Welcome to Faith Sign in | Help
CS Search | Live Search Search
logo

A Clockwork Mind

A compulsive coder/designer spews forth his bizarre and unpalatable ideas upon an all-too-suspecting world

Not a Pretty Sight

No, i'm not talking about Prokofy Neva's psyche.

Or even my face, which is currently attempting to regenerate a huge hole in one cheek caused by some mo-cap going a bit haywire when we test-fired a few authentic renaissance pistols and muskets.  The chunk of actual debris has now been torn out though (by me, since the doctor refused), so healing-proper can begin. Still, i'm currently even uglier than usual until fully healed and even then, the local hospital expect me to "scar quite significantly".  I expect to scar quite insignificantly on the grounds that scars on me tend to be distinctly underhwelming but either way, i doubt if i'll be any prettier.

No, the current unprettiness is something my colleague Ben is about to experience.  You see, he's just drafted a requirements document for Travel in the Faith galaxy and it's a big, big topic.  Normally i'd sympathize and back off - since what he's done is actually pretty good with only a low number errors that would make the system unfit for purpose if we rushed ahead and coded them in.  I know, i know, you're thinking "what?  unfit for purpose?  game-breaking?  Sure a professional wouldn't make that kind of error?" to which i respond "you are an imbecile and i cannot be bothered to hit you, so please run at my fist as fast as you can".

Of course professionals make that kind of error.  Only amateurs assume that they don't make those errors.  The purpose of review is to find and annihilate as many errors as possible, and then we will review again and hopefully nail a few more.  However many reviews we do (three is usually optimum) we're never going to find all the errors and some will make it out past unit-testing and into end-to-end testing.  Some might even make it into User Acceptance Testing or to Release Candidates.  We hope not, of course, but have to assume that they will.

Most errors are not bugs in code, they are design errors.  This is a truth that only programmers accept - most analysts and designers would deny it vigorously.

So Ben's going to feel a bit put through the wringer over the next week or so.  I'm certain he's as used to that as i am, although that doesn't make it any nicer.  But i just wanted to publically say - good job there, Ben.  And i mean it, whatever insults i may hurl your way over the next few days.

 

Published Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:38 PM by Rich Bryant
Filed under: ,

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

JuJutsu said:

Grats on the travel document, sounds like a big step forward.

Also grats on the scar. If you can't milk that for a decade of stories you're hopeless ;)

March 21, 2007 11:18 AM
 

Ben said:

ROFL... thanks, Rich.  I can't help but feel like you posted this as a 'don't take what I'm about to post personally'.  ;-)

For the record, don't worry about it.  I was upset about the cannon thing... because I had visions in my head that I thought were pretty awesome.  This, though... if I've learned anything in product development it's that first of all people like to review and comment on things.  They have no responsibility to write it up in the first place, they can then just comment and feel like they contributed... without doing any real 'work'.  Don't take that as me being bitter towards my Faithful colleagues... I'm not.  I despise my marketing coworkers in the 'Real World'.  Secondly, I was certainly hoping that there would be extensive feedback to these system proposals, especially the travel one.  It's a big deal... the purpose of writing a document on it was to have one place to go to get the story on that aspect of the game.  It's a 'living document' until the wailing and gnashing of teeth is done, then it's a historical resource.  <shrug>  

March 21, 2007 3:51 PM
 

Joe Ludwig said:

Wow, that sounds painful.  (The Old Mocap Injury, not the design review... we have tons of those, and I'm calloused. :)  

Say, you wouldn't happen to be posting any video of the non-injury portions of the Mocap session, would you?  We're not using Mocap, but I'm sure our animators would love to see reference footage of renaissance firearms. :)

March 21, 2007 7:23 PM
 

Rich Bryant said:

Marina will be going over the tapes this weekend, Joe.  I'm happy to share, so they'll be posted in the Files section here when ready.  I'll leave out the exploding breech-loader, though.

March 22, 2007 2:43 AM
 

Jnoh said:

Hey, the injury portions of the MoCap could be useful also... guns don't occasionally blow holes in the cheek of the user in Faith?

March 26, 2007 5:14 PM
 

Rich Bryant said:

Yes, but i don't want to reproduce a clapped cheek followed by swearing and smashing of the offending object over a fire bucket.

March 26, 2007 5:56 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit

About Rich Bryant

Richard Bryant used to work on classified military simulation projects with special reference to AI and situational mechanics but has taken a vanilla programming job in order to have free weekends and evenings to code Faith. So far, it's not working. He's married and lives in Wiltshire, England
CS Build: 2.1.61025.2
Edgecase Studio