An Email from Chris Sawyer
Pscho
Josef Drexler wrote in message ...
<snip>
:)
I think he deserves an apology.
Josef Drexler
Hi folks,
Today I noticed an email in my inbox from a "C Sawyer". And, guess what,
it was from Him.
After replying and receiving a second email from him, I feel I have a
fairly educated opinion on the whole issue of anti-cheats and the
official patch.
Since this is a pretty controversial issue, I ask you to read all I have
to say first and form your own opinion. Note that I'm not posting this
because I have to, but because I personally want to. The current
negativity and hostility helps nobody, and I've come to believe that it
is not warranted.
The first thing I want to post is the list of bugfixes included in the
official patch; he writes they were "not published on the web site as it
was felt to be inappropriate and possibly confusing for the less-
knowledgable user". While this may have been a poor decision, I
nonetheless think that it is within reason and more or less common
practice for the "big ones" in the software industry. When was the last
time Microsoft told you what the Windows Update is actually going to fix?
I can't recall ever reading it from them. So, we'll have to live with
that.
But now that we have the list anyway, it is pretty much a non-issue.
This is what the patch fixes, nothing more, nothing less [quoted with
permission from the first email]:
>1) Spelling of 'campaign' corrected in marketing window.
>2) Swinging Ship plotting modified to correct depth sorting problem when
>position in front of a tall vertical land face.
>3) French and German music 'on'/'off' strings corrected.
>4) Bug fixed in marketing window initialization code, to prevent
>possibility of crash when only a single non-marketable ride/shop has
>been built.
>5) Assessment of Ghost Train modified to fix a problem which resulted in
>the ride statistics sometimes displaying 'number of inversions'.
>6) Guest generation code modified to prevent new guest entries over-
>running the ride type data if too many ride types exist in original
>saved games.
>7) Bug fixed in vehicle initialization code, which sometimes caused
>bumper cars and flying saucers to be displayed as coaster cars.
>8) Ride breakdown handling modified to handle a very rare case where a
>mechanic goes missing while fixing a ride.
>9) Scenery removal code modified to allow tall fountains to be removed
>from rights-owned land (Barony Bridge in particular).
>10) Guest route searching and movement modified to prevent no-entry
>signs interfering with guests on a path directly below.
>11) Scenario index file is now re-written with an updated date stamp, to
>prevent time zone changes causing the file to be reset (only affected
>users with build 164/165 of the original game who had installed the add-
>on and hadn't already run the recovery procedure).
>12) Bug fixed in track construction window code, to allow reduced-size
>competition scenarios to work correctly.
>13) Track section data modified to prevent non-looping trains from
>running on vertical loops on the Steel Twister Roller Coaster.
From this list and some explanations by Chris Sawyer, I've come to
believe I jumped to conclusions too early. The official patch is not
targeted against RCTPatch in any way as I have implied. In fact, Chris
writes that he didn't even download and try my patch. That it stops
peeps from coming to the park is a side effect of fix #6. (Which I
believe my patch breaks again :( ). So, Chris is *not* out there to get
us or me, he is not the "enemy". I sincerely apologize for giving off
this impression by assuming too much and jumping to conclusions too early
without properly assessing the facts. By the way, this was my opinion
from the start; I stated my belief that he is making these restrictions
because of some other constraints.
In fact, he writes that "The limits are all there for very valid reasons
- I want to ensure that the game will work reliably and satisfactorily in
all cases, and this means imposing certain internal limits on the data."
This is what every good programmer wants, that their program performs
well in all cases, is stable and reliable. In most cases this will
unfortunately remain a dream, there will always be some bugs, but Chris
Sawyer has come remarkably close to perfection. RCT is remarkably bug-
free, particularly when compared to the mentality of most game companies
("release early, patch later"). It has never crashed on me (except when
I was developing the patch - but that is entirely my fault), and I
respect Chris for that.
Furthermore, Chris writes on the restrictions placed on loading games
[quoted with permission from the second email]:
>The whole issue of only allowing the game to load 'genuine' saved games
>is a complex one, and I cannot discuss this in detail. Suffice to say
>that knowingly allowing the game to load modified or 'trainerized' saved
>games might imply that we support the use of these saved games and that
>we have some kind of responsibility for ensuring the game performs
>correctly with them. As I explained earlier, we cannot guarantee they
>will function correctly, and we have documented cases where they can
>even cause the game to lock up or crash after extended game play.
So what it boils down to is a liability issue. You might compare it with
buying a new stereo and altering it to be, for example, more powerful.
When this turns out not to work, you bring it back to the shop for
repairs. However, no shop will repair this on the warranty, you're
pretty much on your own. If the shop knowingly tolerates altering the
system, they can be liable for repairing it, so they won't. Couple it
with the recent rash of law suits over the tiniest squabble, and I think
you can understand why a company will try to avoid this.
It is certainly Chris Sawyer's and Hasbro's right to make sure that the
game works properly in all advertised cases. This is in fact an
applaudable effort, compared to how poorly other games often work out of
the box. You cannot expect them to support altered savegames if these
can lead to crashes. Doing so would cost them money through increased
technical support costs, when in fact it would be up to the author of the
patch, trainer or other tool to support it. In fact, I'm going to add a
disclaimer asking people not to complain to Hasbro if they have problems
while playing with my patch. When I made the first version I didn't
write this because I completely underestimated the response I would get,
so I guess I was a bit careless in that respect.
That is pretty much all I want to say right now. I think I've summed it
up as best I can and hope it clears some of the questions and confusion,
as well as the hard feelings many have against either Hasbro and/or Chris
Sawyer. I will continue to develop RCTPatch if it turns out to be
necessary, but I have to emphasize that this is my own service, nothing
that can ever be expected from Hasbro within reason, and when using the
patch you are on your own and cannot turn to their tech support if you
have problems.
Please be considerate when replying and snip the quoted text down to the
particular statements that you are replying to in order to reduce wasted
bandwidth and unnecessary repetition.
Also feel free to take this to email if you wish to discuss it privately
with me. Note that you have to alter my address to defeat the spam trap,
see the signature.
However, please don't ask me to tell you his email address. He is far
too busy, and in fact he used a temporary Hotmail address - I doubt
anybody would gain anything from knowing it.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programme...
--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
Avoid showers. Take a bath. | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!
Alden Bates
Drexler) wrote:
>>7) Bug fixed in vehicle initialization code, which sometimes caused
>>bumper cars and flying saucers to be displayed as coaster cars.
Dang, that actually sounds fun. ;-)
>>10) Guest route searching and movement modified to prevent no-entry
>>signs interfering with guests on a path directly below.
Oh, good. :-)
>From this list and some explanations by Chris Sawyer, I've come to
>believe I jumped to conclusions too early. The official patch is not
>targeted against RCTPatch in any way as I have implied.
I'm glad that is the case and Chris is not intentionally trying to
sabotage everyone's fun. :-)
Alden.
--
___ _ _ __
| . | | | .\ Alden Bates (alden...@yahoo.co.uk)
| | | .<---------------------------------------------------------
|_|_|_|_|__/ http://tetrap.simplenet.com/ for the discerning Tetrap
Cliff Wagner
>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>Today I noticed an email in my inbox from a "C Sawyer". And, guess what,
>it was from Him.
>
>After replying and receiving a second email from him, I feel I have a
>fairly educated opinion on the whole issue of anti-cheats and the
>official patch.
>
>Since this is a pretty controversial issue, I ask you to read all I have
>to say first and form your own opinion. Note that I'm not posting this
>because I have to, but because I personally want to. The current
>negativity and hostility helps nobody, and I've come to believe that it
>is not warranted.
>
[BIG HUGE SNIP OF MOST EVERYTHING]
>
>--
> Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
>---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
> Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
> Avoid showers. Take a bath. | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!
I usually don't waste bandwidth with a "way to go" type post,
but after reading through your posting and going through
other posts ranting against Mr. Sawyer, I had to say Thanks.
It's nice to know that you were patient and willing to get
the story instead of jumping to conclusions and refusing to
budge.
Once again, thanks for setting the record straight. Hopefully
this ends the rants against AA/CF (although I doubt it will
completely).
Well, back to building a ride exchange for y'all....
(should be complete sometime this week....will post details
when i finish).
-c-
--
Cliff Wagner (ed...@edge-zone.net)
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
Jonathan Wilson
1.someone downloads a perfectly innocent saved game that happens to have had
a trainer used on it
2.they load the savedgame into RCT
3.something stuffs up (mabie even their machine) because of the trainer or
etc
4.they blame the game, not knowing it is the savedgame that is at fault
5.they then might thretten legal action against sawyer and hasbro
at least with jdrextlers patch then he has disclamed all liability if somone
uses it and it makes their computer dissappear in a puff of smoke or
something (has he disclamed liability? can he disclaim liability?)
--
Jonathan Wilson
wil...@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Scott Amspoker
>Now I understand. The restrictions were in there to prevent the folowing.
>1.someone downloads a perfectly innocent saved game that happens to have had
>a trainer used on it
>2.they load the savedgame into RCT
>3.something stuffs up (mabie even their machine) because of the trainer or
>etc
>4.they blame the game, not knowing it is the savedgame that is at fault
>5.they then might thretten legal action against sawyer and hasbro
>at least with jdrextlers patch then he has disclamed all liability if somone
>uses it and it makes their computer dissappear in a puff of smoke or
>something (has he disclamed liability? can he disclaim liability?)
Maybe Chris Sawyer can explain how having flat land or $100,000 will crash the
game. I understand that checks for these things were included in the add-on.
They appear to serve no purpose other than to discourage trainers.
Scott Amspoker |
s...@rt66.com |
http://www.rt66.com/sda |
Anthony Houghton
news:3844B2BA...@xoommail.com...
> Now I understand. The restrictions were in there to prevent the
folowing.
> 1.someone downloads a perfectly innocent saved game that
happens to have had
> a trainer used on it
> 2.they load the savedgame into RCT
> 3.something stuffs up (mabie even their machine) because of the
trainer or
> etc
> 4.they blame the game, not knowing it is the savedgame that is
at fault
> 5.they then might thretten legal action against sawyer and
hasbro
Interesting thought. If you can get sued for bugs in your
program, how come Bill Gates isn't the poorest man in the world.
Let's face it, a fault in an operating system could actually do
some damage. a fault in a game...
What are you going to sue for? Emotional Distress?
--
Ant
Dr. Evil
Jonathan Wilson wrote in message <3844B2BA...@xoommail.com>...
>at least with jdrextlers patch then he has disclamed all liability if
somone
>uses it and it makes their computer dissappear in a puff of smoke or
>something (has he disclamed liability? can he disclaim liability?)
And techo posted a similiar "disclaimer note" with the trainer for
RCT...Does anyone know if techno has a trainer in the works for CF?...
William Drummond
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean Malloy <srma...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.games.rctycoon
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: An Email from Chris Sawyer
>
> He announced that he had no intention of buying CF/AA, and so would
> not be working on a trainer for it.
>
. .
So...is a patch coming out to 'officially' enable a mega-park on the
expansion?:)
Dr. Evil
>He announced that he had no intention of buying CF/AA, and so would
>not be working on a trainer for it.
Sorry, but that's not true...go to http://www.teckno.8m.com/ and see for
yourself...