Beta Patch? (Full Version)

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



Message


cdoarm -> Beta Patch? (4/6/2014 10:53:32 PM)

Getting my files in order for future PBEM play. Do most players use the Patch 07 Unofficial Public Beta - 1123x4? Checking the forums, it appears to be widely used.

Regards and kudos to whoever did the Art Files with the unit patches. Small thing (sure it took a lot of effort to compile) but sure adds to the game.




pws1225 -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/6/2014 10:57:41 PM)

I think the vast majority of players use the latest beta. It has a track record for reliability that earned players' trust. (Thanks Michael)




Numdydar -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/6/2014 11:41:26 PM)

I have used them for two games now with no issues. As new versions get released I update. It is just the EXE that changes so no data is effected. This means you can update while a game is in progress and not have any issues.

In a PBEM game when you want to update, the Japanese player has to start the process.
1. Run the turn under the old version
2. Send the turn run file to the Allied player
3. The Allied player will look at the turn results also using the old version
4. Update the exe and do your turn normally and send the file to the Allied player
5. Allied player then updates their exe and everyone is now updated [:)]




dr.hal -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/7/2014 2:07:58 AM)

Yes I think most would say the beta is the way to go.... the beta has many more good features...




Gaspote -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/7/2014 3:55:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Yes I think most would say the beta is the way to go.... the beta has many more good features...


and solve many troubles too




GreyJoy -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/7/2014 3:57:39 PM)

A MUST. Plain and simple




PaxMondo -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 1:21:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

A MUST. Plain and simple

+1




Chickenboy -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 2:02:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iroquois

Getting my files in order for future PBEM play. Do most players use the Patch 07 Unofficial Public Beta - 1123x4? Checking the forums, it appears to be widely used.

Regards and kudos to whoever did the Art Files with the unit patches. Small thing (sure it took a lot of effort to compile) but sure adds to the game.


I am one of a few that do not use the betas, but await the 'official' patch.

While the support of Matrix / Slitherine / MichaelM have been very good, the betas have not been infallible over their lifetimes. There have been some real headaches rolled out on the bleeding edge from time to time. It doesn't detract from MichaelM's ongoing support, which is invaluable, but it does happen.

You decide which level of gameplay security you want. Do make sure that your partner agrees with you apriori, as there may be some sync issues by patching / playing different versions of the game too.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

ETA: Certainly not a 'must' in my opinion. You can have a very enjoyable gameplay experience with stock and the latest official patch.




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 2:23:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iroquois

Getting my files in order for future PBEM play. Do most players use the Patch 07 Unofficial Public Beta - 1123x4? Checking the forums, it appears to be widely used.

Regards and kudos to whoever did the Art Files with the unit patches. Small thing (sure it took a lot of effort to compile) but sure adds to the game.


I am one of a few that do not use the betas, but await the 'official' patch.

While the support of Matrix / Slitherine / MichaelM have been very good, the betas have not been infallible over their lifetimes. There have been some real headaches rolled out on the bleeding edge from time to time. It doesn't detract from MichaelM's ongoing support, which is invaluable, but it does happen.

You decide which level of gameplay security you want. Do make sure that your partner agrees with you apriori, as there may be some sync issues by patching / playing different versions of the game too.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

ETA: Certainly not a 'must' in my opinion. You can have a very enjoyable gameplay experience with stock and the latest official patch.



Andre has my full agreement. I've been burned. I always wait till the Beta has been out a long time for de-bugging , and then never use the patch on an ongoing PBEM without full agreement with my partners. I once dropped out of a 2x2 because one of the players couldn't be bothered to co-ordinate with the other three of us. Yes , I take it THAT seriously. So on this issue I absolutely agree with and stand with Andre.




Numdydar -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 6:52:56 AM)

The system ate my response damit [:@]

I have to say I totally disagree with the above. i have used the betas as they have been released in both PBEM and AI games with no issues. The amount of fixes to the game through the betas, including major bugs, since the last patch are extensive. I just cannot see any reason why someone would want to play a game with known major issues versus one that has them fixed.

In case you were unaware, the last official patch was just the latest beta at that time, packages up and stamped official. If there is ever another official patch (which I seriously doubt will ever happen) the same thing will occur. The lastest beta will be packaged up and stamped 'official'. I am not sure what more you think anyone at Matrix is going to do other than that. So you are already playing with a buggy beta patch as the last official patch is just a packaged up beta.

Have you read the entire change log for the beta? And you really want to play without all those fixes and changes? So you are willing to play a version of the game with known bugs that have been fixed just becase the fixes are called betas?

I would suggest you try a test game with the beta for a while, then go back to the last patch. I would really be surprised if you would want to after experiencing the amazing enhancements and fixes the betas have provided. I know I could never go back as the game experience is so much better. But if you would rather play with the bugs you know versus having a chance a beta might mess something up until it gets fixed in a few weeks, then go for it. But you truely do not know what you are missing out on.




Alfred -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 7:18:02 AM)

You do realise that some of the bug fixes are for bugs specifically introduced by prior betas?  And many of the so called other bugs only arise if one is "gaming" the code?  There are no game killing bugs in AE which have been caught in betas post the last official patch.

Then there are some features introduced in the betas which were not welcomed by all.  So much that some of them were even subsequently removed in later betas.

There are reasons to play with the betas but there are also sound reasons to stick with the last official patch.  Not adopting the beta only because one is waiting for an official patch is not a good reason as there is very little likelihood of there ever being a further official patch from Matrix but not adopting the betas because one does not like all its features or more significantly because one does not like to start a game under one set of rules and then continuously be confronted with changing the game play rules as newer betas are released, is a good reason.  How would you like to start a grid iron game with a field goal worth its current value only to find 8 minutes into the game the value of a field goal has been increased to 13 points and you had no field goal expert on the roster to take advantage of the new rule but the other team did have such a player on its roster.

Alfred




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 12:42:36 PM)

I take the position that 95%+ of the changes, alterations, improvements, and bug fixes in the betas have improved the game. OTOH, the recent 360 degree turn through altering Chinese reincarnation code for the "Chungking rule" in a couple of beta versions has materially altered the status of Chungking's defense in one of my games. Nothing is ever perfect in this life.

But just on the air coordination issue alone I would never play the last official patch again. Coordination is harder now for sure, but the air war is also better for the change.




Numdydar -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 2:43:58 PM)

And air coordination is just ONE of the major improvements in the game through the betas. [:D]




Chickenboy -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 3:51:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
not adopting the betas because one does not like all its features or more significantly because one does not like to start a game under one set of rules and then continuously be confronted with changing the game play rules as newer betas are released


This is my primary 'beef' about the official patch vs. Beta use. AE is complicated enough as it is. Changing the 'rules' of the game as new betas emerge is another complication that I just don't need. There are examples replete of things "fixed", "unfixed", "refixed" and so on in the beta progressions that I can't possibly keep track of them all by reading the beta release notes.

Also, someone's idea of a 'fix' (unless it's a known bug squashing) may not be my idea of the right solution to the 'problem'. Oft times, I don't agree with the existence of a problem to begin with. The only way out of a tower of Babel is to start at a common denominator. The "official patch" progression seemed a good a place as any to start.

Yes, I understand that there may not be another 'official' patch for this game. S'OK. The gameplay still has a few corners that can be negotiated by this driver because I know what they are and where they lie.




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 6:56:13 PM)

Playing with Betas can be very rewarding. But there is a reason they are called betas and not omegas. You have to be a big boy and decide which works for you when. There are times you want consistantcy (like a 2x2 PBEM that's going to last five years) and times you don't care (like when you are playing the AI). For the most part , I find it has more to do with short term versus long term. But that's the beauty of this game. It's all about choice.[:)]




Numdydar -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/10/2014 8:42:47 PM)

Well all I can say is that if anyone wants a better game against the Japanese AI, they need to use the beta. This is because in the official patch, the AC system which the AI uses is broken. By late '42 early '43 over 50% or more of all of Japan's Transport ships are stuck in ports waiting for resourses that are not there and will take forever to show up. Needless to say this causes Japan's production to collaspe without the Allies having to do anything. Playing on Hard or VH does nothing to address this issue.

The beta has fixed this so that Transports TFs will return to port if there is nothing to pick up for the return trip. While still not efficient, it is still a huge improvement over them never returning home. Of course in a PBEM game this would not be an issue so it would not matter. This allows the Japanese AI to have production going for a lot longer than using the official patch.

While i am all for consistancy, it is corrections to issues like these that mean more to me than being consistant. Not to mention all the rest of the stuff. We upgraded betas in my PBEM game over a dozen times just to get the improvements to the game. Did it change things in the middle of the game, yes. Did we care, no simply because the improvements were so good.

If you are almost finished a game, then sure stay with what you have. But if you have still a lot of time left, I really do not see any reason not to take a game you like and see how much better it can be [:)]




PaxMondo -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 12:37:21 PM)

I have appended the current list of BUGS fixed in the x4 beta.

I normally play AI, and for Numdydar reasons above would not suggest playing without the current beta. IF I were to play PBEM, I would not play without the current beta because of item NUMBER 1 in the list: the allies have a HUGE and unintended advantage in that they are able to see IJ AC/ship movements to bases in the in-between turn. No IJ player wants to play with that issue now that it is fixed.

While most of these bugs are minor, excepting the one noted above, the cumulative effect is substantial. I respect Andre and Steve in their decisions, but 154 bugs fixed, bugs as defined by the developer Henderson, are a lot of good fixes. This list does not include the 24 improvements to the UI or the 46 changes to the gameplay, most of which could be easily construed as bug fixes, like #45. "Mark as “loaded” for ships that cannot load troops in Fast Transport TF – was stopping load process from ending". This isn't a common bug, but it takes the developer to unlock this when it happens to you OR that TF is dead to you for the rest of the game.

Alfred's contention that some players don't like some of the fixes, while completely accurate, is irrelevant here (sorry Alfred) for a newbie who cannot possibly know/understand the changes. Henderson, the developer, says that's what they want in the game. Most players do agree with the changes. Matrix is only the distributor, not the developer here. There won't be another "offical" matrix patch because of budget. I understand that completely. Why incur the expense of another patch roll-out to a community that is perfectly happy with Henderson's ongoing support?

If you have been playing this game for +10 years like Andre and Steve, sure, staying with the last Matrix patch is fine. Compared to what they started playing with, the last Matrix issued patch is a HUGE improvement; as they said, they are used to all the errors and don't care. IF you are new, play with the latest beta; why would you want to start playing with a known buggy version when there is a developer released and supported version with 154 bugs fixed? [;)]

1. Display of AF/Port icon between player saves based on player's intel
2. Return mines loaded on ship to pool when ship is upgraded. Otherwise, they are lost when
weapon list updated
3. Reported cargo/troop safety values incorrect when no cargo/troop space
4. Allow smaller 'reserve' space for small groups on ships
5. Preserve some more data when swapping fragment and parent to prevent lost of parent
6. Correct attacking plane count before final post-air combat
7. Pilot promotion may have occured in error sometimes
8. Raid detect message sometimes dropped of the combat report
9. Some TFs did not auto-refuel when at base. TF with Support ships loaded with supply
generally
10. Some pilot-leader connections were being corrupted
11. Movement bug with following units due to incorrect move indicator
other move issues due to the incorrect indicator
12. Wrong ship sometimes reported in Ops report for TF movement which causes some damage
13. Escorts being assigned to auto-convoy TFs when not in the AC ship pool
14. Status (static,restricted,etc) filter of ground reinforcement/withdraw not working with the
date sort
15. ASW groups not allowed to attack sometimes
16. Fragment size not set sometimes at time of the fragment/parent swap. This was causing
HQ/LCU to jump to reinforcement queue
17. Bug in bomber intercept if too many rounds of fighter v fighter combat
18. Required Aviation Support is NOT capped at 250 for the human pl;ayer. This was removed
at start of AE but crept back in sometime during updates
19. Removed the fragment/parent swap during a TF unload as it could often orphan the
fragment.
20. Clear patrol levels if the patrol leveles are not valid after a aircraft upgrade
21. Additional victory conditions for post 44/45 apply only to game-time of over 3 years (ie not
short scenario). This was fixed in a previous patch but only for one of the VCs, not the full
set
22. Certain sequence of actions allowed enemy LCUs to be visible at enemy base
23. Enabled 'z' to speed up all animations; was commented out in a few animation replays
24. Bug caused F/FB to sometimes bomb at low altitude
25. Aircraft factory upgrade not always happening on time resulting in short span upgrades not
occurring properly.
26. Bug in Industry 'failed' indication not showing properly sometimes
27. Location check at scenario load to include small map sceanrios
28. Bug in air supply to fragments in a non-friendly base hex
29. Using way-points defeats some TF missions (eg bombardment) as the TF destination was
being set to homebase before execution of the mission – ie was returning to base
immediately
30. Error in Strategic map display
31. Additional and stockpile options were not turned off when base was captured
32. Correct LCUs that were being changed to a base (type 6) resulting in 2 bases showing on
mouse over
33. Army experience being gained when not 100% prepared as per manual; changed to allow
chance to gain experience if >75% prepare and < 50% national exp level
34. Army experience being gain while unit was not on map or was in a ship. Fix 33 added to
alleviate the incorrect experience gaining happening while in reinforcement queue
35. Increased road path when using STRATEGIC_MOVE to allow unit to remain on RR –
caused unit to jump “off-rail” and move overland
36. Captured base sometimes set to a incorrect HQ if LCU had a bad HQ
37. Excessive accident messages on unload from TF reported
38. Reworked editor sub-unit merging as some devices could drop off the unit list when merged
causing smaller size unit than expected
39. Corrected possible TOE error in scenario data load for inactive units
40. Air transport by seaplane to enemy bases was being allowed; a commando type unit can
however be allowed to do this.
41. Possible CTD if sinking ship's load was a group
42. Limit the number of devices built from resources per unit during LCU replacements; this
was causing an over production for that turn
43. Retain day/night setting when creating group fragments
44. Adjusted supply and fuel values in base list not to overrun the space
45. CT_APc removed from Minesweeping TF;CT_AM removed from Local Sweeping TF, but
added YMS to Sweep TF in line with manual and code
46. Auto-rebuild (1/3 of TOE) of Chinese ground unit devices is limited to Squad types as the
rule relates to the abundance of manpower and is not covered by replacement pool. Normal
rebuilding of destroyed units is not affected by this.
47. Carrier capable and trained text not showing together on Group screen
48. Handle any blank re-name changes by ignoring them
49. Possible CTD when air fragments combine
50. Unloading TF can freeze a LCU onto a ship under some conditions
51. AI not behaving if main HQs missing (affects small map mainly)
52. AI using AGC for normal land units – removed from TF if not needed
53. Soviet activation message not in Ops report
54. Correct off/on-map movement of LCU - not always behaving correctly due to the hex range
55. Clear Soviet air balance if not activated. Possible incorrect base switching
56. Sub attack against docked TF not happening for port size <3
57. Unit type changing unexpectantly
58. Torpedo replacement on plane sometimes is missed
59. Double handling of overstacked supply requirements
60. Fixed alternate weapons for port attacks
61. Corrected weapon system damage to show after combat on ships in port rather than wait till
sometimer in the ship repair cycle.
62. Ship tonnage over 32K could cause repairs to fail
63. Display message for group on ship could cause crash
64. Allow upgrade of group when “withdraw” is off
65. Patrol sub TF doesn’t return to base if it doesn't have home base
66. Setting TF name to max 25 characters wiped out TF
67. Corrected display of some weapons in a/c display
68. “Set Objective” will allow some prepare points to remain based on unit experience
69. Check torpedo supply available before deciding alternate torpedo load
70. Allow ship-based groups to draw reserve upto 3
71. Some display issues with weapon filters and missions for aircraft data
72. Issue where a weapon slot having multiple filters could lose some weapons
73. Forming TF in from base showed incorrect TF
74. Zero length TF name caused corruption to name
75. TF icon could show wrong side if TF from each side present
76. Parent LCU swapping not always working if fragment off-map
77. Error in rebuilding of editor sub-units not clearing original parent device numbers first
78. Split groups sometimes not counted as one for overloaded AF check
79. Burma Road not open if Rangoon is captured
80. Para unit not moving by seaplane
81. Partial weapon load not kicking in if ops needed exceeded ship's ops level and ammo load
exceeded 1000
82. Fixed discrepancy in base AV on some lists
83. Protect against fragments being linked to other fragments for LCUs (as in un/loading on
transports). Can lead to loss of ability to merge with unit’s parent.
84. ASW combat could result against ‘phantom’ TF when one TF had been eliminated in an
earlier combat round
85. Fixed groups could fly too far if escorting transports
86. Single plane filling of group not counting previous clicks.
87. Non-port base trying to build port (type = primary AF is NOT a port)
88. Fixed non-base disbanding of LCUs
89. Fixed transfer name box for veteran pilots missing
90. Overfilled TOE of LCU could lose a number of devices when device upgraded
91. Corrected device upgrade sometimes skipping an upgrade
92. Disabled devices not being carried forward for reinforcements when Japanese production is
on
93. Restricted filter on Unit list for 'change all on list ..' not working
94. Don't show TF to enemy player (in case it happens)
95. Troop/supply can unload from TF at an enemy 'dot' base, but once base captured, unloading
is almost impossible. Treat 'dot' base as no base for unloading purposes
96. AI swapping aircraft to different nationalities on reinforcement
97. Pilot training HI expenditure was not set in some cases
98. Strategic movement type not carried to 'set all follow/march' units
99. Missing '*' next to AA on class upgrade display
100. Disbanding VS group when not returning wasn't merged
101. New scenario LCU move direction not always correct
102. Writeoff any active ships that are in enemy port base. Possible bug if ship repairing when
base captured
103. CV groups should retain resize capability when moved back to ship. In general, any shipbased
group which is carrier trained can be resized.
104. Possible overflow error when build list of ships
105. Change direction when set for direct move. Added description to March Direction on
screen to help identify when direct move is set
106. Devices in TOE of less than 3 could cause subunits not to rebuild
107. TF destination (unload at) not allowing some TFs to return home
108. Direct move fix last patch broke scenario start move setup
109. Missing seaplane expenditure on repair attempts
110. Correct TF patrol issue when no destination hex
111. Bug in activating barge that could disband random TF (DCB)
112. Aligned unit type and suffix to coorect ‘strangeness’
113. Low endurance ships not always using fuel for small moves
114. Some ships with system damage excluded from autobuild TFs
115. Some liquid capacity not used on xAK type ships
116. Stop multiple combats where more than 500 units in a stack
117. Fixed LCU device repair bug
118. Setting same destination won't clear march distance
119. City attack not allowing 'cities' and 'ports' to be bombed. Just the first type found.
120. Made emergency mobiliation forces arrive as delay 1 so get correctly setup
121. Moving units try to build non-base forts (using supply) which are zero'ed - wasted supply
122. Ignore empty convoys when checking for arrivals
123. Issue with '0' AV units continually retreating in combat
124. Adjust ship fuel after upgrade/conversion by adjusting ship/base fuel levels
125. Catered for only 2 ships in TF that becomes crippled
126. Flak factor could be randomly reduced when checking TF flak numbers
127. Flak calculation incorrect for land units
128. Ship-based groups could fly with torp if no torpedo slot on ship
129. Enemy base damage impacting ability to use paratroops
130. Tweaked Isolated units without supply can lose more devices
131. Fixed Retain extra data from fragment when parent restored from fragment
132. Fixed Auto-base capture not kicking in if non-combat friendly unit present
133. Fixed Group upgrade not performed if ANY fragment present on or off-map
134. Fixed retreat test for isolated units in supply phase
135. Protected use of 'unload at' destination when no destination is present that could cause TF
to run off to some other destination
136. Correct display of port building % - out by factor of 10 on display
137. Port/AF attack only against bases
138. Correct barge rebuilding due to 1123n
139. Units could retreat from combat without triggering pursuit
140. CAP range not accounted for when flying with DTs in transport intercept
141. Show '0' port if ships sighted
142. Ships unable to repair should be able to go to crew-repairs (as long as no other limits)
143. AI issue with resource movement by TF
144. Port refuelling when lowest endurance ship in TF doesn't need fuel
145. Ships in port with full fuel should have full endurance
146. Fix AI over-diverting TFs to top off fuel (courtesy of Don)
147. Unloading unit attack mode not correct in some shock attacks
148. If base in hex belonged to enemy, the LCU display would still show some 'base' info (eg
supply)
149. Damaged planes in reserve could interfer with normal plane repairs
150. LBA flying from small AFs sometimes
151. Setting patrol boundary could set destination on random TF.
152. Some errors in ship transfers due to tonnage limits
153. Error in setting Ground Reinforcements globally off by menu option
154. Cleared destination data on parent unit when rebuilding
155. Auto rebuilt Chinese squads are not affect by randomization. Other devices may have
some randomly disrupted rather than lose the devices due to the randomization
156. Stop in-game update from wiping pilot HI cost




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 1:08:00 PM)

Ironic , isn't it?[:D]




PaxMondo -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 2:31:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Ironic , isn't it?[:D]

Steve, sorry. you want to define "official" patches as those released by the distributor Matrix. No problem. I would never suggest to you, or Andre, or anyone else who has been here for years to change their thinking. You guys know all the ins and outs of the game and as you have stated, the "fixed" issues don't bother you because you know about them and can work around them.


However, we're talking to a newbie here, not someone who has been here since pre-witp. The current "beta" is effectively the last official release from the developer Henderson. They really need to be running the latest developer supported version.

The distributor, Matrix, supports the game by funding this board. Bless them. They will likely never release anything else for simple budgetary reasons that I can totally respect.

Henderson is the developer and in sole control of the game code. They have decided to continue development support for bugs on a voluntary basis. Bless Michael for all his ongoing efforts and all the previous devs for theirs.

EDIT: to the OP: sorry for our internal squabble. Yes, we are a close community and as such we argue about things all the time. Steve and Andre are both great guys, and I generally agree with them on most topics. This is one of the rare occasions where I don't. This is also one of those topics where one of the devs, and yes several are still very active on the boards, are not likely to step in. As both Steve and Andre stated, read the thread, make your own informed decision.





Chickenboy -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 4:32:48 PM)

PaxMondo, did you break the interwebs? My Google Chrome display is showing some pretty funculated text from your listing? Very strange. [&:]




Gaspote -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 5:34:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

PaxMondo, did you break the interwebs? My Google Chrome display is showing some pretty funculated text from your listing? Very strange. [&:]


I'm currently asking him, I get the same.




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 6:23:20 PM)

xxxxxx




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 6:23:30 PM)

xxxxx




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 6:23:39 PM)

xxxxx




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 6:23:56 PM)

There , all clear.




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 6:24:26 PM)

You see? This thread was using a Beta patch! [:D]




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 10:02:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

You see? This thread was using a Beta patch! [:D]


It was screwed up on my phone using Safari, but just fine in IE. Go figure.




AW1Steve -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/12/2014 10:34:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

You see? This thread was using a Beta patch! [:D]


It was screwed up on my phone using Safari, but just fine in IE. Go figure.

I use IE. It's screwed up to me.




PaxMondo -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/13/2014 3:23:03 AM)

Its just a code box ... not sure why anyone is having issues. Since my IE rarely works right, and its working for this, I'm totally confused. [&:][&:][&:]




Chickenboy -> RE: Beta Patch? (4/13/2014 4:28:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Its just a code box ... not sure why anyone is having issues. Since my IE rarely works right, and its working for this, I'm totally confused. [&:][&:][&:]


A perfect illustration. "Should work perfectly, but doesn't." Steve's right-beautiful irony.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125