Patch 2.50 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Mike Wood -> Patch 2.50 (11/1/2006 9:24:35 PM)

Hello...

Gary found a bug that has been around for a while. He said it is not in WIP or WPO, because he had rewritten the offending function. It caused aircraft to vanish. Tried it and it worked. Combined with similar bug I found and fixed in version 2.422, players should not have that problem, any more.

Sent to production. May take a bit, before it is posted.

Bye...

Michael Wood

Version 2.50

Bugs Fixed:

1) Aircraft were still disappearing for no apparent reason. Found second bug. Fixed.

New Features:

1) The assault value of each land unit is now displayed on the unit orders screen.
2) The number of defensive mines at a base now appears on the base orders screen.



USSAmerica -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/1/2006 9:56:24 PM)

Mike, you guys friggin' ROCK!  How old is this game now, and we get another patch? 

Just awesome.  [8D]  Thanks!



Denniss -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/2/2006 3:51:37 AM)

What about giving us a new beta version, the more playtesters the more feedback !

It's great to hear that awful bug will be (hopefully) fixed.



tocaff -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/2/2006 2:35:02 PM)

Upgrade from V2.42 in mid game is OK to do?  Any particulars to do first?



tanjman -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/2/2006 5:47:24 PM)

Mike,

Great news! Looking forward to it.

BTW any news on UVII?



Skyfire7631 -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/2/2006 8:01:43 PM)

Great news, Mike Wood, can't wait ... and thanks [;)] [:)]

Regards.



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/3/2006 1:40:52 AM)

 Zzzz ... Eh - What ??!! - a PATCH ??!! - at last !! Hooray!!

Better late than never I suppose.
(Nothing re my Sc.11 Grounded Sub. though ! )



waterwings -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/3/2006 3:24:58 AM)

Yippeeee [:D] Wonderful news! I knew there was no "Australian Triangle." Missing items only happen near Bermuda and in my toolbox.

Cheers,
waterwings



Mike Wood -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/3/2006 7:24:48 AM)

deleted







tanjman -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/3/2006 2:58:04 PM)

Mike,

Thanks for the update on Carrier Force. I'm looking forward to it.



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/3/2006 9:47:41 PM)

quote:

Bug was discovered, while working on another game. Decided to send it out, with couple small feature additions.


Ooo, how kind. Patch 2.50 is very useful & very kind of you, as several people have waited since approx. 7th Sept. 05 for this patch.
It's sad though that it's exsistance appears to be just a fluke, and we would have had to wait for ever with no action from Matrix but for this.

quote:

Nothing re my Sc.11 Grounded Sub. though!

Not code issue. Map data issue. I have never worked on map data. Some third party folks (players) have in WIP. They could help you. Path finding routine traces hex to hex, looking for shore line. If none found, it moves into hex. Cannot move out of hex, if land hex. Map error causes sub to move into hex and then it can't get out. Even if error fixed, sub might still be stuck.


So its a map data issue. Exactly this problem was solved by MATRIX (?) in an earlier UV patch ( 1.20 ) for 2 scenario's. My problem was reported on 11th April 05. We have had two other patches since then without any action to correct it. WHY CAN'T MATRIX FIX IT!!!
I realise that any fix will proberly leave my sub stuck now, but can the problem not be fixed for all future plays of SC. 11 !!
Also I may be missing something but I fail to see how WIP players can help fix this error.
If YOU can't fix it , then PLEASE trace someone who can & pass it on to them !!

The Bug & Errors support here is ( being polite ) very poor - even a courtesy reply is more often than not completely non-exsistant.
It really does need to improve. All effort seems to fade away once any game has been "on the shelves" for a while. Matrix really should concentrate more on keeping exsisting customers happy with their current game portfolio as we are usually those who purchase any new games produced.







waterwings -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/4/2006 5:46:35 PM)

I totally agree with DEB.  Support to customers leads to a loyal customer base.  It will be some time before I buy another Matrix game if they can't or won't fix the games they are currently selling.



Reg -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/5/2006 1:18:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Mike, you guys friggin' ROCK!  How old is this game now, and we get another patch? 

Just awesome.  [8D]  Thanks!


Gotta agree. Thanks guys.

(When's it being posted....)



USSAmerica -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/17/2006 8:16:47 PM)

Any word on when production will have this patch available?



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/17/2006 10:01:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Any word on when production will have this patch available?


It's only been 16 days! Give them a break !! [:D]



btaft -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/17/2006 10:32:09 PM)


quote:

The Bug & Errors support here is ( being polite ) very poor - even a courtesy reply is more often than not completely non-exsistant.
It really does need to improve. All effort seems to fade away once any game has been "on the shelves" for a while. Matrix really should concentrate more on keeping exsisting customers happy with their current game portfolio as we are usually those who purchase any new games produced.


I think I would have to disagree with some of this statement. Of course it is an opinion to which you are entitled to, but I have found it to be quite the opposite. The simple fact that they plan to patch a game in the tail end of 2006 that was originally released in May of 2002 says quite a bit about the company's commitment to their customer base. Even though the squashing of this bug seems to be related to work on another game, matrix will still incur costs associated with updating the code and testing. It would have been easy for them to just ignore this for UV and possibly just save it for the UV2 production.

Most companies typically stop patching a game about 6 months after it is released often leaving some very serious bugs unsquashed do to there being no funding allocated for future work on the title. If you are lucky the game will have a strong fan base with talented people that are able to squash the remaining bugs.

Respectively,

BT



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/17/2006 11:18:16 PM)

With respect , I don't think you have been viewing these forums for long enough to be able to disagree with me. I note that those who have been around even longer than me have not passed any adverse comment, and yes some do still post here.

I think you would feel the same as me if you had waited as long for a patch particularly considering the circumstances behind its production and knowing that other errors still exsisted etc..
Did you read the detail provided in my post? Would that not irk you?

You may well be correct that many companies would have given up on a game this old by now; however it is not beyond the bounds of politness to respond to queries, particularly those entered in the "Bug reports and problems" forum. If the "Bug reports and problems" forum is redundant then it should be removed, but that thought may be beyond them.
It may be standard practise, but unless people complain nothing will ever improve and we do deserve better.



Forwarn45 -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/18/2006 8:28:21 AM)

This is good news. No complaint as to support for patches, as Matrix has been great in my experience. Just wish they had made the more stable earlier version (2.3) of this game available those of us who bought later - at 2.41.



SuluSea -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/18/2006 1:54:57 PM)

I'm looking forward to the patch ,thanks for y'alls continued work on the game. <thumbsup>



tocaff -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/18/2006 2:50:07 PM)

Why does it seem that patches that fix one thing seem to cause another to go wrong?  Why is this acceptable?



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/18/2006 8:28:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

Just wish they had made the more stable earlier version (2.3) of this game available those of us who bought later - at 2.41.


Yes , I thought you deservered better too. I was lucky , in that I bought
the 2.3 version and then "patched up" so I could have reset it to 2.3 again if I had wanted to. As it was, I waited....



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/18/2006 8:50:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Why does it seem that patches that fix one thing seem to cause another to go wrong?  Why is this acceptable?


It has always been my experience that these things happen re patches
( & system upgrades on my work PC ). It should not be acceptable though. I think the problem is that the program files are not fully read through & understood before people make adjustments to them. The more complex the program, the more the ENTIRE program must be read.
[Sometimes the program info. is not stored in a manner that makes this possible ( if it is stored at all ) though. In my experience it is better to get the original programer/s to do any rework if possible, although this can add to complacency by the programmer.]

Maybe if I was a programmer I'd have a different view though!



btaft -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/20/2006 5:35:50 AM)

DEB,

Although I have only been a member for a relatively short period of time...I have been a lurker for at least a couple of years and have had the opportunity to see the support on other Matrix games. I agree completely that these bugs can be very irksome and often frustrating, and in extreme cases can make a game unplayable.

As far as the details in your post, I would consider this in the realm of irksome as opposed to unplayable. Not trying to put down the frustration factor, but afterall there are 18 other scenaios that are available not to mention those available in th efan community.

I agree that in an ideal world that all bugs would be squashed but with the amount of data both in the code and in reference files, finding the source of the errors can often be extremely time consuming and costly. I also agree that sometimes complaining will get results we should also understand where this level of support lies amongst similar companies. In my opinion Matrix are going above and beyond what any other company would do on such a dated product in the simple fact that they are still working on improving it over 4 years after its release. Under these circumstances, we should give accolades instead of complaining (i.e. you get more bees with honey as opposed to the squeaky wheel gets the grease) because Matrix is doing this for no other reason than support to their fan base. They certainly can't be expecting this fix to lead to additional sales on this product which I imagine are a mere trickle in comparison to its initial release.

I do agree with the part with regards to a cordial response or at least a general post on the forum saying something along the lines of "although reporting of bugs is appreciated, no additional funding is available at this time to address these issues"

May all of the enemies torpedoes bounce off your CV's without detonating [:)]



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/21/2006 3:19:00 AM)

btaft

quote:

Although I have only been a member for a relatively short period of time...I have been a lurker for at least a couple of years and have had the opportunity to see the support on other Matrix games. I agree completely that these bugs can be very irksome and often frustrating, and in extreme cases can make a game unplayable.


As I did the same for several months prior to becoming a member, I guess that means we have been around for approx. the same length of time. I have, though, only kept an eye on UV & CotD, so I guess my view is limited.

quote:

As far as the details in your post, I would consider this in the realm of irksome as opposed to unplayable. Not trying to put down the frustration factor, but afterall there are 18 other scenaios that are available not to mention those available in th efan community.


I did continue on after I found the bug and posted the problem some weeks later. I stopped playing UV after the "Coastwatchers" went mad and after this was fixed the disappearing Aircraft bug was spotted by someone and I have not played since ( as have many others so I gather).
I was dis-interested in commencing a new scenario without knowing if the latest bug was Sc. specific or game-wide.

quote:

I agree that in an ideal world that all bugs would be squashed but with the amount of data both in the code and in reference files, finding the source of the errors can often be extremely time consuming and costly.


There is a school of thought that says more care first time round leads to
less likelyhood of rework, reduces costs and makes for a happier customer.

quote:

I also agree that sometimes complaining will get results we should also understand where this level of support lies amongst similar companies. In my opinion Matrix are going above and beyond what any other company would do on such a dated product in the simple fact that they are still working on improving it over 4 years after its release.


But they are not working on it any longer. The last "major" problem has only been fixed because Mr Wood traced it whilst working on another similar game using the same engine & program and was kind enough to "send in" a Patch.

quote:

I do agree with the part with regards to a cordial response or at least a general post on the forum saying something along the lines of "although reporting of bugs is appreciated, no additional funding is available at this time to address these issues"


It's what anyone should do in order to provide good customer service

My MAIN problem was that Mr Wood did not provide a useful response
to my re-raising of my submarine query ( and still hasn't ).

quote:

May all of the enemies torpedoes bounce off your CV's without detonating


What a nice ( if unlikely ) thought. I wonder if there's a % built in for dud's? Do you think the Jap's would be higher or the Yanks and/or Brits.?



Ursa MAior -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/21/2006 12:32:31 PM)


quote:

What a nice ( if unlikely ) thought. I wonder if there's a % built in for dud's? Do you think the Jap's would be higher or the Yanks and/or Brits.?


yes there is a built in dud rate. At least it is so in WitP (bigger sister of UV). Early war USN Mk13 has a dud rate of 80% IIRC.



btaft -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/21/2006 4:12:42 PM)

I imagine the Allies duds would be significantly higher than the IJN. The longlance torpedos were considered to be very reliable and very deadly. I know I cringe every time in a surface combat when I see "torpedos in the water" [:)]



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/22/2006 3:31:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior


yes there is a built in dud rate. At least it is so in WitP (bigger sister of UV). Early war USN Mk13 has a dud rate of 80% IIRC.


Ouch !!



DEB -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/22/2006 3:39:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: btaft

I imagine the Allies duds would be significantly higher than the IJN. The longlance torpedos were considered to be very reliable and very deadly. I know I cringe every time in a surface combat when I see "torpedos in the water" [:)]


I do know that the Japanese Torpedoes were much better than the Allied ones, but not what the differences were ( ? range, speed, accurracy, damage caused, dud rate etc. ).
Any comments anyone?



tocaff -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/22/2006 11:48:25 AM)

The Japanese "Long Lance" torpedo was a 24" versus the USN 21" and it was a reliable weapon that packed a much bigger wallop, traveled faster and further too.  All it all for the time period it was a tremendous weapon for the night surface action battles that the Japanese favored.  



undercovergeek -> RE: Patch 2.50 (11/22/2006 1:56:06 PM)

sorry - wrong forum



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.5