PSA: Game development takes a while, but...

[Beizs 186]

As far as I followed there will no "new" renderer they expand the old one ("so much that it is basically a new one" that was the gist of what BI said as far as I remember)

So as far as I understand it they basically do improve the old renderer - but in my opinion they should concentrate on that a bit more.

As for FPS improvement is just done by the renderer - that is not true.

Heavy CPU load will drop your FPS no matter what your GPU is and there are a lot of ways to improve CPU load beside the renderer.

 

With that in mind and given the high amount of people that gave them money in advance to actually play the game as it is - I do think the should optimize what they got more often.

It cannot hurt the process much because I think most people would prefer a game that runs fine and has not all features in yet as opposed to a mess of features that performs really bad.

 

The renderer is being literally completely replaced. That's the point.

 

The reason the CPU load is so high (compared to the GPU) is entirely because of the renderer. It's because this game is rendered using DX7 and DX9, which aren't very good at utilizing GPU's. Compound that with the fact that the renderer its self isn't very good when it comes to distributing load between multiple cores and the GPU its self, and what you get is... well... performance like DayZ's. DX11 and 12 are also far better at utilizing multiple CPU cores as well as pushing most of the rendering work over to the GPU. The renderer is, by absolute miles, the main thing when it comes to frame rate in this game. Very little logic or AI is handled by the client. Optimization of anything else will have very little impact on client side performance (though it'll affect server side performance, as that's what the servers are handling). Because the client doesn't handle much other than the input (from the end user and the servers), display and output to the servers.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Beizs

[q.S Sachiel 470]

I agree that everything should be criticized... Including peoples criticisms. I see too many people shitting on the DayZ dev team for absolutely stupid reasons.

 

Also, I don't really think my view is particularly biased. I don't really have any vested interest in the game or the dev team, other than the fact that I enjoy the game... And I enjoy the game because it's a good game. That's not bias. I try to be objective, and, looking at other, similarly sized games and looking at the actual facts on the rate of development of this game, as well as just how fun this game is (in my opinion), I just can't agree with the majority of the criticisms thrown at this game and its dev team. They're doing a far better job, honestly, than any other similar game (H1Z1, RoK, ARK, every other early access game has very similar problems). Games of a similar scale developed by huge dev teams funded by massive companies have, historically, taken longer to develop than DayZ. This game was released to the public at the literal beginning of its development cycle. It's only been a year and a half and it's come miles. If they come close to reaching their target for Beta, it'll have been in alpha for roughly two years - which is actually a very short time for a game of this scale, especially with its relatively small development team. That's my point, and it's not based in opinion at all. Literally all you have to do is look at the very clear facts about other games of a similar scale, regarding how long they took to develop from start to finish.

I keep trying to click the italics for a source to these facts, thinking they're hyperlinked...

They are not. :(

 

Sorry man, not trying to have a go, but i don't see how going stark raving mad for the game is any different than barking it down, putting positive expectations of development forwards as gospel as opposed to doomsaying.

 

I'll let the final product and development cycle speak for its self.  The devs will be judged on their product, not by the bandwagoners on either side of the path.

[Beizs 186]

Sorry man, not trying to have a go, but i don't see how going stark raving mad for the game is any different than barking it down, putting positive expectations of development forwards as gospel as opposed to doomsaying.

 

I'm not really start raving mad about the game. I really enjoy the game, but I absolutely recognize its flaws. However, unlike those who absolutely shit on the game, I'm able to remember that I'm playing an unfinished product and the vast majority of those flaws will be fixed in the finished product. The difference between me and somebody who shits on the game is that I have patience and understanding of how games are actually developed. That's really it.

 

I regularly complain about issues the game has. But then I let it go and hope that it'll be taken care of over the course of what remains of alpha and the beta. It's really that simple.

 

I'm just comparing this game to others and pointing out that it's not being developed slowly - and most of those criticizing the game are complaining as if this is the finished product.

 

It doesn't need links. You can google how long it took for just about any game to be developed. It doesn't take much work. I've also gone into more detail plenty of times in this thread alone. You shouldn't need everything handed to you.

[scriptfactory 620]

They're doing a far better job, honestly, than any other similar game (H1Z1, RoK, ARK, every other early access game has very similar problems).

 

ARK started development October 2014. Rust starting rebuilding their in 2014. I tried playing DayZ (stable) again recently and found it very unpolished and buggy. I had problems utilizing items and fighting the (almost non-existant) AI.

Question: What is your objective reasoning for stating that the DayZ devs are doing better than these other two dev teams?

 

It's because this game is rendered using DX7 and DX9, which aren't very good at utilizing GPU's.

 

I'm pretty sure the DayZ performance problems are caused by tight coupling of the simulation engine (CPU) and the rendering engine (CPU + GPU). But I have been out of this topic for a while so I am not sure anymore.

[Rauchsauger 94]

The renderer is being literally completely replaced. That's the point.

[..]

 

It is changed piece by piece and it is not completly replaced - it will be expanded - the bit from BI about it being basically something completly new is corporate BS

See COD as an example for that. Massively (and I think it is unique in that regard) modified engine and yet it still has limitation from old like the polling rate limitiation for mice.

 

As for the point scriptfactory touched on I think there is an reddit thread but I cannot fin it atm.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Rauchsauger

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

I'm pretty sure the DayZ performance problems are caused by tight coupling of the simulation engine (CPU) and the rendering engine (CPU + GPU). But I have been out of this topic for a while so I am not sure anymore.

 

You two are both correct. DX9 is absolute shit for a game of this complexity compared to modern iterations of DirectX. And to your point, part of the reason the new renderer is taking so long is the delicate process of extracting the old rendering module from the engine without destroying everything else in the process. Eugen talked about it in that thread in the dev section about the new renderer. 

[Beizs 186]

ARK started development October 2014. Rust starting rebuilding their in 2014. I tried playing DayZ (stable) again recently and found it very unpolished and buggy. I had problems utilizing items and fighting the (almost non-existant) AI.

Question: What is your objective reasoning for stating that the DayZ devs are doing better than these other two dev teams?

 

 

I'm pretty sure the DayZ performance problems are caused by tight coupling of the simulation engine (CPU) and the rendering engine (CPU + GPU). But I have been out of this topic for a while so I am not sure anymore.

 

Ark has a much smaller map, has just as many performance issues, is actually a very simple game at its core and uses Unreal 4 engine - a very easy to work with, completed engine.

 

RUST reuses the majority of its assets and code from the old version. It wasn't literally completely restarted. At all.

 

Both games have just as many issues and are smaller projects.

 

You also have to bare in mind that RUST and ARK only need mob assets, environment assets and modular building assets. The way the game is created is far simpler and requires a lot less work.

 

Neither game has had to do much of anything when it actually comes to working on the engine they use. Both use engines that, generally, perform very well and are easy to work with. Yet, somehow, these games have just as many performance issues as DayZ and just as many bugs. I own all three games and have hundreds of hours in all of them. I enjoy all three games. But DayZ is a larger project, is using a much more complex system and difficult to work with (and unfinished) engine. Rust has, really, been in development for the same amount of time as DayZ. ARK hasn't, but again, it's a far simpler game.

 

DayZ's performance issues aren't caused by a tight coupling of the sim engine and rendering engine, though. They separated the two for the most part very early in the development process. There is still some ties, sure, but the bottleneck is, by quite a large margin, the renderer at the moment. The issue is almost entirely on the renderer and the outdated, crappy technology it uses now. If it was the 'close tie' between the sim engine and the renderer, you'd still have terrible performance everywhere on the map, especially when there was a large load on the simulation engine. I get the same performance on the coast, FPS wise, when there's a horde of zombies as when there's not. My performance is only poor in large cities, where there's a lot of transparency, complex geometry and a heavy load on the renderer.

 

Again, most of the simulation (virtually all of it) is handled by the server. The issue is client side. It's the renderer. I no longer have lower FPS depending on the server pop or zombie population. There's other performance issues, sure, but they're server side and related to the simulation engine. But the actual frame rate you get on your computer is down to the renderer.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Beizs

[q.S Sachiel 470]

Question: What is your objective reasoning for stating that the DayZ devs are doing better than these other two dev teams?

 

Basically the most succinct way it could be said.

+1

Could you please provide some objective criteria and tangible basis for outlining your viewpoint, so as to better develop the discussion?

Edited August 3, 2015 by q.S Sachiel

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

DayZ's performance issues aren't caused by a tight coupling of the sim engine and rendering engine, though.

 

I'm on your side in this debate, but you are wrong. http://dayzdev.tumblr.com/post/83623167155/experimental-branch-saw-many-changes-in-044

 

They didn't even start doing it until 0.44 and, as far as I can tell, our current clients won't see the fruits of that work until they also implement the new renderer.

[Beizs 186]

I'm on your side in this debate, but you are wrong. http://dayzdev.tumblr.com/post/83623167155/experimental-branch-saw-many-changes-in-044

 

They didn't even start doing it until 0.44 and, as far as I can tell, our current clients won't see the fruits of that work until they also implement the new renderer.

 

The renderer is still tied to the simulation engine, again. But it's not in the same way as it was early on. I may be recalling it wrong, in all fairness, as it was a year and a half ago and I didn't play DayZ for about eight months or so in that time. I'll try to find some actual information on it, but basically, early on, the frame rate you got was generally the simulation frame rate. That was the bottleneck. They separated them enough so that your rendering frame rate could be higher than the simulation frame rate (refresh rate/update rate would be a better way of describing it). At that point, the renderer became the bottleneck.

 

The two are still, in the code, very intertwined. But the renderer can achieve (by quite a margin) a higher frame rate than the simulation engine, and this has been the case for a long time now.

 

Again though, I'll have to go through and try to find the actual updates I'm talking about. I could, again, be recalling it incorrectly.

 

It's pretty easy to test it though. Change the scene complexity in your config file. This is, essentially, the detail draw distance in the game. It has nothing to do with simulation - it's entirely renderer based. Changing this has a large impact on your performance. At very low numbers, I can pass 60fps even in cities.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Beizs

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

That's the thing though. In regards to general performance, they have been working on it consistently. Netcode is always changing. They're constantly making improvements to it. They've been optimizing the zombie AI for as long as they've been working on the freaking Zombie AI. They've done the same for animal AI, loot spawning systems, cleanup systems and just about everything else. But none of that will have an impact on the FPS, as it's done server side. That's part of the simulation 'frame rate', rather than the graphical frame rate... And they separated the two very, very early in development. You mentioned 'optimizing FPS', which is really only going to be done on the renderer's side. All of the AI etc is handled server side, again. That will not impact FPS.

 

In regards to 'optimizing' fps, the literal only way they would do that (to any noticeable level) would be 1 - optimizing the old renderer which, again, would be completely idiotic and 2 - implementing the new renderer and further optimizing that. Guess what. They're working on that already.

 

But again, it makes more sense to wait until the game is feature complete to do the bulk of the optimization because, again, new things constantly bring about issues. That doesn't mean they're not thinking ahead. That doesn't mean they're not doing stuff already. But it would be really, really stupid and a massive waste of resources to get everything optimized now... Because I can absolutely guarantee that by the time the game was feature complete, it would need optimizing all over again.

 

 

 

Also, Rick, I see where you're coming from, but honestly, posting and maintaining a single thread really isn't a whole lot of work - and I genuinely can't count the number of people over the last year and a half I've had debates with on this exact topic and had them turn around at the end and tell me 'yeah, I see where you're coming from. Guess I just need to be patient'. It's really just a vocal minority imo, and believe it or not there's a good chunk of that minority who actually can see sense when presented with facts and comparisons (both comparing the game at 'release' to now and to other, similarly sized projects).

 

If you may,please allow me to debunk some myths using facts.

Once upon a time,when Rocket was still in charge,a heated discussion took place over in Reddit.

People wanted to play DayZ at night,but flashlights leaking through structures threw stealth out of the window and made night gameplay undesirable.

Folks made a heavily voted bug report on the bug tracker,but a dev closed the ticket,claiming it was not possible to fix,due to engine limitations.

The discussion quickly escalated to drama and Rocket calmed everyone down,with a decision to replace the Renderer.

 

Although most of you will crucify the developers regardles,you should also know that the Renderer was never aimed as a solution to the game's performance problems.

When Brian posted a tweet that it would maybe help provide some performance boost,everyone welcomed it like the second coming of Christ.

But in reality Brian said that we are (most likely) many months away before we can predict any major fps gains. (Source)

The real problem with the game's poor fps lies in the ancient and weak (Arma 2's) server network and the decision to calculate all resources on the server's side.

I honestly don't predict a performance gain any time soon,unless radical changes take place in the server architecture.

[Beizs 186]

If you may,please allow me to debunk some myths using facts.

Once upon a time,when Rocket was still in charge,a heated discussion took place over in Reddit.

People wanted to play DayZ at night,but flashlights leaking through structures threw stealth out of the window and made night gameplay undesirable.

Folks made a heavily voted bug report on the bug tracker,but a dev closed the ticket,claiming it was not possible to fix,due to engine limitations.

The discussion quickly escalated to drama and Rocket calmed everyone down,with a decision to replace the Renderer.

 

Although most of you will crucify the developers regardles,you should also know that the Renderer was never aimed as a solution to the game's performance problems.

When Brian posted a tweet that it would maybe help provide some performance boost,everyone welcomed it like the second coming of Christ.

But in reality Brian said that we are (most likely) many months away before we can predict any major fps gains. (Source)

The real problem with the game's poor fps lies in the ancient and weak (Arma 2's) server network and the decision to calculate all resources on the server's side.

I honestly don't predict a performance gain any time soon,unless radical changes take place in the server architecture.

 

At that time, the renderer was going to be using DX9 and DX10. However, since then, things have changed. The most obvious change is that it's now going to be DX11 and DX12, which will, without a doubt, have a large impact on performance.

 

They don't want to overpromise, which is fine. But I've also seen plenty of tweets and forum posts from devs describing 'up to four times improved client-side performance' and the likes in internal builds.

 

The original goal of the new renderer wasn't to improve performance dramatically. But that's become one of the main focuses since.

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

At that time, the renderer was going to be using DX9 and DX10. However, since then, things have changed. The most obvious change is that it's now going to be DX11 and DX12, which will, without a doubt, have a large impact on performance.

 

The current Arma 2's Renderer runs on DX9.

Plans were made to change the version either to DX11 or DX12.

DX10 was also outdated.

 

The original goal of the new renderer wasn't to improve performance dramatically. But that's become one of the main focuses since.

 

That's why i said,to lower you expectations because there's a high change for the Renderer to fail in enhancing the game's performance.

The main reason the game runs like a potato,lies in the server architecture.

If we change the Renderering module,it may provide a minor fps boost,but most chances are the main problems to still persist.

In addition to this,there are major concerns of possible "compatibility bugs" that could further deteriorate the situation instead of improving it.

[scriptfactory 620]

Ark... Simple...

RUST... Reuse...

DayZ's performance issues...

ARK currently has much better performance than SA on my machine. I get a stable 60+ fps @ 1080p on a i5 2500k + GTX 970. Most of my graphic settings are on Epic. All of my performance problems were fixed by migrating the game to my SSD.

I, personally, believe ARK has deeper game mechanics than DayZ right now. Leveling, skills, cooking, farming, pets, base building, underwater/cave systems, etc.

Rust has many new assets and is built on Unity 5. New male and female character models, animal models and AI, New base building, procedural map generation, group features, per pixel sign painting, weapon systems, etc.

Objectively they have implemented more mechanics in less time. They have, of course, not replaced major parts of their game engine. They, instead, chose the framework that met most of their project requirements. That's pretty smart.

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

Please link me to where it was said that DayZ would be in Beta in 2014? I have never seen anything along those lines, and would be genuinely interested to see that.

 

Beizs, I totally support your thread. I agree they've made some serious magic happen with what they've had and how they've improvised along the way. Dean Hall did say sometime after SA first hit that Beta would be the end of 14'. Later that year, they moved the date up to approx. July 15'. At the end of the year or whenever the roadmap hit for 2015, we got an extension of Beta which is now Q4 which will almost likely be Q1 17'. Remember, those initial dates were before they got contracts for console ports and they're budget expanded.

 

Basically, I would have been expected to be implemented at this time:

• persistance of tents, cars, items on the servers (so we can build early bases)
• a minimal functioning looteconomy
• basic, simple craftingsystem like hatchet -> tree -> boards for nailing houses, as an alternative base

Basically, your top two points are the same point. Persistence is connected to CLE. Your last point, we already have a basic crafting system. You're referring to advanced base-building.

 

We don't even know when their quarters started.  We could be halfway through Q2 for all you know.  And almost everything from Q2 is in.

This is definitely possible.

 

Quarters are pretty standard.  I highly doubt they would refer to them in those terms if they meant something different.

 

Thats like saying we don't know their definition of "day"... it's pretty well universal.

I think it depends on the company and the location of the company. I could be wrong here, but I've heard references to this phenomenon before regarding SA and development quarters.

 

In the United Kingdom, the financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March for the purposes of corporation tax and government financial statements.

 

The fiscal year for an organization is typically one of the following (cf. Swedish Wikipedia):

• 1 January to 31 December
• 1 May to 30 April
• 1 July to 30 June
• 1 September to 31 August

 

The United States government fiscal year for 2015 is:

• 1st quarter: 1 October 2014 – 31 December 2014
• 2nd quarter: 1 January 2015 – 31 March 2015
• 3rd quarter: 1 April 2015 – 30 June 2015
• 4th quarter: 1 July 2015 – 30 September 2015

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year

 

Who are you asking?

 

Grimey Rick is the house troll here. Always complaining or crying about something. Engaging with the likes will almost always get a negative, condescending, or sarcastic reply. Very predictable. 

Edited August 3, 2015 by Weyland Yutani

[scriptfactory 620]

The United States government fiscal year for 2015 is:

• 1st quarter: 1 October 2014 – 31 December 2014
• 2nd quarter: 1 January 2015 – 31 March 2015
• 3rd quarter: 1 April 2015 – 30 June 2015
• 4th quarter: 1 July 2015 – 30 September 2015

 

I feel like you are stretching your logic quite thin. A calender quarter ALWAYS starts January 1st. A fiscal year (e.g. FY2015) starts in October to allow the federal government more time for budgeting. For the vast majority of US business Q1 starts January 1st.

 

I guess we can all assume Q1 2015 was January - March 2015...

[vfxtodd 124]

Who cares what other games are doing. You don't know when the other games started their development. Plus, does it really matter? Games like COD have specific release months that are the same every year. They also have three developers working on new versions every three years. Even if two games have similar premises doesn't mean they have the same requirements for stable gameplay.

 

I have no expectations of DayZ except when it's released in a 1.0 version. Expecting any game to be "ready" before its release is quite unrealistic. Just saying.

[jim.crak.korn 13]

I found an article about the game development cycle for certain games. To me it helps put the timeline into perspective. You cannot hold the mod within the development timeline as it was more of a proof of concept, the development date should be August 2012, so we are 3 years into the cycle.

 

Here, check out this list of 30 games and their development cycles. 

 

Here are just a few:

 

Fallout 3 - 6 years

Halflife 2 - 5 years

Resident Evil 4 - 6 years

Starcraft II - 7 years

Team Fortress 2 - 9 Years

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl - 6 Years

L.A. Noire - 7 Years

Warcraft III - 4 Years

 

I did not add any of the Call of Duty or Battlefield type series as they really are more of a cut and paste, add a few new things development cycle. Not to mention they were not on the list in the article.

 

We gave ~$30 for EARLY ACCESS. We are not shareholders of the company, we have no say it what is going on. We are merely players who have access to see the monthly - bi-monthly changes the devs are making to the game. It is like going to an amusement park, we pay an admission, we like some of the rides and attractions, we dislike others. 

 

I guess what I am saying is if you feel you wasted your $30 I am sorry, but at the very least I will get a finished game without having to pay $50 - $60 by the end of the cycle, PLUS I have 1500+ hours of good times with friends.   

[Accolyte 1727]

It was stated several times (even on this forum) that DayZ has NOT been in development for 3 years. It's now coming close to 2 years.

 

Starcraft 2 was in actual development for more like 5-6 years rather than 7 (if we're talking Wings of Liberty).

Based on that I question the other data you're presenting. Remember that a gap between the releases of a game and its sequel does not equal development time.

 

Though I appreciate the positive thing you're trying to do here. I just tend to go all OCD on these things, sorry about that.

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

I feel like you are stretching your logic quite thin. A calender quarter ALWAYS starts January 1st. A fiscal year (e.g. FY2015) starts in October to allow the federal government more time for budgeting. For the vast majority of US business Q1 starts January 1st.

 

I guess we can all assume Q1 2015 was January - March 2015...

Thanks for chiming in and nice to meet you!

 

A calendar quarter probably is exactly how you say, but we don't know of BI's roadmap is based on a calendar or fiscal year so we can only speculate. BI isn't a US business so there is that to consider.

 

Regarding the stretching of logic, its been brought up on several occasions (here, reddit, etc) that Bohemia Interactive's quarter possibly isn't a a traditional calendar quarter. I gave examples and sources to show that there are other options to consider.

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

I paid attention to their development timelines and all that jazz from the start. They've been pretty good about sticking to their plans - clearly they had some decent management working on that plan, people who knew what to expect.

 

And yet, there's still whining. No matter how loudly you shout things at some people, they will only hear what they want to hear.

[SaveMeJebus 164]

It's just typical for forum communities to become toxic (mitigated by good moderation of course)  In fact there are some 3rd party developers for DCS that made a statement they wouldn't even be showing any more work or have dev updates on the forums because people were acting so entitled and whining/bitching about things they were in no place to be doing so.

 

**I also applaud them for doing this.

Edited August 3, 2015 by SaveMeJebus

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

It's just typical for forum communities to become toxic

Ehhhh, there is a lot of toxicity on forums in general. Faceless internet + personality disorders = all kinds of fun. As to why game forums in particular tend to get lots of whiners and angry cads, I might be able to offer a little insight from some customer service experience:

 

I was working the cash at a convenience store here in America's Hat when the laws on cigarettes changed some years back. My manager was kind of unclear on the changes, so I was basically told to ask for ID from everyone while the manager figured out what the changes actually meant. That was not a fun period. The first time a 40-year-old man gets asked for ID in more than a decade, I can understand him being pissed off. They'll sometimes yell, gesticulate wildly, and generally do a good job of ruining your day. It doesn't matter than the cashier isn't responsible for the legal or policy changes; the cashier is there, right now. It's less work than tracking down the people responsible and giving them a piece of your mind.

 

People could e-mail Bohemia Interactive. But there forums are here. Part of it is a search for like-minded individuals so they can start a whole circle-jerk on how they're aggrieved, pat each other on the back for enduring things. The big part of it is how easy it is. Anger makes people feel good, but hard work would diminish that feeling. The forums are here, right now.

[Sperglord 76]

I'll let the devs take as much time as they want with the big stuff, I just want some actual survival stuff like less food or wounds that are hard to heal and affect your movement and aim for real time week, no magic rags from hogwart tahat can cure every single wound even a gunshot to the neck, doing this shouldnt take a lot of time

Edited August 3, 2015 by Sperglord

[emuthreat 2837]

Grimey Rick, the point of the thread was to explain some simple concepts of game development that a large part of this community does not understand. As they are participating in an Alpha, they really should.

Emu, I have literally no clue what you were trying to say there, or where you got that idea from.

I assumed that Rick was responding to Klesh.  I figured that someone asking questions, to which the answers can be found in this very thread, was just being a bit lazy.  I mean he quoted text in which the roadmap was laid out in quarters 1,2,3,4, and all were for 2015.  It does not take a Biochemist (modern replacement for the old rocket scientist trope) to figure out that the quarters were referring to blocks of three months of a calendar year, beginning with Jan-Mar.

 

If you read my post on page two of this thread, you should have been able to assume that I am well-content with the roadmap and progress, as I at least understand the basics of their development process.  This is in large part due to my having read through many old threads I found using the search function; many of them were more than six pages, and full of good links to other large threads.

 

Thanks for chiming in and nice to meet you!

 

A calendar quarter probably is exactly how you say, but we don't know of BI's roadmap is based on a calendar or fiscal year so we can only speculate. BI isn't a US business so there is that to consider.

 

Regarding the stretching of logic, its been brought up on several occasions (here, reddit, etc) that Bohemia Interactive's quarter possibly isn't a a traditional calendar quarter. I gave examples and sources to show that there are other options to consider.

All the quarters were titled 1 thru 4, with the year 2015 attached.  I feel it is safe to say that they are using the standard calendar quarter for their roadmap; especially since they only published it at the beginning of this year, and called it the 2015 development roadmap.  I really hope this does not remain a point of contention, or even question. GWHIZZ