Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrClock

Thanks for your feedback.
I think that without add the "fog of war", tacview brings no benefit to the game, but it makes things worse.

(Sei stato gentilissimo nel rispondermi, sono convinto che l'uso del condizionale voglia dire che essendo un programma di terze parti potete metterci mano fino ad un certo punto e quindi non è detto che si possa fare, altrimenti era una cosa che sarebbe già stata fatta).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr
It would be one thing if we could use it for AAR, but we can't even do that, so...yeah, without FoW, Tacview is not usable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

Tacview FOW: I've been thinking about this ..... these are just my thoughts .... Yours may differ!

I understand wanting FOW but think we need to remember that it is not currently a feature of Tacview, so the Devs would need to work out how to make it do something it isn't designed to do.

Even if it could be implemented there is a question if how it should be implemented!

Knowing about a unit in CMO isn't just on/off.
There are various levels to what we know about it ..... Side ID, class ID etc as well as constantly changing uncertainty zones surrounding its location. All things that Tacview is not designed for or capable of showing.

For example, If a previously undetected 'not shown in Tacview' unit is detected as an unknown Bogie with a large uncertainty zone in CMO, do you want it to show you the full type of aircraft, side and correct position ... I think that would be only marginally better than what we have and many would still be unhappy.

I've not seen any suggestions on how these things should be handled, just the sort of "why didn't the Devs give us FOW" and "they need to fix this" type comments.

I think getting CMO to make Tacview do things it's not designed to do would not be easy and would no doubt eat into Dev time/resources and I have to wonder what else would get delayed!

When it comes to Dev time, what feature would you be willing to delay in order to get Tacview FOW?

Asking the Tacview Devs to assist is one option, but I doubt it would be their priority (Tacview has far more flight sim users than CMO users) and they'd need to be sure not to break things for other games that use it.

Don't misunderstand me ...... I'm not trying to be negative, as an existing Tacview user I'd love to see it have some FOW, I just don't think it's as straight forward as some are making out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

So if you exclude the Side ID, unit class ID etc and have a large, constantly changing area for the possible unit location ...... What model do you want Tacview to show and where should it show it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I would suggest people really concerned about the FoW issue get refunds on TacView. I am pretty sure its going to be a lot of work because TacView has no infrastructure to support the FoW as CMO has it. Then you can re-buy it when it works to your expectations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I am not sure its that easy. Just trying to tamp down expectations that this is the highest priority of the devs and that its an easy change. If it bothered me that much, I'd get the refund while I could and then re-buy it if it changes.

My reasoning is that its not broken and its optional. They have bugs to fix and other commitments they have to adding stuff. Just don't want someone to get caught holding the app and losing the ability to refund.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. It really destroys the game in many aspects. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. It really destroys the game in many aspects. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.

It can be, and is done for CMO PE. For whatever reason they don't want to allow it in the consumer version.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

What the heck is "immersion"? This is a command level sim/game. "Immersion" should be sitting in a dark room building missions and getting delayed feedback on how they executed. If you want "immersion" where you can see cute little planes flying around, I still think you are the wrong game. The devs tried to satisfy the "immersion" crowd as simply and effectively as possible. And as the old adage goes...No good deed goes unpunished. I guess we can all stop playing since the game is destroyed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.

I agree with the immersion part, but I was playing a scenario and used tacview to watch a Seahawk attack a sub, once I opened tacview a second sub that was undetected was visible and that pretty much ruined the scenario. I think it might have been better to have just left tacview out of the equation. Eventually it may get modified, so its a wait and see for now.

Otherwise the interface changes and other changes have made this a very big improvement to the sim. I had high expectations for tacview, its turned out to be the biggest dissapointment but I can use it for other purposes.