FM3 Firmware Version 7.00 beta 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
GuitaRasmus said:
Simple - I LOVED the sound of 6.0 beta, and saw no reason to "upgrade" - especially once people (as I recall) started saying things about the speaker drive parameter having changed, or something like that. I'm a working musician, and I had a lot of gigs at the time, and saw very little reason to change a unit I loved the sound of, and having to redo my presets.

Why upgrade to 7.0 then? Because I usually wear glasses, but sweat so much onstage that it's impractical to use them. My eyes have trouble seeing the small letters, so I wanted to see if the new firmware could help with that. ;)
Click to expand...

I would never recommend anyone stay in any beta software post release personally. But, I think it is unfair to say the 7.0 beta sounds worse when you are coming from some unspecified build of the 6.0 beta. Depending on which beta build of 6.0 and which Amp there could have been changes to the amp model you are using as the 6.0 beta progressed that are responsible for the differences you are hearing. The majority of changes to the modeling in 6.0 were included all the way back to Beta 1 but I remember there being fixes to specific amp models along the way.

I think the only fair way to determine what version is to blame for the perceived differences you are hearing is to, at the very least, upgrade to the 6.0 release and compare. Then do the same with the 6.02 release. I would expect no changes between 6.0 and 6.02. If you get to 6.02 and perceive no changes and then they reappear when you upgrade back to 7.0 then provide as much detail as possible about your setup.
 
GuitaRasmus, Beta version means there are known bugs that will cause problems still in the software. Run at your own risk. It's never a good idea to run beta versions once the released version is out.
 
Joel.Brown333 said:
Beta version means there are known bugs that will cause problems still in the software.
Click to expand...
Actually, it doesn’t mean that. “Beta” means that it’s a test version that hasn’t been tested enough to be confidently released to the public. It’s already been tested by the developers (that’s called alpha testing), and it’s ready to be tested by the beta test team. “Public beta” means that the developers have invited the general public to be beta testers.

Beta versions may or may not have bugs.


Joel.Brown333 said:
Run at your own risk.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Beta means it's not done. You can word it however you want if that makes you feel better, we're talking semantics here. You want to fool yourself into running a beta version go right ahead. I was just trying to point out it's not a smart thing to do and could bite you in the arse.
 
Joel.Brown333 said:
Beta means it's not done. You can word it however you want if that makes you feel better, we're talking semantics here. You want to fool yourself into running a beta version go right ahead. I was just trying to point out it's not a smart thing to do and could bite you in the arse.
Click to expand...
I don't think that anyone is requiring you to use the Beta, so as long as it isn't affecting you, what's the fuss about?
 
Joel.Brown333 said:
Beta means it's not done.
Click to expand...
Well, not necessarily. Public beta can mean that the team wants/needs to test on a bigger audience. There's easily might be no changes between public beta and major release if no issues identified by end users.
Probably not the case with the particular beta due to potential 5150/Revv issues, but generally there is no reason to consider public beta an "unfinished" product. Over the years I remember only a few reports of the issues with beta FW on this forum, many were not afraid to use it live :)
 
Tonedeaf said:
Since bugs can be quite buried. What's your quess at how many have never been discovered?
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no way to estimate. Code complexity makes the likelihood of bugs occurring increase, but that particular code branch has to be run, and often the perfect combination of settings or conditions have to occur AND the user has to recognize that the bug was triggered.
 
Chromatizm said:
Well, not necessarily. Public beta can mean that the team wants/needs to test on a bigger audience.
Click to expand...
The idea is to expose the code to more eyes of people who will dig in to find ways to reproduce bugs that are encountered. Public beta does mean that FAS wants to expose the code to a bigger audience.

Chromatizm said:
There's easily might be no changes between public beta and major release if no issues identified by end users.
Probably not the case with the particular beta due to potential 5150/Revv issues, but generally there is no reason to consider public beta an "unfinished" product. Over the years I remember only a few reports of the issues with beta FW on this forum, many were not afraid to use it live :)
Click to expand...
Actually "beta" implies it is unfinished; It leaves beta once FAS feels it's solid enough for regular use. Because all code has bugs it's all unfinished, but beta is the phase when any recently introduced changes/features are tested to try to identify the majority of them, the ones that are more easily found. Ones that are buried occasionally pop up because someone was doing something out of the ordinary that exercised that particular logic, and those will either trigger a bug-fix release or go into the bug-fix queue for the next round of development.

There should be no changes when a final beta release is moved to full release, only the version number should change, with the beta version being dropped.
 
Technically the release might have no changes from the final beta and thereofre they are the same, and technically the release might still have bugs. Everything is chaos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom