[1115.9 Rollback - NCR] Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed show in 1115.9

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[1115.9 Rollback - NCR] Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed show in 1115.9

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [1115.9 Rollback - NCR] Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed show in 1115.9

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[1115.9 Rollback - NCR] Flight Ops - several issues I t... - 11/25/2019 5:42:34 PM

ultradave

Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline

Attached is a save from the first flight tutorial - Basic Flight Operations. One aircraft in the air to demonstrate. Aircraft launched manually, no missions, climbs to cruise altitude.

Attempt to change altitude, F2 - altitude preset buttons do not work, selected unit panel altitude buttons do not work (interestingly speed DOES work). F2 altitude slider is the only thing that works. Select a waypoint, same thing. Select the aircraft again and the selected unit sidebar altitude speed box still shows the waypoint selected.

Strike Scenario 2 - Daisies I could have sworn worked just right yesterday, but now, the aircraft remain at 36,000 ft, and the only way I've found to have them follow the mission profile is to manually enter 2000 in station altitude or to use the F2 slider to change altitude. (I didn't attach a save for this one - someone else already did I believe).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by apache85 -- 11/28/2019 10:30:20 PM >

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

Post #: 1

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/25/2019 6:16:49 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ultradave
Attempt to change altitude, F2 - altitude preset buttons do not work, selected unit panel altitude buttons do not work (interestingly speed DOES work). F2 altitude slider is the only thing that works. Select a waypoint, same thing. Select the aircraft again and the selected unit sidebar altitude speed box still shows the waypoint selected.

Hi Dave,

I just checked this now. It seems that the altitude presets do not work when the "Terrain Following - AGL" checkbox is checked. If that checkbox is unchecked, then the altitude presets are correctly obeyed. Can you please confirm this ?

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to ultradave)

Post #: 2

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/25/2019 7:46:08 PM

ultradave

Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline

That seems to be correct. However, it seems like selecting a different altitude other than NOE should automatically uncheck that box. It may have always been this way but it makes it so that if you are terrain following and then want to climb you HAVE to open F2, because the sidebar doesn't have the box to uncheck it.

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 3

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/25/2019 8:05:54 PM

ultradave

Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline

That gave me an idea. Strike Tutorial 2. The flights of Tornados do not drop to low altitude upon entering the mission area. And in the mission area, altitude controls are unresponsive. Save attached. The two flights are about to enter the mission area. Select one of them, open F2 and let the game run. Just prior to entering the mission area the terrain following check box becomes checked, and from that point, other than the slider, the altitude buttons are unresponsive. Also, they remain at 36000 ft.

If I click on that box to UNCHECK it, it remains checked and the slider drops to the deck and so does the aircraft.

I'm guessing here but I assume the terrain following checkbox turning on has something to do with the HI-LO-HI mission profile. However, it doesn't work.

If you select a button preset altitude nothing changes. Use the slider, altitude changes. Select a button at that point (any one), sets current altitude constant. Checkbox still checked from it's automatic turning on. Now, select checkbox and down to the deck we go.

Hope this helps.

There seems to be something odd in the connections between that checkbox and altitude settings.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ultradave -- 11/25/2019 8:13:50 PM >

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to ultradave)

Post #: 4

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 4:57:32 AM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

EDIT: I have removed the rant. I tend to vent when frustrated.

More at the end.

< Message edited by mavfin -- 11/26/2019 1:54:31 PM >

(in reply to ultradave)

Post #: 5

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 5:37:33 AM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin

Yeah, I'm seeing the issues that were fixed in 1115.8 recur in 1115.9. Iron bombs from 36000 feet, scattering them across half the county. Once again, strike missions are a complete ****show.

Someone didn't watch their revision history somewhere.

Let me know when someone at WarfareSims gets this straightened out so I can play the game, rather than having to retest fixed stuff every time a change comes along, because things won't stay fixed...get some quality control, ffs. If this was a 20 dollar game, it would be one thing...but it's not. Start acting like you're putting out a premium product, not some fly by night operation.

Getting tired of this crap.

EDIT: Writing off 1115.9, going back to 1115.8.
When you can't count on strike missions to actually get altitudes and speeds right, you're in a world of hurt to even start. Get that right *and stay right*, then we can continue forward. Till then, it's just unplayable. The whole game is built around missions, and when the results of them can't be predicted by the creators of them, it's just bad.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3585262

Points 1, 5 and 6 are relevant.

_____________________________

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 6

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 8:23:09 AM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin

Yeah, I'm seeing the issues that were fixed in 1115.8 recur in 1115.9. Iron bombs from 36000 feet, scattering them across half the county. Once again, strike missions are a complete ****show.

Someone didn't watch their revision history somewhere.

Let me know when someone at WarfareSims gets this straightened out so I can play the game, rather than having to retest fixed stuff every time a change comes along, because things won't stay fixed...get some quality control, ffs. If this was a 20 dollar game, it would be one thing...but it's not. Start acting like you're putting out a premium product, not some fly by night operation.

Getting tired of this crap.

EDIT: Writing off 1115.9, going back to 1115.8.
When you can't count on strike missions to actually get altitudes and speeds right, you're in a world of hurt to even start. Get that right *and stay right*, then we can continue forward. Till then, it's just unplayable. The whole game is built around missions, and when the results of them can't be predicted by the creators of them, it's just bad.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3585262

Points 1, 5 and 6 are relevant.

Mavfin, we all understand it is frustrating when you find a bug in software. However it sounds like you don't understand how development works. Just because a bug that used to occur and was fixed reappears, does not mean someone got their versions mixed up or made a mistake. Bugs can have multiple causes and when software gets as complex as Command there can be unexpected results when you change code. The team do an amazing job of layering the complexity while maintaining stability. Please keep your comments respectful or we will take further action.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to Rory Noonan)

Post #: 7

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 1:04:53 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 8

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 1:25:34 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
[snipped pic]

Yeah, I probably deserved that. I edited my rant. Try not to take it personally. I know you're trying to get things right. My apologies, FWIW.

I feel like I'm trying to test things to help you get things right, but, things can get very frustrating when you spend a week testing things, and the stuff you thought was fixed returns in all its glory.

I guess the worst thing was that I was thinking "Hmm, the strike mission basics are pretty much working now. Maybe I can actually play now, not test!" But that was not to be.

Yes, I overdid it, and I have acknowledged that, but, just keep in mind how it looks from this end, after all the selling points that were made about CMO, etc. Paid 90 bucks for this and Tacview coming up on two weeks ago, and haven't been able to 'play' yet, because important basic pieces aren't working correctly.

I know that there will always be issues. I had CMANO for a couple years, and Harpoon in all its versions before it. I remember getting a bugfix on a floppy in the US Mail from Don Gilman once.

< Message edited by mavfin -- 11/26/2019 1:44:22 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 9

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 2:11:14 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Now, that "Why so mean?" picture is funny? <lol>

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 10

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 2:24:50 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Now, that "Why so mean?" picture is funny? <lol>

It is. He got me good.

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 11

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 2:26:33 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
[snipped pic]

Yeah, I probably deserved that. I edited my rant. Try not to take it personally. I know you're trying to get things right. My apologies, FWIW.

I feel like I'm trying to test things to help you get things right, but, things can get very frustrating when you spend a week testing things, and the stuff you thought was fixed returns in all its glory.

I guess the worst thing was that I was thinking "Hmm, the strike mission basics are pretty much working now. Maybe I can actually play now, not test!" But that was not to be.

Yes, I overdid it, and I have acknowledged that, but, just keep in mind how it looks from this end, after all the selling points that were made about CMO, etc. Paid 90 bucks for this and Tacview coming up on two weeks ago, and haven't been able to 'play' yet, because important basic pieces aren't working correctly.

I know that there will always be issues. I had CMANO for a couple years, and Harpoon in all its versions before it. I remember getting a bugfix on a floppy in the US Mail from Don Gilman once.

Thank you.

We realized that the last patch was more steps back than forward, and we took it down. We will push for release B1115.8.1 instead, which combines the mostly satisfactory airops behavior of .8 with the new ground-PF fixes.

For what it's worth, we are sorry for the aggravation & frustration caused. We really hoped we had nailed all the majors over the weekend. Obviously we were wrong.

We will try to do better.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 12

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 2:49:18 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin

EDIT: I have removed the rant. I tend to vent when frustrated.

More at the end.

You want to own something like that then leave it up. Its a great example of what its like dealing with some customers.

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 13

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 2:55:32 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin

EDIT: I have removed the rant. I tend to vent when frustrated.

More at the end.

You want to own something like that then leave it up. Its a great example of what its like dealing with some customers.

There's copies of it in the next two replies, where they threatened me. I removed it to apologize to Dimitris, because I was a bit hard on him. It's still up there. I owned it in my reply to his pic, too.

As far as I'm concerned, I vented, apologized for overdoing it, and I don't hold grudges. It's over with.

< Message edited by mavfin -- 11/26/2019 2:59:03 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 14

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 3:37:46 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

That's not the same as leaving it up.

(in reply to mavfin)

Post #: 15

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 3:39:54 PM

thewood1

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

"where they threatened me"

You'll have to point that out to me. That's a pretty serious accusation.

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 16

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 7:47:03 PM

ultradave

Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline

Must be the keep it respectful or we'll take further action part. Which was deserved.

BUUUUT.... after all that bluster, I have an important question.

If you are going to back out and stay with 1115.8.1, since I've already installed 1115.9, what is the best course to follow? Figured I'd ask before totally bollixing something up.

I'm thinking that if I install 1115.8.1 there are probably some things in that that aren't in .9 and vice versa, which could lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. I think .8.1 was just the executable if I remember right? But .9 has lots of other changes.

Please advise.

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to thewood1)

Post #: 17

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 7:56:16 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

In another thread I mentioned that I merely swapped the exe files and everything seems to work as it did before 9 came out.

I, too, had some concerns and posed the same question, but never received a response, so I took the big gamble. It worked.

It's my understanding that a new, actual update (based on 8), will be forthcoming, so it probably doesn't matter one way or the other.

All that being said, I'm not a spokesman for the company, so this is just my opinion. So, proceed with caution. <lol>

(in reply to ultradave)

Post #: 18

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 7:58:34 PM

ultradave

Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline

Yes, thanks. I found that. I came here first to see what the story was. I've done that and the Driving the Daisies mission now works correctly. No magical Terrain Following check marks.

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 19

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/26/2019 8:14:16 PM

DWReese

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline

Progress....<G>

(in reply to ultradave)

Post #: 20

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/27/2019 12:59:39 PM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

@Thewood1, Mavfin admitted he overacted and apologised and there is no need to say any more. We are all passionate about Command and sometimes that passion clouds our judgement and we're all guilty of it so lets be friends and move on. We consider the matter closed! :)

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to DWReese)

Post #: 21

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/29/2019 1:07:26 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

mavfin < Is there some "reference" scenario (related to flight plans & waypoints) that we can check against when we (try to) fix existing issues? We don't like having stable things breaking any more than you do, but currently we don't have a reference yardstick.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 22

RE: Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed sh... - 11/29/2019 4:09:55 PM

mavfin

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

mavfin < Is there some "reference" scenario (related to flight plans & waypoints) that we can check against when we (try to) fix existing issues? We don't like having stable things breaking any more than you do, but currently we don't have a reference yardstick.

For air ops tests, I've been using the Basic Air Operations, 1983 from CMANO, updated to either DB3K 478 (highest CMANO) or DB3K 480 (current highest CMO). It's already set up to do various air mission types, but it lets you do one type of thing at a time, and observe the results. Yes, I've been told, I guess, that it's 'old' as a 'tutorial' but it works for testing as you have a variety of targets, and you can run against air defenses, or try stuff after the SAMS are dead.

Gold star for whoever wrote it. Simple, but flexible to test with. Also, you can toss a LOT of ordnance at the 3 zillion revetments for a while if you want to try bomb drops, flight patterns, etc, under mission control.

Yes, you have to make your own missions, but, I *like* that in this case. There's standoff weapons, iron bombs, and LGBs, as well as antiradar missiles. Old crappy antiradar missiles, but they work for this.

The only thing it's short on is aerial targets. Only 8. But, while Air Intercept has some isssues with early RTB, you can micro around that till it's fixed by just unassigning and re-assigning to get them on task. I can work around, imo, smaller grouping issues as well for now, since I know they're logged. If you need more saves on that, I can probably do better in another scenario or two.

When four planes stacked from the deck to 36000 feet in the same group, and dropped iron bombs at 36000 feet, scattering across 40 acres, that was pretty unworkable, to me, and so far, 1115.8.1 took care of the really nasty stuff. You do still have some issues in the grouping code, as DWReese submitted, but they're (to me) not 'unplayable'.

The air scenario I mentioned, as well as the sub and ship counterparts from CMANO are useful for highlighting various pieces so you can test them mostly alone before combining them with other things simultaneously, and make sure you get expected results.

Also, if I keep running the same scenario, I can tell what changed from revision to revision, but not take forever to run.

Run it with the same missions and general order in 1115.7 and 1115.8 and 1115.8.1 and differences should be pretty obvious. Tacview makes it more visible, especially with in-group height problems.

There are far more complex scenarios to run against, of course...but there you get into too many things going on at once, and you can't point your finger at where the problem most likely lies. Too many mechanisms going at once.

< Message edited by mavfin -- 11/29/2019 4:13:13 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 23

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [1115.9 Rollback - NCR] Flight Ops - several issues I thought were fixed show in 1115.9

Page: [1]