RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

JohnDillworth -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 7:08:10 PM)

TO the guys on the development and test teams....
Wow! That is quite a patch! I'd like to let you know we really appreciate the work that goes into it and the response to out feedback. I know this is a labor of love but really
Thank You[&o][&o][&o]

I , for one, am not going to criticize anything for a full day.[;)]

Thank You

As a software semi professional, how do you test something like this? It is east enough to test specific things, but how do you know how it will effect games a couple of years in? Let it run head to head? any automated testing tools?



SuluSea -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 7:16:13 PM)

Getting it now, thanks!!!! [:)]



Swenslim -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 7:22:31 PM)

I cant download beta paych :( it simply doesnt start !



cantona2 -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 7:25:09 PM)

OK loaded it up fine, upgraded fine and continuing save game fine.

Will restart when patch is officially released



Chad Harrison -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 7:37:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Justascratch

I've been buying from Matrix since their site first came on line. I have never found better product support - anywhere.


My thoughts exactly. Great job to both the AE team and Matrix!



Oliver Heindorf -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 8:36:19 PM)

sound issues solved.

geht doch !!!



Przemcio231 -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 8:43:30 PM)

Ok i have a Intel Dual Core CPU the last fix worked like a charm but this one is not working:( i use the following settings

-fd -altFont -deepColor –cpu2 –dd_sw i tryed to some of them on some off and nothing[:(]

disregard this post i just noticed that you can't copy the "-" from the board as it is different then "-" when i input it into the line:)



PzB74 -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 9:51:04 PM)

Yes, I've read up on the threads - trying different approaches, sweeps, altitude but the results are not quite good enough. I do agree that Jap airpower needed to be toned down a few notches compared to WitP, but my fingerspitzengefühl keeps telling me that it has been toned down too much.

- What happened to the plan to increase Jap pilot experience?

Will keep trying and see how it works out, but since this was one of two major issues I was looking forward to being handled in the next patch I had to voice my surprise when nothing had been done at all.

It has been difficult to get through on the development threads with statements about Japan being nerfed to much. Those who got to involved did occasional blow a fuse or two and left... [8|]

Will get back to you with my verdict after a more thorough testing of the new patch.
Lots of great fixes and updates, just hope that my 4 Jap CA TF won't be torpedoed to death by Marbelhead and her ancient multi stacker companions again on Xmas Day in the rematch![;)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

How are you using them generally? Are you paying attention to the maneuver bands, using sweeps and trying to get an altitude advantage over your opponent?

Well, anyone who's blown a fuse already has a very short fuse. I think folks who decided they knew everything there was to know about the original WITP one month after that was release were wrong too. For one thing, I think Japan will find that while 1941 and early 42 may be a bit more even in the air than WITP was, 1943-44 will also be a bit more even than they were in WITP. But please do give the new update a try and let me know how it goes.

Regards,

- Erik





Erik Rutins -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 9:53:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
- What happened to the plan to increase Jap pilot experience?


I know the issue where the historical pilots weren't showing up in the right squadrons is fixed, I'm not sure what else may have been done there. Probably best to ask further with the Air Team.

quote:

Will get back to you with my verdict after a more thorough testing of the new patch.
Lots of great fixes and updates, just hope that my 4 Jap CA TF won't be torpedoed to death by Marbelhead and her ancient multi stacker companions again on Xmas Day in the rematch![;)]


Thanks, comments based on testing are much appreciated.



sprior -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:03:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Downloading right now and if ive read it correctly once i upgrade to the beta i restart the game and Bob's your Uncle?


Yep, and Fanny is your aunt.



V22 Osprey -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:04:36 PM)

Hmmm, after I installed the patch, now in air battles the graphics of guns on planes firing don't show up, instead it's just a black box appears when the aircraft fire.I'll try a reinstall, but other than that it's a great patch!



Erik Rutins -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:11:43 PM)

Works fine for me, I assume this is in Windowed Mode? Try running Full Screen and that should not happen.



AttuWatcher -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:11:48 PM)

Thanks! will give it a try tonight.



V22 Osprey -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:24:01 PM)

Yep, worked fine on Full screen, then when I tried to play windowed mode again it was fine.Very strange, what do you think it was Erik?



witpqs -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:38:20 PM)

Erik,

Fantastic list - thanks much! [:)]

Two quickies, one question and one comment.

I have a single 'hyper-threaded' Intel cpu. The -dual switch was a fantastic step up (didn't need any of the fancy work-arounds you helped people with). Do I understand correctly that I need no switch to do that now (with the public beta)?

Second:
quote:

41. Gameplay Change: The way that surface radar is used in naval combat has been modified as follows: Visual confirmation is now required before ships will open fire, meaning that ships must close to visual range first. Also, in situations where range is increasing, if it goes beyond visual range (factoring in Detection Level) fire ceases.


I respect your call for results after rubber meets the road, and I almost always have such in hand when I give feedback. In this case I beg your indulgence to offer an observation. The absolute nature of not allowing opening fire with radar only may present a realism problem with surface combat as the USN improves skill-wise and equipment-wise (as time passes in the game/war). Please hold for consideration checks along the lines of crew skill, leader skill, equipment, date, as in:

- Earlier in war = Less chance of fire with radar only, progressively increasing as time goes on (but never even close to 100%).

- Better crew skill = Better chance of fire with radar only (low crew skill = NO chance).

- Leader checks (captain and TF flag) for fire with radar only.

- Better equipment (the radar sets) = Better chance of fire with radar only.

As the USN improved there were times when opening fire and/or launching torpedoes based on radar only had a major impact. If it could be worked in - but only in the right situations of crew, leaders, equipment, and date (for doctrine implementation) - that would be best for the long run.

As I said, if you would be good enough to 'hold this thought' for consideration at the appropriate time.



Oliver Heindorf -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:43:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Yep, worked fine on Full screen, then when I tried to play windowed mode again it was fine.Very strange, what do you think it was Erik?


well, I am not Erik but this happes often in windowed mode back to the ols witp days in 2004....when you alter the tasks too often...

it gets fixed by itslef with a simple restart of AE/WITP



Erik Rutins -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:45:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I have a single 'hyper-threaded' Intel cpu. The -dual switch was a fantastic step up (didn't need any of the fancy work-arounds you helped people with). Do I understand correctly that I need no switch to do that now (with the public beta)?


No, -dual is gone and we've replaced it with the other switches to allow for more resolution since we found that there was no "one size fits all" as we were originally attempting. I would start by trying -cpu1 and see if that gives you the same benefit you previously had. If not, try the other switches too.

quote:

I respect your call for results after rubber meets the road, and I almost always have such in hand when I give feedback. In this case I beg your indulgence to offer an observation. The absolute nature of not allowing opening fire with radar only may present a realism problem with surface combat as the USN improves skill-wise and equipment-wise (as time passes in the game/war). Please hold for consideration checks along the lines of crew skill, leader skill, equipment, date, as in:
- Earlier in war = Less chance of fire with radar only, progressively increasing as time goes on (but never even close to 100%).
- Better crew skill = Better chance of fire with radar only (low crew skill = NO chance)
- Leader checks (captain and TF flag) for fire with radar only.
- Better equipment (the radar sets) = Better chance of fire with radar only.
As the USN improved there were times when opening fire and/or launching torpedoes based on radar only had a major impact. If it could be worked in - but only in the right situations of crew, leaders, equipment, and date (for doctrine implementation) - that would be best for the long run.
As I said, if you would be good enough to 'hold this thought' for consideration at the appropriate time.


Don't worry, we'll be watching and we're aware of the later war instances of radar fire as well.



88l71 -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 10:45:56 PM)

I've noticed when you are looking at LCU's in a base and hit the "toggle all replacements for units on this list" the message: "all units on this list have had replacements turned on" pops up no matter whether you hit the ON or OFF button



TheTomDude -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/26/2009 11:07:17 PM)

Fantastic patch. Many thanks.

Two questions Erik:

- What about the "PT TFs not leaving a conquered port" or "No scuttling of costal ships in conquered port" problem? Will this be in the patch? Can't find it on the list.

- I see the IJA 80th Inf. has been fixed. What aboutthe 90th? As reported it has 108 Inf squads twice.



Andy Mac -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 12:17:00 AM)

90th is fixed as well it wasnt reqally broken it was a weird device issue

Scen 2 has better jap starting xp for pilots



Mark VII -> when to install (8/27/2009 12:39:27 AM)

Playing Guadalcanal PBEM. When is the best time to install the patch? Before running combat, after? Does it matter? thanks



medicff -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 1:10:09 AM)

quite a list of changes. I will be testing soon....

thanks for the support as always.



scott64 -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 1:28:44 AM)

[&o][&o][8D]



StoneAge -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 2:04:24 AM)

55. When calculating the bonus for land unit planning for a target, the land unit and its HQs (corps and command) must be planning for same target to get the bonuses.

What Does this mean?
Does this mean that the 14th Army can only have 1 planning target set for the whole 14th Army at one time



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines and Change List (8/27/2009 3:12:31 AM)

Erik: I think I know the answer from your very long and welcome list of changes/fixes, but just to confirm, the beta patch does not have anything or do anything with the "hotfix" involving the "staff utility"? I haven't loaded it, played with it, or looked at it as I was waiting for the first patch. All I recall was there was a Java problem or something?

So, I should do the hotfix now, after the beta patch is installed, after the final is installed, or it doesn't matter? Did you consider folding the hotfix into the beta?




erstad -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 3:59:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

55. When calculating the bonus for land unit planning for a target, the land unit and its HQs (corps and command) must be planning for same target to get the bonuses.

What Does this mean?
Does this mean that the 14th Army can only have 1 planning target set for the whole 14th Army at one time



As it reads literally, it's even worse. Everything within Southern army only gets a bonus if Southern Army HQ is planning for the same target they are. Is that really what this means? That's quite a change...

Also, does it matter how much prep the command HQ has? Could you have units, at, say 100 prep for various spots and change the command HQ each day to change the unit(s) that get the bonus?

I don't want to start a flamewar, but I'm curious what the motivation for this change was? Not arguing, just seeking to understand...



Rainer -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 4:31:28 AM)

quote:

I have a single 'hyper-threaded' Intel cpu. The -dual switch was a fantastic step up (didn't need any of the fancy work-arounds you helped people with). Do I understand correctly that I need no switch to do that now (with the public beta)?


With my fairly old (Intel Pentium 4) "pseudo dual core" (read: Hyperthreading) system the switch described below seems to provide the same acceleration as the -dual switch did before. -cpu2 is random, could well be that -cpu1 will provide the same.
However, without the cpu switch the system response is very sluggish (as was with the initial release without any switches).
The effect shows in either windowed or full screen mode.


"J:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -altFont -cpu2 -dd_def



witpqs -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 4:49:07 AM)

I have one also. In another thread Erik suggested I try starting up with -cpu1. As you say, it seems to provide the same nice performance as your -cpu2. I suspect it does basically the same thing.

I haven't tried -dd_def yet. Did that make a difference in performance or are you using it for other reasons?



witpqs -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 4:49:07 AM)

Double post!



Rainer -> RE: PLEASE READ: Public Beta Guidelines (8/27/2009 4:56:56 AM)

Firing two posts to make sure I catch at least one? [;)]

The -dd_def switch prevents on my system graphics glitches when in windowed mode (Nvidia 7600 GT). Especially when switching back and forth between applications (or minimizing).

Actually, I made myself two shortcuts: one to call the windowed mode (which I use mostly for testing and learning), and another for playing full screen (easier to read because the full screen is used). With the "full screen" shortcut I use only the cpu switch and the altfont switch.

EDIT: Quick rough test.
Without -cpu# the game boot phase is about 32 sec, the save loading about 25 sec
With either cpu1 or cpu2 the boot phase is 12 sec, the save load 6 sec.
All Full Sreen.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.609375