Have common issues been found to be behind why topics are crashing RW?

[MNBlockHead]

I'm curious...well, actually, I need some hope and good news...has the team determined any root causes on why topic editing has become so unstable?

Since the conversion to HTML, there have been many folks posting about topics causing RW to crash. But even in just my own realm, the wonky ones behave differently. For example, two new topics added after the all the upgrades (in other words both created using the newest version in a fully synchronized realm) are giving me issues. One topic, I can't even view without RW crashing. Another I can view, but when I edit it, once I save, it crashes.

I'm afraid to add or edit content in RW. I have a game this Saturday and I want to at least avoid "corrupting" any other topics I need to access during the game. I'm now writing all additional content in "supplemental notes" in Google Docs that I will print and have at the table to cross-reference with RW.

If any root issues or patterns have been identified, I would love to know if there is anything I should do or avoid doing. After the first RW-crashing topic, I thought that deleting any default snippet from a topic was causing issues. But that doesn't seem to be the (or at least the only) cause of all topics crashing.

Wasted game prep time this evening is having me feel rather defeated.

 

[Parody]

I wish I could help narrow down these issues, but I've set Realm Works aside since 201 was released. I'm not dependent on it, so I can wait while things like seemingly random crashing issues are fixed.

 

[Dark Lord Galen]

Feeling Your pain MNB (and the rest of the community for that matter) and like Parody I parked mine at 200 until this "major update" (presumed) migrates from the major oops to something usable.

I have resisted the urge to post much at all of late simply because all of you have conveyed my thoughts on all so well I had little to add,

Soon
Key to the Past
Bianary Code

and for that matter, this post will probably be viewed as such.

Interesting that most would define a major update as items that were actually on the update/release list.... I sure don't recall switching from RTF to HTML exclusively being on the poll (which we can't even visit the original line of questions so maybe my memory is off). I guess that is just another of the growing list of things "we" (incert LWD here) decided was what we wanted.

Conversion to HTML seems contrary to the kickstarter as well (see question #43 Here The most interesting part being>

Over time, we'll be replicating all the functionality of the client application onto the server through a web-based interface. The net result will be duplicate functionality with both a purely online interface and the client application, catering appropriately to anyone in any environment. At some point, the sands will have shifted enough that we leave the client application behind entirely.

Now to me "replicating" doesn't equal replace. BUT total conversion of EVERYONE's realms without "we" being conveyed as to why seems like the first step to "leaving behind" xxx.doc & xxx.RTF formatting to move to a solely online use. I understand the appeal and versatility that HTML brings, but since the majority still utilize word processing programs, PDF's, etc, the only conclusion I can "Assume" is this move is to support Marketplace?

Don't get me wrong, while improved features for linking, assigning tags, assigning 3rd party software links, etc are all fine and good, I guess I just don't see where that gets us to completing "major" elements that are on this presumed list starting with the Content Market? LWD consistent defense is we don't have the manpower resources to do everything at once.. sure I get that too, small company = priorities but it certainly doesn't appear like those priorities are being worked.

And here we are a year (for some of us more) later and we are minimally further along on seeing the completion of said polling priorities except to hear "soon".

The Kickstarter (which encouraged many to make this purchase including myself) repeatedly states we are " in the homestretch" of refinements and improvements, when in reality it is over the distant horizon somewhere to arrive "Soon"

 

[Exmortis]

I did have this behavior after the major update, but along the way it has gotten better and better to now with all the latest patches applied, I have done extensive work in RW and added extensive amount of screen captures, and it has been rock solid.

If you have put it aside, are you sure it still is an issue for you individually?

 

[Lexin]

If you have put it aside, are you sure it still is an issue for you individually?

I wondered that, because I've only had one crash since 205 came out. It was irritating, but not a major issue - and I had to do a lot of updating, because I'm running a game tomorrow.

 

[AEIOU]

201 worked and made me happy, 202 blew me up, 205 put me back together. I'm gun shy now and making backups periodically as I edit for now. The switch to HTML may continue having tremors for months to come.

@DLG: How can a web client for viewing and editing be implemented without all the display text being html compliant? I guess RW could display everything as straight text but that would strip all formatting. The 201 update was probably the most important update since release as it lays the foundation for everything in the future.

HTML is a markup language in many ways doing exactly what WordPerfect and other early word processors did. It just marks things to start bold, text text text, end bold, and voila you have formatted text. From there, it's not too big a step to move to printing and then eventually export. Once RW data starts getting posted to the web, printing is essentially enabled (because you can capture a web page to a PDF) however formatting of printed content will probably need tweaking to really make us happy. But all that has been promised is basic printing and I think LWD is well on the way to fulfilling that.

Hang in there. I'm betting Rob has a present for us for Christmas.

 

[Dark Lord Galen]

I wondered that, because I've only had one crash since 205 came out. It was irritating, but not a major issue - and I had to do a lot of updating, because I'm running a game tomorrow.

This, to be honest, was surprising good news... thanks for sharing Lexin...

201 worked and made me happy, 202 blew me up, 205 put me back together. I'm gun shy now and making backups periodically as I edit for now. The switch to HTML may continue having tremors for months to come.

Those are my concerns as well....

@DLG: How can a web client for viewing and editing be implemented without all the display text being html compliant? I guess RW could display everything as straight text but that would strip all formatting. The 201 update was probably the most important update since release as it lays the foundation for everything in the future.

Not implying that it could be done without incorporating HTML.. (as I noted above) I am implying that this seems a deviation from the original plan as defined by the kickstarter as not to occur until much later...(which is why I even linked to the comment (#43) in the KS) I don't see where the Content Market would need to be able to edit within it. But without much disclosure on what or how the CM would work or look, its difficult to foresee the why of some things.

HTML is a markup language in many ways doing exactly what WordPerfect and other early word processors did. It just marks things to start bold, text text text, end bold, and voila you have formatted text. From there, it's not too big a step to move to printing and then eventually export. Once RW data starts getting posted to the web, printing is essentially enabled (because you can capture a web page to a PDF) however formatting of printed content will probably need tweaking to really make us happy. But all that has been promised is basic printing and I think LWD is well on the way to fulfilling that.

I comprehend perfectly what HTML does / is.... It is simply an observation that LWD knew that the end user was utilizing RTF and pulled the rug out from under them without warning. And the migration to client viewing and editing is in conflict with the listed goals of the original mission plan. It would seem the "sand" (mentioned in#43 of KS Comments) has already shifted....

Hang in there. I'm betting Rob has a present for us for Christmas.

Well I'm still waiting for last years gifts... and the year before that....

A few come to mind....

24. Can I reveal information to individual players rather than to all players?


Setting the visibility of individual items per-player is a priority for us, but the first release of Realm Works won’t provide this ability. The ability to reveal material to individual players is already designed into the infrastructure of how we manage everything internally. However, there's a fair bit of complexity in exposing all the controls cleanly for the GM within the UI, especially when you want to reveal “ItemX” to one subset of players, “ItemY” to a different subset of players, etc. So that's why the feature is not going to be included in V1.0. It should be integrated relatively soon after initial release, since the hardest pieces are already handled.

Snippet from Question #27 dealing with drill down to character level

..............Where this gets complicated is that one or more players may be running characters in different parties, and they need to know only what their character knows. This means knowledge must be controlled at the character level instead of at the player level.

This level of functionality is not something we had considered prior to the Kickstarter, and there are some complications associated that will take some time to integrate. However, we think this would be pretty cool, and the architecture we've designed should be able to accommodate it cleanly. So, we've added this to our to-do list so we can make sure this gets slated for inclusion at an appropriate time as an enhancement to Realm Works.

Guess its not appropriate yet for PC level. but was expecting at least down to individual player based on comment above.

OR

34. Will Realm Works be able to export content? If so, to which formats?


Realm Works will not have export capability in its initial release. As with most products, our focus in the initial launch is to have Realm Works do its own tasks exceptionally well, and to efficiently get material into the product. We wholly expect there will be demand for export to other products and formats, and we'll shift our focus to include those capabilities once we get the core product off the ground.

I guess 2 plus years later we are still not off the ground....

OR

Key Realm Works Features (That Already Exist)

............ Here's a summary of the most important features
Scroll Down to Key Features..................
Create custom calendars for your world. Link multiple calendars together and see how all the dates translate to your master calendar. Calendars can reflect different in-game cultures, lunar calendars, and worlds.

OR the Best for Last


42. Why is Realm Works any different than other products that have promised similar things and fallen short or failed to deliver?


We certainly understand the hesitancy based on past endeavors from others that never saw the light of day. You can rest assured that Realm Works is completely different for the following reasons:
1.The single biggest thing is that the hardest pieces are already working! You've seen it yourself in the video, and that’s a great place to point others since seeing is believing. The video shows many of the cool features we've already got implemented, and that should go a long ways towards mitigating concerns about our ability to deliver.
3.Since everything you see in the video and other places is working today, it's not a question of whether we will deliver. It's merely a question of how much more ...........
5.Remember, we've been developing Realm Works for almost three years now (As of Feb 2013). That stuff in the video isn't a bunch of prototypes or an unrealizable vision that you might have seen in other Kickstarters. The images you see on the Kickstarter page and on our website are actual images from the current version. It all works! It’s all in the hands of our existing Beta team today!

The bottom line is that we know what we're doing, we understand what tools gamers want, and we've already got all the hardest pieces working. That's a completely different formula from most Kickstarters, and it's why we'll be able to deliver Realm Works just a handful of months from now.

Note all of these quotes were posted in Feb of 2013.......

If the latest rash of cascade "bugs" (from 201-205) is due to a shift to HTML migration in support of the market place, who can say, since we have no idea what that will even look like.

And to defend from the other side of the fence..............

So many end users would not have continued this 2 plus year bug swarm that would rival the days of pharaoh if they didn't see the hope and the possibilities that Realm Works could bring. Myself included.

All we can hope is that things will be better "Soon".

Thanks to Lexin for providing a glimmer of hope.

 

[MNBlockHead]

I don't have a problem with the conversion to HTML as it will bring us closer to a web version and the marketplace and the marketplace will be a big step towards making export/printing possible and will allow resources to be allocated to getting the journals released, so we can move on down the development pipeline.

The conversion to HTML, however, caused users a lot of inconvenience. Maybe it could have been beta tested better, but I suppose that there are so many variables that it would be hard to catch everything.

For me, I had no issues at also with the prior updates. I lost track of the updates and what I did at which step, but I do know that the most recent topic that crashes RW was created after all updates had been applied. Unfortunately, I lost a lot of original text with that one.

I'm very cautiously using RW...I kinda have to to run my campaign. But for any substantial amount of test I'm writing it out in another program and cutting and pasting into RW. Also, before editing any topic I'm taking screen shots in case it goes bad and I am no longer able to access it.

 

[Viking2054]

I thought the conversion to HTML was because of the web based interface and not necessarily the content market. Just my opinion.

 

[MNBlockHead]

@Viking2054 I think the fact that they've developed the beta Web version already and have been showing teasers of it, they wanted that firmed up and wanted everyone converted to support it before they start putting content-creator content in the CM. I don't think that there was any technical reason content had to be in HTML for the CM, but I don't know.

 

[rob]

Interesting that most would define a major update as items that were actually on the update/release list.... I sure don't recall switching from RTF to HTML exclusively being on the poll (which we can't even visit the original line of questions so maybe my memory is off). I guess that is just another of the growing list of things "we" (incert LWD here) decided was what we wanted.

Conversion to HTML seems contrary to the kickstarter as well (see question #43 Here The most interesting part being>
Now to me "replicating" doesn't equal replace. BUT total conversion of EVERYONE's realms without "we" being conveyed as to why seems like the first step to "leaving behind" xxx.doc & xxx.RTF formatting to move to a solely online use. I understand the appeal and versatility that HTML brings, but since the majority still utilize word processing programs, PDF's, etc, the only conclusion I can "Assume" is this move is to support Marketplace?

Don't get me wrong, while improved features for linking, assigning tags, assigning 3rd party software links, etc are all fine and good, I guess I just don't see where that gets us to completing "major" elements that are on this presumed list starting with the Content Market? LWD consistent defense is we don't have the manpower resources to do everything at once.. sure I get that too, small company = priorities but it certainly doesn't appear like those priorities are being worked.

And here we are a year (for some of us more) later and we are minimally further along on seeing the completion of said polling priorities except to hear "soon".

The Kickstarter (which encouraged many to make this purchase including myself) repeatedly states we are " in the homestretch" of refinements and improvements, when in reality it is over the distant horizon somewhere to arrive "Soon"

I see it's time for the next round of armchair quarterbacking and second-guessing everything we do without first seeking answers. We've asked you multiple times in the past to please ask questions instead of your consistent approach, but it seems those requests have fallen on deaf ears. I can assure you that your tactic of "casting aspersions with disclaimers that make it all better in your mind" - but clearly don't in reality - isn't winning you any influence over the path we're taking. So I hope this is cathartic for you, because it's otherwise not constructive in any way whatsoever.

We stated quite prominently in recent announcements that these changes were a necessary milestone on the path to the Content Market and web-based access. Since it appears those statements weren't prominent enough, I'll restate it here for you.

The conversion to HTML was REQUIRED in order for us to do anything for the web. Fundamental changes like this HAD to be in place before we introduced the Content Market. If we didn't do them now, we would have increased the complexity and resulting problems due to the conversion by an order of magnitude by waiting till after the Content Market. Since web-based support is only a few months down the road at this point, waiting would have been stupid on our part.

As for why we introduced all the changes to make linking smarter and better, the answer should be obvious. We're leveraging all those improvements for the material that we're putting together and that we'll be releasing through the Content Market. Anyone else who wants to put together material for sale through the Content Market can take advantage of these same features. We've added features to the product that we're leveraging internally AND that make the lives of all users significantly better - both with their own material and when using material purchased through the Content Market. Big wins all around. If we don't do that now, we won't be able to retroactively go back and add that to material released through the Content Market, so that first material would be forever hamstrung, which again would be stupid on our part.

So, while you may have preferred we prioritize things differently, we're proceeding with the best interests of the company AND USERS squarely in mind. It seems that the vast majority of users understand this. I sincerely wish that you'd pause and consider what they must be seeing that you apparently aren't.

 

[rob]

201 worked and made me happy, 202 blew me up, 205 put me back together. I'm gun shy now and making backups periodically as I edit for now. The switch to HTML may continue having tremors for months to come.

We're down to only a handful of true problems with the HTML and linking at this point. And we're working our tails off to get them all sorted out as quickly as possible. After the next bug fix release, any "tremors" will likely be special cases with certain combinations of formatting that nobody else has encountered. There are so many combinations of weird things that users have done that we never thought to test. These combinations can only be sussed out by actually releasing the changes to a large number of users. At this point, we're absolutely through the worst of it, and even the remaining issues are only going to arise rarely.

@DLG: How can a web client for viewing and editing be implemented without all the display text being html compliant? I guess RW could display everything as straight text but that would strip all formatting. The 201 update was probably the most important update since release as it lays the foundation for everything in the future.

Thank you for stating this so succinctly.

HTML is a markup language in many ways doing exactly what WordPerfect and other early word processors did. It just marks things to start bold, text text text, end bold, and voila you have formatted text. From there, it's not too big a step to move to printing and then eventually export. Once RW data starts getting posted to the web, printing is essentially enabled (because you can capture a web page to a PDF) however formatting of printed content will probably need tweaking to really make us happy. But all that has been promised is basic printing and I think LWD is well on the way to fulfilling that.

Funny you should suggest this approach...

Hang in there. I'm betting Rob has a present for us for Christmas.

Get out of my damn head!!!

That was the goal. However, given the volume of issues we've had with the big release last month, that's looking less likely at this point. But it's still the target. We'll have more info to share after we get more clarity in the upcoming weeks.

 

[rob]

For me, I had no issues at also with the prior updates. I lost track of the updates and what I did at which step, but I do know that the most recent topic that crashes RW was created after all updates had been applied. Unfortunately, I lost a lot of original text with that one.

Please confirm this, but nothing should have been lost. The topic may have become inaccessible until we got the bug fixed, but I believe that nobody lost any of their content due to the issues we had with HTML, formatting, and links. You may end up losing a couple links, but those can be readily re-created - probably automatically.

 

[rob]

I thought the conversion to HTML was because of the web based interface and not necessarily the content market. Just my opinion.

Doing it before the Content Market vastly reduced the complexity and potential issues with the conversion. Given the number of issues we've encountered by doing it now, I'm very thankful that we bit the bullet and did it now. It probably would have been crippling it we had waited.

 

[MaxSupernova]

The conversion to HTML was REQUIRED in order for us to do anything for the web. Fundamental changes like this HAD to be in place before we introduced the Content Market. If we didn't do them now, we would have increased the complexity and resulting problems due to the conversion by an order of magnitude by waiting till after the Content Market. Since web-based support is only a few months down the road at this point, waiting would have been stupid on our part.

But haven't you had the big plan for this all along? Why do it one way and then have to convert? It makes it seem like you changed boats mid-stream. And I'd hope that you would have said something about that if it was the case. A nice post about how the content format was changing to facilitate required change in program architecture, sorry for the inconvenience, we mis-planned, but things are better now, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

I do assume that you actually have an architectural plan for this software that will not require complete reworks for each step. So why not let us know it was coming? A nice post about how the next step in the master plan was to convert the content format, why it wasn't done that way in the first place, sorry for the inconvenience, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

If it was a big change because you are planning on the fly, it would have been appropriate to tell us. If you had it in the plan all along, it would have been appropriate to tell us. Either way, we were once again in the complete darkness on critical issues and left to make our own assumptions and deal with the mess afterwards.

If that frustrates you, the only person who can set up the conditions where it doesn't happen is you.

Call it "armchair quarterbacking" if you want, I'll continue to call it "making whatever deductions that we can from a remarkable lack of information on matters that affect us".

 

[Farling]

I don't see any reason to be told ahead of time that the internal structure is changing. The release notes for the recent update in which the change was made was sufficient for my purposes.

As with any living software product things change. Some software needs to be refactored in order to work better with future enhancements. This is the reality of any product development.

I'd call it armchair quarterbacking from people who have gripes about the development team not prioritising functionality according to their personal wishes.

 

[rob]

But haven't you had the big plan for this all along? Why do it one way and then have to convert? It makes it seem like you changed boats mid-stream. And I'd hope that you would have said something about that if it was the case. A nice post about how the content format was changing to facilitate required change in program architecture, sorry for the inconvenience, we mis-planned, but things are better now, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

I do assume that you actually have an architectural plan for this software that will not require complete reworks for each step. So why not let us know it was coming? A nice post about how the next step in the master plan was to convert the content format, why it wasn't done that way in the first place, sorry for the inconvenience, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

If it was a big change because you are planning on the fly, it would have been appropriate to tell us. If you had it in the plan all along, it would have been appropriate to tell us. Either way, we were once again in the complete darkness on critical issues and left to make our own assumptions and deal with the mess afterwards.

If that frustrates you, the only person who can set up the conditions where it doesn't happen is you.

Call it "armchair quarterbacking" if you want, I'll continue to call it "making whatever deductions that we can from a remarkable lack of information on matters that affect us".

The switch to HTML was planned from the beginning. It was simply a question of when we had to do it, and that "when" was always going to be tied to web-based access. As for why we didn't do it from the start, the technology of the web was vastly different back when we started, and the technological future of the web was still stabilizing and not yet fully adopted (read: HTML5 and CSS3). So the tools back then were vastly worse than they are today, which would have made it significantly more difficult and precluded us from implementing some of the features we have in place.

I work 80-100 hours every week. The best analogy is that I'm at the vortex of a tornado as I'm trying to juggle a hundred different tasks at once that all have to come together smoothly for Realm Works (and the rest of the company's business). I'm also the technical architect of this beast and have extensive development responsibilities, including coordinating all the diverse technical aspects with the team. So my focus is not on whether we've proactively communicated why we're doing things the way that we are. Given that few companies in existence actually do that, I also don't see how that should be expected from us.

That being said, we are VERY open when asked questions - vastly moreso than virtually any other company I've encountered - and we've demonstrated that time after time. That's what I keep trying to tell the handful of users here on the forums that get all snippy because we didn't stop to explain everything to them in advance - or, in some cases, stop to ask their permission before we do what's best for users and the company as a whole. JUST ASK THE QUESTION. Don't leap in with assumptions and conspiracy theories. I'll say it again. Just ask the darn question. We'll get it answered.

Let's look at the posts up-thread. It would have been vastly simpler to have simply asked the questions. No aspersions necessary. No assumptions of the worst required. The answers would have contained the same information, either way.

Now let's look at your post that I'm replying to. You start with honest and valid questions that seek to understand what isn't clear to you. I don't have a problem with that at all, and I'm happy to answer those questions. I don't think the expectation that we should have explained everything to everyone in advance is necessarily reasonable, but that's merely a difference of opinion that can be discussed here - without all the wild assumptions and negativism of the poster up-thread. If the earlier poster had adopted your tone and approach, the answers would have been the same, the information would have been shared, and there would have been no alarmist sideshow. Everybody wins.

That's what I keep asking everyone for. Polite, respectful discourse as adults. Things we think are self-evident may not be. We may not realize something is confusing or misleading. Heck, we may have said at one point that we should explain something to users when a release goes out and then we forget to do it later. That's definitely happened before. So ask the questions and give us a chance to answer them. Is that honestly an unreasonable expectation on our part (as a few folks seem to believe)?

 

[MNBlockHead]

Please confirm this, but nothing should have been lost. The topic may have become inaccessible until we got the bug fixed, but I believe that nobody lost any of their content due to the issues we had with HTML, formatting, and links. You may end up losing a couple links, but those can be readily re-created - probably automatically.

The bug didn't delete any content that that was already in a saved topic. What happened is that I spent a lot of time working on a topic without saving, which is a bad practice, I know. Word Processing autosaves have gotten so good that I've become lax in saving as frequently as I should.

The most recent update seems to have fixed the issues I was having. I can not access the topic that was crashing RW on viewing it and and those that I could view but would crash on save if I tried to edit them are not fine as well.

 

[rob]

The most recent update seems to have fixed the issues I was having. I can not access the topic that was crashing RW on viewing it and and those that I could view but would crash on save if I tried to edit them are not fine as well.

I hope those were typos above where you said "not". I hope you meant "now", based on the first sentence.

 

[MNBlockHead]

I hope those were typos above where you said "not". I hope you meant "now", based on the first sentence.

Yes typo. Sorry. I am now able to view and edit the topics that were giving me issue before.