Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

palmer · Post by **palmer** » Fri May 15, 2009 7:36 pm

https://www.ohloh.net/p/maptool

Scroll down a bit and on the right. Project cost estimator.

Apparently Trevor has been working on MT for 16 years...

Tyren · Post by **Tyren** » Fri May 15, 2009 7:39 pm

That's "person years". So 16 people working for 1 year is the same as 1 person for 16 years. But that's a pretty interesting number.

palmer · Post by **palmer** » Fri May 15, 2009 7:41 pm

They say they derive the figure using COCOMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COCOMO

Coanunn · Post by **Coanunn** » Sat May 16, 2009 4:08 pm

Wow... umm I guess I owe someone a TON of money.. though seriously Thank you to EVERYONE who has contributed to this, from the guys writing the base code to the folks releasing frameworks and artwork. This is got to be the BEST online gaming tool available in my opinion and my hat is seriously off to your excellent work!

Post by **trevor** » Mon May 18, 2009 12:38 pm

This is really cool !

Although, in order to be comparable to what I do full time, the cost would have to be .... much higher.

It's really neat that it looks at the actual source, and does an analysis on it.

Yikes, looks like we're around 60,000 lines of code. That's pretty respectable !

Orchard · Post by **Orchard** » Mon May 18, 2009 1:13 pm

trevor wrote:This is really cool !

Although, in order to be comparable to what I do full time, the cost would have to be .... much higher.

It's really neat that it looks at the actual source, and does an analysis on it.

Yikes, looks like we're around 60,000 lines of code. That's pretty respectable !

So what you're saying is that the average salary is low? Is that what I'm hearing? I'm hardly surprised by that. In fact, I'd be shocked if it wasn't.

Let's try another figure....an average salary of $75k puts the cost at: $ 1,181,646.

Bump that to a nice round 100k average salary and you get: $ 1,575,528.

Hmmm....Just a few ideas.

In any case, it gives some ideas about what the program is worth.

As a question: what's the usage stats like for the project?

Post by **trevor** » Wed May 20, 2009 5:14 pm

Orchard wrote: As a question: what's the usage stats like for the project?

Here are the top 10 zip downloads for april 2009:

Code: Select all

maptool-1.3.b56.zip	5226
tokentool-1.0.b28.zip	1664
chartool-0.1.b9.zip	1099
dicetool-1.0.b34.zip	1030
initiativetool-1.1.b6.zip	952
maptool-1.3.b55.zip	296
maptool-1.3.b54.zip	185
chartool-0.1.b10.zip	180
maptool-1.3.b50.zip	168
maptool-1.3.b53.zip	167

Here are the top web launches during the same period:

Code: Select all

maptool-development.jnlp	2294
maptool-release-1.2.jnlp	1275
tokentool-development.jnlp	562
chartool-development.jnlp	441
dicetool-development.jnlp	326
initiativetool-release-1.0.jnlp	193
initiativetool-development.jnlp	175

jfrazierjr · Post by **jfrazierjr** » Wed May 20, 2009 5:50 pm

trevor wrote:
Orchard wrote: As a question: what's the usage stats like for the project?
Here are the top 10 zip downloads for april 2009:
Code: Select all
maptool-1.3.b56.zip	5226
tokentool-1.0.b28.zip	1664
chartool-0.1.b9.zip	1099
dicetool-1.0.b34.zip	1030
initiativetool-1.1.b6.zip	952
maptool-1.3.b55.zip	296
maptool-1.3.b54.zip	185
chartool-0.1.b10.zip	180
maptool-1.3.b50.zip	168
maptool-1.3.b53.zip	167
Here are the top web launches during the same period:
Code: Select all
maptool-development.jnlp	2294
maptool-release-1.2.jnlp	1275
tokentool-development.jnlp	562
chartool-development.jnlp	441
dicetool-development.jnlp	326
initiativetool-release-1.0.jnlp	193
initiativetool-development.jnlp	175

This seems to indicate that there are A LOT of people still using the 1.2 code branch, at least the JNLP version at a bit over 1/3 of the launches (rooting out people who saved their jnlp file to their machine, which we cannot track based on this data. sooo.. who'se for b57 being "the one"??? And then let's start on Maptool 2.0??

Post by **trevor** » Wed May 20, 2009 5:56 pm

I was thinking the _same_ thing

RPTroll · Post by **RPTroll** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:28 pm

You have a big "Aye!" from Troll Land.

snikle · Post by **snikle** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:45 pm

An "Aye!" from snikland as well. GUI baby, GUI!

(did I tell you I brought my Wacom tablet with me back to Iraq?)
I am ready for some hardcore GUIing Trevor!

Azhrei · Post by **Azhrei** » Wed May 20, 2009 9:54 pm

jfrazierjr wrote:
trevor wrote:Here are the top web launches during the same period:
Code: Select all
maptool-development.jnlp	2294
maptool-release-1.2.jnlp	1275
tokentool-development.jnlp	562
chartool-development.jnlp	441
dicetool-development.jnlp	326
initiativetool-release-1.0.jnlp	193
initiativetool-development.jnlp	175
This seems to indicate that there are A LOT of people still using the 1.2 code branch, at least the JNLP version at a bit over 1/3 of the launches (rooting out people who saved their jnlp file to their machine, which we cannot track based on this data.)

Actually, we could track folks using their own JNLP file, just not -- as you pointed out -- using this data. I'm guessing this comes from the web server logs for downloads.rptools.net which means the statistics for webstart.php could also be selected and then checked for maptool to see how many JARs are actually requested for a particular version.

But yes, I'm quite shocked at the number of times that the 1.2 version is listed! Could part of that be web crawlers grabbing the contents of the file in order to index it? Trevor, can you tell where the request came from?

Post by **trevor** » Thu May 21, 2009 12:20 pm

there should be a robots.txt file that tells the crawlers to ignore zip and jar, but, that's just a suggestion, not a requirement. I'll have to look at the logs more.

It's really not that unexpected though, it's the "official" version, and there are lots of new people stopping by.

But anything more than 1 is too many

snikle · Post by **snikle** » Thu May 21, 2009 12:36 pm

Yeah seriously. I don't think i have loaded 1.2 in like....2 years???

Witchlocke · Post by **Witchlocke** » Thu May 21, 2009 2:46 pm

trevor wrote:t's really not that unexpected though, it's the "official" version, and there are lots of new people stopping by.

I'd have to agree with this. Until I got my hands a little dirty with playing around with the program I exclusively used the 1.2 version. It wasn't until everything was pulled over to this new sight a few months ago that I started using the latest versions. I was needlessly afraid of how stable the newer versions were. And, I am SO glad that I decided to start using the latest versions.

RPTools.net

Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?

Re: Have you paid your share of the $866,540 cost for MT?