Software is aging - and what it means for FAF


@archsimkat said in Software is aging - and what it means for FAF:

Thank you for your work and your explanation of the technical wizardry required to keep the client running.

Bless you & all developers on FAF.

Out of curiosity, what technical skills/expertise would be of great value for the FAF developer team. To rephrase: what are you missing most?

I have seen this video?
How to get engaged


There is a nice official YT video called FAF contributor tutorial that goes in depth on that topic.


You know, it might of been just me but i would about bet you just said its best not to change FAF for how you supported to answer it.

But i do understand what you are saying, but still say the worth of being said is best for another answer.

I stopped using XP because it stopped being supported, not because of broke software.

There is a difference between say moving on and just not having something to do with something at all at a time.

To me a good question is, rather being a million dollar company would it be best placed to spend for FAF or just another supcom?? Easier aside or not.


Good detail on the problem. I know it well running 3 different machines that play FA. My old Pentium 3.6 DTA laptop still runs, has XP on it and an old version of FAF, I don't play it online anymore to avoid borking the install for the reasons you list above (until the install or machine fails). Its a backup anyway for when my newer ones have issues.

The newer machines run current FAF installs, but I get crashes frequently when playing solo using some of the older mods I liked. Again, likely because of the very issues you outlines above (that said, space wars - satellite orbitals & spaceships - was cool).

Main thing is having the base game to play, and kudos to you guys for trying to keep this going. Best RTS ever.


@Brutus5000 said in Software is aging - and what it means for FAF:

And we must and want FAF to run on modern computers. And of course we want to make bug fixes from our dependencies available to you. So we need to adapt. FAF is alive. And life is change. But unfortunately in software change also brings new errors.

understandable for everybody. and good to c that the team is on top of that

Everytime we upgrade a dependency we might introduce new bugs. And since we're not a million dollar company, we have no QA team to find this bugs before shipping.

its not easy to keep calm if u want just want to play a few games and und can't. but i guess u guys know thats the frustration is speaking in that situation. but there is no doubt u guys do a great job and i love to c that u guys handle this little diamond of gamehistory carefull and keep it up to date. all i can say is thx.

just my 2 cent


I was under the impression that the people complaining about change are mostly talking about gameplay balance?


Not only. There is a lot of stuff broken in FAF (e.g. rating changes get lost, are invalid, games weren't counted, map play counter not working, ...). Some stuff is hidden there for ages and some stuff gets introduced by us.


This might not be a suitable question to some terms, but is say FAF more hard-line encoded for the programming or more virtual??



I don't understand your question. Lost in translation?


Is the programming/coding more for running with software systems or hardware systems, say for it to work?

A simulator or emulator more of??

More Layer on a Layer or a Layer on Base??

If any of that makes any sense.