2.42B revisited

2.42B revisited (Full Version)

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

Message

Joe D. -> 2.42B revisited (11/28/2005 5:20:48 PM)
Has anyone lately had any success going from 2.4-2.41-2.42B w/o any planes or pilots missing? Or do we all stay at 2.3 -- or invest in "War in the Pacific"?

Miller -> RE: 2.42B revisited (11/28/2005 9:27:54 PM)
I think 2.42b is the end of the line for UV patches (lets give Matrix credit for releasing it three years after game launch!). I think the missing aircraft bug only effects certain scenarios - present in Scn 17 but have had no problems in a Scn 19 game. 2.30 is probably the best patch to stick with overall.......

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: 2.42B revisited (11/29/2005 7:08:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. Has anyone lately had any success going from 2.4-2.41-2.42B w/o any planes or pilots missing? Or do we all stay at 2.3 -- or invest in "War in the Pacific"? Hmmm.....you just made me realize that Matrix has been playing us! (By "us" I mean the last few UV diehards that don't have WitP yet....[8D]) Matrix knowingly broke UV so we'd get disgusted with it and buy WitP!!!! Well........it worked.... WitP is on the top of my Christmas list![8D] Nice strategy Matrix!!!!

DEB -> RE: 2.42B revisited (11/30/2005 11:29:11 PM)
It was my understanding that 2.42B was a test release for us poor souls to play and report our findings. This it pointless unless an eventual 2.42 or 2.43 is produced. Others have sugguested that WitP also has similar errors in it as those remaining in UV 2.42B ( same game engine since 2.40 therefore the same errors ? )so don't expect that to be any better ! Hopefully both will get sorted out in the fullness of time. [>:] Matrix it appears do not have enough staff to deal with these problems directly, but rely on people to deal with things in any spare time they can conjure up. They do however have enough capacity to create a news-letter & editor ! [:(]

LoBaron -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/9/2005 3:49:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo Hmmm.....you just made me realize that Matrix has been playing us! (By "us" I mean the last few UV diehards that don't have WitP yet....[8D]) Matrix knowingly broke UV so we'd get disgusted with it and buy WitP!!!! Well........it worked.... WitP is on the top of my Christmas list![8D] Nice strategy Matrix!!!! well i belong to one of these "forcefully converted"... [:D] i still have an UV PBEM game running but most of my time goes to getting a grasp of WitP. the difference is such that after a couple of turns in the game you start to realize what "grand strategy" really means. looking at UV it now seems to me like a training place to prevent getting totally lost in WitP... [X(] i can only encourage you to buy it. after a few "oh man! i thought UV was complex...." it turns out to be the best strategy game ive ever played. too bad gary grisby said he doesnt want to continue developing games of this scale in the near future.

Mike Wood -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/9/2005 6:06:22 PM)
Hello... Be advised that the skill set for patching game executables and writing a news letter are some what different. We have a shortage of folks with the former, not the latter. Have been working on patches for UV, WIP, SPWAW and trying to code War in the East. Plan "to deal with things in any spare time [I] can conjure up", this weekend. Going to try and fix the vanishing aircraft bug. Wish me well on this effort... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: DEB It was my understanding that 2.42B was a test release for us poor souls to play and report our findings. This it pointless unless an eventual 2.42 or 2.43 is produced. Others have sugguested that WitP also has similar errors in it as those remaining in UV 2.42B ( same game engine since 2.40 therefore the same errors ? )so don't expect that to be any better ! Hopefully both will get sorted out in the fullness of time. [>:] Matrix it appears do not have enough staff to deal with these problems directly, but rely on people to deal with things in any spare time they can conjure up. They do however have enough capacity to create a news-letter & editor ! [:(]

P_DEX -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/9/2005 7:15:16 PM)
Well, I'm wishing you luck! Been wanting to get back in to UV for some time now...just patiently waiting for a 2.42 patch outcome. And though I'm not much of a poster, I do stalk the UV forums a bit. :)

Skyfire7631 -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/9/2005 8:20:08 PM)
Ditto [:)] Regards.

Forwarn45 -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/9/2005 8:32:01 PM)
Sounds great! I've been enjoying this game (and still kind of learning) since getting it a month or two ago.

DEB -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/10/2005 1:45:33 PM)
Thanks for the reply Mr Wood. I was begining to wonder if the forums got read at all ( although I do realise you can't comment on all posts ). I do realise that the skills set is somewhat different, but then if your "office" is anything like mine Newsletters are usually done by someone " in house" ( as a spare time task ). Not knowing most of the Matrix staff's identities , I don't know if the chap doing the newsletter was a) specially employed for the job from the outside, b) transferred to it from inside or c) had taken it on in addition the usual tasks ( which may or may not have included patching games etc.). Good luck with your efforts in curing "our " game problems.[;)]

CatLord -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/11/2005 9:45:00 PM)
Good luck Mike ! Cat

Temple -> RE: 2.42B revisited (12/20/2005 8:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Be advised that the skill set for patching game executables and writing a news letter are some what different. We have a shortage of folks with the former, not the latter. Have been working on patches for UV, WIP, SPWAW and trying to code War in the East. Plan "to deal with things in any spare time [I] can conjure up", this weekend. Going to try and fix the vanishing aircraft bug. Wish me well on this effort... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: DEB It was my understanding that 2.42B was a test release for us poor souls to play and report our findings. This it pointless unless an eventual 2.42 or 2.43 is produced. Others have sugguested that WitP also has similar errors in it as those remaining in UV 2.42B ( same game engine since 2.40 therefore the same errors ? )so don't expect that to be any better ! Hopefully both will get sorted out in the fullness of time. [>:] Matrix it appears do not have enough staff to deal with these problems directly, but rely on people to deal with things in any spare time they can conjure up. They do however have enough capacity to create a news-letter & editor ! [:(] Mike, I've been stopping by the the UV/WiTP/WPO forums checking on patch status prior to the holidays. Just to let you know I appreciate that you are trying to squash this bug [:)]. If a patch isn't going to be issued and I get a hankering for a game of UV over the holidays, should I roll back to the latest official which is 2.41, or as someone suggested, go back to 2.30? Or maybe stick with the 2.42 beta? Thanks for your time.

Skyfire7631 -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/8/2006 9:22:49 PM)
Bump ! Any news from that last patch ? [:(] Please, pretty please ! [:)] Regards.

GoofTrooper -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/18/2006 2:24:46 AM)
Any news would be nice. I think I play UV more then WITP (smaller scale) and would like some info about the status of the patch.

P_DEX -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/20/2006 11:43:33 PM)
tap tap This thing on? Patch news needed....CD getting dustier...cravings to play latest version increasing... yadda, yadda

DEB -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/25/2006 3:06:24 PM)
Go back to sleep chaps-not much chance of prompting a reply from Matrix - let alone a Patch.[sm=00000280.gif]

Mike Wood -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/25/2006 5:03:16 PM)
Hello... No news yet, on patch. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: DEB Go back to sleep chaps-not much chance of prompting a reply from Matrix - let alone a Patch.[sm=00000280.gif]

DEB -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/27/2006 1:06:31 AM)
I stand corrected. [X(] ( On the reply front anyway. ) [:'(] I'll go back to sleep now. [>:]

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/27/2006 4:43:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... No news yet, on patch. Bye... Michael Wood I guess some news about no news is better than no news about no news... or something....[sm=dizzy.gif]

Skyfire7631 -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/27/2006 7:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... No news yet, on patch. Bye... Michael Wood Fair enough, I understand UV is a rather old game now and is not on top of the priorities list [:)] The question is, though (and I know you saw it coming [;)]) : when ? Regards.

Mike Wood -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/28/2006 1:36:17 AM)
Hello... Gary and I are working on something. Cannot say more. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Skyfire76 quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... No news yet, on patch. Bye... Michael Wood Fair enough, I understand UV is a rather old game now and is not on top of the priorities list [:)] The question is, though (and I know you saw it coming [;)]) : when ? Regards.

Skyfire7631 -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/28/2006 8:27:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Gary and I are working on something. Cannot say more. Bye... Michael Wood Ok, understood (I think) [;)] Keep us updated if you can [:)] Regards.

P_DEX -> RE: 2.42B revisited (2/28/2006 10:33:30 PM)
Cool. Thanks for the update Mike. Had no idea you had Gary helping you out as well! Excellent.

Maroc -> RE: 2.42B revisited (3/20/2006 4:03:37 AM)
Hi guys, I have just gotten hold of a copy of this game and it looks to be a real gem, but I am wondering what patch I should settle on using?? what is the standard when playing PBEM games for instance... thanks

jmkas -> RE: 2.42B revisited (3/20/2006 11:17:25 PM)
You and your PBEM opponet must be at the same patch level for PBEM games to work - most seem to like 2.3, but check under the opponets wanted forum to see what is preferred.

Maroc -> RE: 2.42B revisited (3/21/2006 5:06:19 AM)
I am some way off a human opponent at present!! but I may as well get used to the way I will play when I get there... so 2.3 it is. thanks for the advice jmkas.... now then back to the manual...barges, barges... ah yes 8.20 page 32...[:)]

CatLord -> RE: 2.42B revisited (4/19/2006 12:04:58 PM)
From WitP forum: quote: ORIGINAL: Alex Fiedler Long-Awaited Major Update Now Available! Matrix Games and 2by3 Games (www.2by3games.com) are pleased to announce the release of the v1.80 update for the acclaimed War In The Pacific. (snip) More important are the fixes, which include an overhaul of the pilot tracking an allocation system, a fix for occasional �lost� leaders, a fix for land unit fragment loss and loss during air transport and many more. Would that help in producing the next UV patch for the disappearing aircrafts ? Cat

Mike Wood -> RE: 2.42B revisited (4/19/2006 1:26:13 PM)
Hello... Will be adding relevant changes from WIP 1.80 to WPO and UV and fix UV aircraft problem. Will take a bit. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: CatLord From WitP forum: quote: ORIGINAL: Alex Fiedler Long-Awaited Major Update Now Available! Matrix Games and 2by3 Games (www.2by3games.com) are pleased to announce the release of the v1.80 update for the acclaimed War In The Pacific. (snip) More important are the fixes, which include an overhaul of the pilot tracking an allocation system, a fix for occasional �lost� leaders, a fix for land unit fragment loss and loss during air transport and many more. Would that help in producing the next UV patch for the disappearing aircrafts ? Cat

Denniss -> RE: 2.42B revisited (4/19/2006 5:53:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Will be adding relevant changes from WIP 1.80 to WPO and UV and fix UV aircraft problem. Will take a bit. Bye... Michael Wood Thank you for the update! So there's still some hope for us UV veterans to see a new patch improving the game.

DEB -> RE: 2.42B revisited (4/19/2006 9:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Will be adding relevant changes from WIP 1.80 to WPO and UV and fix UV aircraft problem. Will take a bit. Bye... Michael Wood Message below, sent 10th April 2005 refers. Is a fix for this to be included? [&o] Shortly after the start of Sc. 11 the computer moved TF 230 ( USS Drum - SS ) onto 19,30 - a land hex ! It is now immovable - although it is still registered as "at Sea". Under a previous patch this error was "corrected" - possibley only for particular Sc. known. If another patch ( 2.42 ? ) is done (re disappearing C-47's ), can this be fixed also? < Message edited by DEB -- 4/10/2005 11:33:08 PM >

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.218262