chimp
• Linker Lion (https://twitter.com/linkerlion)
• Loud Lemur
• Pathfinding Panda
• Slate Seal
• etc…

We should try to do a group photo some time.

Cheers,

Thats awesome… I need to make a geek-shirt out of this…

[ChrisTm]

I wish the versioning terminology was done in a way every other software does it. At this moment it seams bit like “cheating”.

What do I mean?
4.7, really? Surely you mean 4.007.

I believe that you doing this way because it does look better and keeps people subscribed. It is more likely that people will keep subscription if they see something as is presented as a major release then if that release was a minor one. When in fact it is a minor release each time.

Just my 11c.

I don’t know if you watched Change.log for all new version, for small fix, I agree with you to pulled down the engine.But I think 4.7 is really appropriate.

[anonymous_user_7af3b797]

@
Sure, 4.7 is appropriate but it should really be 4.1, because in my NSHO this is the next release which should be shown to public. The previous ones that is 4.0.1 onward up until 4.7 should be internal builds only.
I don’t know, on one hand I do like the constant updates yet on the other hand I am bit peissed off, (intentional mistake). Why I’m bit ***. Because deep down, I know it and epic knows it too that UE4 is in very, very unstable stage, that is, UI will change ten times over, API will change ten times over etc.

I do like regular and frequent updates, but those should be rather, how shall I put it… non-disturbing updates. But something like that can only happen when soft is at stable point. UE4 is not, there is still plenty to be done in order to be really production ready.
Please don’t get me wrong. I do like Epic and UE4. I love UDK. I do genuinely love this community and I’m proud to be part of it. I’m at the final stages of my project in UDK and obviously will try to do my next in UE4 but for the moment I’m very, very concerned about doing it, because of those constant drastic changes.

But it will get better.

[Mikand79]

I dont know if they changed it, but when I subscribed Epic’s site was quite clear about UE4 beeing presented as a product for ‘Early Adopters’ and not as polished ‘wool generating, milk giving and egglegging meat pig’

Though one can look low and high, left and right, there is nothing alike or better, with alike or better terms.

[anonymous_user_7af3b797]

@
Agreed.

[iniside]

@;220955

@
should be internal builds only.

What would be benefit to anyone ?
I like to pull newest shiny things from github, and compile them and more over use them.

I’d rather have choice to use whatever I want, than to be stuck on single version for gods know how long.

[anonymous_user_7af3b797]

@inside

That really depends.
If you want to just play with new shiny thing then sure, by any means, I love that too.
But if your income depends on actually producing something, and the new shiny thing prevents you from doing it then this is different story entirely. You say, then don’t get the new shiny thing, use the one you’ve been using till now. I say, but the thing I’ve been using till now has so many things broken that it is impossible to comfortably work with.

You see, as long as UE4 will be at unstable stage there is simply no simple solution to this problem. It is a catch 23. I’d prefer it to be catch 22 but that would be too easy.

[iniside]

You didn’t answered my question.
What would be benefit of withholding newest version from public ?
Who would benefit from it ?
What would be the point of it ?

You would be stuck with one version, without new features, or bug fixes for half year. If you like this model (dunno why), you can use CryEngine. They are withholding releases for half year, and when they release it, is ultimately just as messy, simply because there was not enough exposure and testing.

There is no catch. You want to use old version ? You can use it. NOBODY is forcing you, to use latest version.

I say you should be extremely happy that Epic is giving public access to latest sources and versions. Because people like me, use them, test them, and report bugs, so you can have, your stable release whatever it means.

[qdelpeche]

+1 with what iniside said.

Bottom line is you have a choice to use which version you want. Personally I prefer choice … it allows me to decide and also allows me to see what is happening with the engine in an open and transparent method.

Not sure why you want to remove this choice or not support this model. But once again … the choice is yours … please just don’t try to force the others to do the same.

Good luck with everything. 8-}

[anonymous_user_7af3b797]

@
Hi, as I’ve said, I’d also like to play with new toys. The problem I have with Epic at the moment is that they try to sell toy but present/market it as a professional tool. In my opinion this is unfair and misleading. I know lots of people will disagree with me, but this is how I feel about UE4 at the moment.

I tell you little story:
When UE4 first came out to public - March 2014 I was in the middle of my project in UDK. I was seriously considering switching to UE4 back then, keeping in mind that Epic was actually suggesting that: Consider move your projects into UE4 unless they are near finish stage. They were actually advocating this behavior.
The only thing that stopped me (thanks be to God) from switching to UE4 was that they didn’t have proper UI system in place and I’ve just finished mine and decided that I’ve spent too much time on it just to be redoing it again, so I have (thanks be to God) stuck with UDK.
If I had switch to UE4 (quite often I reflect on that) I know that I would never finish my project.
I cannot stress enough what I’m piessed off with Epic. They mislead me through their marketing campaign etc, to believe that UE4 is fully featured, production ready product. The only thing they admitted that is not up to scratch is the documentation. This is not true. UE4 is still very unstable, very buggy and nowhere near production ready product.
I would be happy with situation if it was presented like this:
UE4 is released but it is said loudly that it is beta version and individuals starting new projects do so on their own risk.
Each new minor release came with identical note.

Then to me this would be fair approach.
But what Epic did with UE4 in my eyes is just a misleading, target to sell, purely marketing behavior.

I’m also for frequent updates. But those updates must not be disturbing. This can only happen when soft is at stable stage where UE4 will be, but it will take around 1-2 more years.

Best regards and thanks for your kind words.

[qdelpeche]

Wow … okay I don’t have an answer for that. Best of luck with all your endeavors. Having come from Torque 3D and the fiasco that was Instant Action … I for one am very happy with the release cycle and transparency we get from Epic.

Each to their own … I guess. Have a good weekend. 8-}

[anonymous_user_7af3b797]

@
Have a good weekend

[zeOrb]

Weeell, I guess this subforum is created for feedback. Negative feedback/criticism is the one of the pillars of progress, buuut I kinda disappointed by this pure rant >.>’

1. Versioning system is completely matter of preference and taste. You may find it is marketing cheating, but I find it much more convenient, because I, as consumer, know that new features and major overhauls always in 4.X and it’s much more comfortable to work with. Also Wikiis on my side and consider minor releases as bugfixing and etc. You can’t say “This doesn’t add up” or “It’s cheating”, it just much more simple and convenient versioning for users.
2. About everything else - I can’t treat you seriously after this line

UE4 in my eyes is just a misleading, target to sell, purely marketing behavior.

[savagebeasty]

@;220346

I’m working on an OS that is version 10.10.2. Apple has been working on the 10 major release for over a decade. Blender did a ground up re-write and went from 2.48b to 2.50, and after more than a decade, are only at 2.73a. Microsoft went from Windows 3.1 to 95 to 98 to ME to XP to Vista to 7 to 8 to 10 (not to mention a few other evolutionary branches like NT and 2000). There are no hard and fast rules about version numbers. There is no “normal”. This is a really silly thing to be concerned about.

well Microsoft is even more confusing with version numbers than that, windows 8.1 is just a name, it’s actually version 6.3 (excuse the poorly formatted copy/paste below

Windows 8.1 6.3*
Windows Server 2012 R2 6.3*
Windows 8 6.2
Windows Server 2012 6.2
Windows 7 6.1
Windows Server 2008 R2 6.1
Windows Server 2008 6.0
Windows Vista 6.0
Windows Server 2003 R2 5.2
Windows Server 2003 5.2
Windows XP 64-Bit Edition 5.2
Windows XP 5.1
Windows 2000 5.0

[anonymous_user_7af3b797]

@savagebeasty
The point is that each of those release is a major one, not an yet another internal build of MS given to users to download and work on.
There is no confusion with naming, but rather what they suppose to denote, that is, 4.1 to me would indicate that is somewhat major release after 4.0, same 4.2 and so on. But what epic does is presents those releases as a somewhat major and yet those are merely monthly builds and should be marked as such. That’s where my problem is.

[anonymous_user_2a254ae9]

@;221463

But what epic does is presents those releases as a somewhat major and yet those are merely monthly builds and should be marked as such. That’s where my problem is.

From my point of view (not a coder), I would say that those 4.1, 4.2 releases are absolutely worth whatever is the big deal with the numbering. There is always such a huge set of new features that I can’t imagine better situation for the .1, .2 version numbers.

Just take 3dsmax for example. From the point of view of the end user, there is probably less new features (certainly less really useful features) between say 2014 and 2015 release then is between .1 and .2 versions of UE.
Another example could be unfortunately Cryengine (which I used some time ago), while they may pack similar amount of features between two .x versions, they are releasing it like every half year.

I see no big deal in having 4.34 and then at some point, smart folks at Epic deciding that exactly then is the time to switch to 5.0.