BFTB Service Pack 1 - Progress

[Panther Paul]

Changes in Service Pack 1.

Establishments:

• Fixed various issues.

Scenarios:

• Tweaked scenarios, including initial deployments.
• Fixed spelling mistakes.
• Added extra background information.

Maps:

• Losheim - updated.

Game Fixed Issues:

• BT0007 - CTD - Give order, let run, pause and set end time of task to time now, start game again, crash.
• BT0029 - CTD - Caused by slip task code and how AI interacted with UI. (reported by GliderRecon whild playing Hofen-Ho-Down) Post
• BT0032 - HHour was not reset when player task type changed from Attack/Probe by adding waypoint using Shift click. Caused AI issues.
• BT0034 - There is a function to turn player Fire/Bombard tasks into defend tasks once they expire. Was doing for all task types which could cause AI issues.
• BT0033 - CTD - Artillery unit causes crash if reattached or game left to run. (reported by CptWasp) Post
• BT0038 - Unable to Prime/UnPrime bridges when issuing orders to non Engineers, even if Engineers part of force. (reported by Renato) Post
• BT0039 - LOS issues when enemy gets within 3K. (reported by Chief Rudiger) Post
• BT0020 - CTD - Player able to give Exit order to force when no Exit objectives. (reported by scsfan) Post
• BT0041 - CTD - AI was attempting to send a message to player about a future plan it was abandoning, this caused crash as future plans dont have all the data needed for a message. (reported by Stryker) Post
• BT0055 - Player sets HHour for attack, AI was cribbing and bringing forward the HHour, which made it difficult to coordinate multiple attacks, fixed.
• BT0056 - Error in the Task Doctrine code causing issues for the AI, fixed.
• BT0057 - Error with Fixed Point Number Utility code, fixed.
• BT0058 - Error in scheduling code, trying to update a force plan based on new orders but was not catering for a future plan properly, fixed.

Service Pack is code complete - testing installer and final packaging to go.

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

I'm just curious but I've noticed several references by Panther to "Service Packs" in various threads throughout the forum. This term appears to be brand new for BFTB as it does not appear in the HTTR or COTA forums. In those forums you folks posted about patches. The 2 terms are not necessarily the same........
Soooooooo, does this imply a change in marketing and/or delivery strategies? ie. patches are fixes and SP's are fixes and new features/content ala MS Windows?
Or is it just a rose by any other name is still a rose?

Rob.[:)]

[wodin]

I inagine a service patch fixes bugs...a patch will add minor features and I hope fix the data entries on some of the weapons as to me thats as important as a bug or crash...

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Panther Paul

Work has commenced on resolving issues with the initial release.

Do you anticipate changes being made to the estab data? If so, will that mean any mods to the estabs will become outdated/obsolete? This is important, as I don't want to create weapons/vehicles/formations that can't take advantage the amended/corrected data. [:)]

If the data is going to be altered, it would be better for us if the existing estab is "patched," rather than simply replaced. If that's not possible, PLEASE publish a complete list of changes that are made to the estabs so that those who wish to incorporate the changes manually are able to do so.

[Panther Paul]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Hi,

I'm just curious but I've noticed several references by Panther to "Service Packs" in various threads throughout the forum. This term appears to be brand new for BFTB as it does not appear in the HTTR or COTA forums. In those forums you folks posted about patches. The 2 terms are not necessarily the same........
Soooooooo, does this imply a change in marketing and/or delivery strategies? ie. patches are fixes and SP's are fixes and new features/content ala MS Windows?
Or is it just a rose by any other name is still a rose?

Rob.[:)]

Huh!

I have been working on Microsoft products for to long [:)]

Service Pack == Patch

[Panther Paul]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Panther Paul

Work has commenced on resolving issues with the initial release.

Do you anticipate changes being made to the estab data? If so, will that mean any mods to the estabs will become outdated/obsolete? This is important, as I don't want to create weapons/vehicles/formations that can't take advantage the amended/corrected data. [:)]

If the data is going to be altered, it would be better for us if the existing estab is "patched," rather than simply replaced. If that's not possible, PLEASE publish a complete list of changes that are made to the estabs so that those who wish to incorporate the changes manually are able to do so.

A cpuple of problems with Estab data have been reported and hopefully will be fixed.

As you can export the estab file to XML all you need to do when you get the latest one is run a comparison between the two. This will hightlight the differences and it should be a fairly small job to merge them.

I just use a free utility called KDiff.

[Panther Paul]

BT0038 Fixed

[Panther Paul]

BT0039 Fixed

[Panther Paul]

BT0020 Fixed

[GBS]

Paul, you seem to be making progress. Will we see the service pack this weekend perhaps?

[Panther Paul]

Hi,

I have about four CTD bugs lef to investigate. Now these might turn out to be already solved, as my first couple of fixes seem to have resolved most of the CTD where I have a save game to try.

Then there are still a bunch of medium and low tasks, not all "bugs", some are suggestions for improvements or AI quirks (these can be harder, after all, get two grognards in a room and each will have historicaly verified sources for the AI doing/not doing what it is doing [:D]).

Once we are satisfied that everything that needs to be in the first patch is done, we will issue a build to our trusty Beta Testers. Once they are satisfied we have fixed things and not made any stuff ups we will be ready to sign off on it.

As Dave is heading off to the USA in a couple of days I don't think we will issue it till he gets back (so he can run his eye over the finished result).

[FredSanford3]

Is the HQ-leading-the-charge issue included?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2488592

[Panther Paul]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Is the HQ-leading-the-charge issue included?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2488592

Yep, definitely on the must fix list. (Not that I expect to get rid of every occurance, but to make it much less likely.)

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Is the HQ-leading-the-charge issue included?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2488592

Is this in reference to the final reorg for an attack?

[wodin]

I find the HQ's in attack are working fine when the distance isn't to great when it is they sometimes run into trouble going to the FUP as they seem to take the lead... HQ's seem to take the lead in a move order aswell a fair bit of the time which can get them into trouble

[daft]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I find the HQ's in attack are working fine when the distance isn't to great when it is they sometimes run into trouble going to the FUP as they seem to take the lead... HQ's seem to take the lead in a move order aswell a fair bit of the time which can get them into trouble

What I have noticed (and reported) is that the HQ sometimes gets "impatient" and moves in to its final position at the objective before the last of the enemy is rooted out. It is probably due to the logic of the final reorg as Dave asks above.

[wodin]

noticed that aswell...good call.

[Arjuna]

One easy thing I can do to reduce the likelihood of the HQ running into enemy in the move to the objective for the final reorg is to test for intervening enemy and enemy near to the objective. If it finds any then it can either reorg in situ ( ie at the reserve loc ) or delay the start of its move to the objective. If I do the former then I have to create a separate task for the HQ and have the assault group reorg by itself. This will have knock on effects throughout the scheduling code and hence may take some time. If I just delay the start time of the final reorg, then I can avoid that "change" and "risk" but there may still be occassions where the HQ runs into trouble. It will be reduces not obviated. I think I will opt for this latter approach for now and see how that works.

[FredSanford3]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Is the HQ-leading-the-charge issue included?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2488592

Is this in reference to the final reorg for an attack?

No, I've noticed it when moving larger (regt+) formations using the move or exit command. The subordinate units will sit still with a move task on their current position while the HQ just motors on by, and into trouble.

[Arjuna]

FN,

Do you have a saved game where this occurs, preferably one taken after the order butbefore you noticed the HQ moving first?