05-07-2014, 09:37 PM -
That's why I said estimate ... given the factor of commit averages, percent needed to work on, and down and up times, it's very possible to estimate a span of time from which rpcs3 could indeed improve enough to play a greater deal of ps3 games. 20 uber skilled people joining is not realistic, but an estimation based on plenty of observable factors is, namely:
1.Commit averages (Git measures).
2.Work needed to be done (Roadmap).
3.Contributor averages to gain perspective (check Git history).
4.Estimated workload frequency (factoring in overall potential by averages).
I could analyze and try to get a decent guess, and of course not even that is perfect, but estimation is the best tool for the unknown.
I could make a ballpark guess and say that since it took 3 years to reach playable games (of the lowest stock), it will have to take at least three more years, but that would be a wild goose guess with no statistics behind it. I don't know enough of ps3 but I have estimated timeframes for some other projects and they were all wrong, but close enough to give a fair idea. I believe estimations of some sort give a plausible, sensical, determinant, realistic view of this project's future.
If nobody estimated, everything would be a wild guess ... and wild guesses can hurt. Wouldn't you guys be more comfortable going by a measure of "X point in time to see real progress," rather than blindly, aimlessly adding code over years and being enthralled when the next game improves a pinch? To add more "too long; didn't read" to this post, estimating a time can also set a goal that's worth working for, not just coding up in air.
1.Commit averages (Git measures).
2.Work needed to be done (Roadmap).
3.Contributor averages to gain perspective (check Git history).
4.Estimated workload frequency (factoring in overall potential by averages).
I could analyze and try to get a decent guess, and of course not even that is perfect, but estimation is the best tool for the unknown.
I could make a ballpark guess and say that since it took 3 years to reach playable games (of the lowest stock), it will have to take at least three more years, but that would be a wild goose guess with no statistics behind it. I don't know enough of ps3 but I have estimated timeframes for some other projects and they were all wrong, but close enough to give a fair idea. I believe estimations of some sort give a plausible, sensical, determinant, realistic view of this project's future.
If nobody estimated, everything would be a wild guess ... and wild guesses can hurt. Wouldn't you guys be more comfortable going by a measure of "X point in time to see real progress," rather than blindly, aimlessly adding code over years and being enthralled when the next game improves a pinch? To add more "too long; didn't read" to this post, estimating a time can also set a goal that's worth working for, not just coding up in air.