Deployment Mode

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

What's needed is a completely new program written from scratch as a proper windows program.

With your experience, is there any way that you could give a reasonable estimate of the cost and time needed to complete such a project?

I'm assuming that most computer programs like the kind contemplated are written by teams of people. And could take at least 6 months. Depending on the size of the team and the complexity of the code ( what features it contains ). The cost could rise to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I suggest something like a team of volunteers like open source code.

[thomasharvey]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: cathar1244
IIRC, one of the playtesters (Hellen?) mentioned the CTDs happened (at least part of the time) in conjunction with naval movement and / or combat. That may be a clue as to scenarios without naval action suffer from them less.

I'll just mention that Shiloh has a couple of naval units.

And I'll mention that I used Operation Cartwheel thru a lot of the Beta period to test stuff and never had a crash, and I mentioned before that T. Harvey has several large and small naval-centric scenarios that he was testing thru out Beta and I don't recall him reporting any crashes.
I'm not discounting anything, I'm saying that whatever it is has been impossible to isolate so far. It's also worth mentioning, from a troubleshooting perspective, that none of these crashes have been reported with the stock scenarios that came with the game.

I have spent most of my time since the issuance of TOAWIV making PO versions of all my scenarios. I have run them in testing 24 hours per day with PO vs PO. Rarely do they crash for days on end but once in a while they do. I am using the 30 version. My main problem is the naval air interdiction under PO control goes in and out. All my scenarios use naval warfare extensively. The Pacific war in full size does not work on PO control for naval air interdiction. But I do now have the entire Europe area of WW2 in full PO control including naval air warfare. These are modified to help the PO perform better against a human but the interdiction on PO control is the limiting factor.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I know what you mean, but actually a lot of the veteran players are not happy with the way things are at all. Having put up with the way that development has been for the past thirteen years, us veterans are a little more selective in picking our battles. So, if it isn't broke, let's first act on something that is broke. There are improvements that we would all like

Sure, I can definitely appreciate that.

[sPzAbt653]

Rarely do they crash for days on end but once in a while they do. ... The Pacific war in full size does not work on PO control for naval air interdiction.

Ok there we go, there is some crashing in that one, but still no idea why. [:(]

Why do you say that PO control doesn't work in some scenario's ?

[thomasharvey]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Rarely do they crash for days on end but once in a while they do. ... The Pacific war in full size does not work on PO control for naval air interdiction.

Ok there we go, there is some crashing in that one, but still no idea why. [:(]

Why do you say that PO control doesn't work in some scenario's ?

PO control sometimes does not work for interdiction. There is a default to ground support for bombers of all types and air superiority for all fighters. Normally it should include air to ground interdiction, sea interdiction as well as ground support for bomber units. There will always be a few on rest. Without interdiction of some kind the PO can not perform air strikes against ships when it is the PO portion of the turn.

Some scenarios work well, some work off and on and some do not work at all. I have not figured out why this happens.

My PO version of World at War 1943-1945 works perfectly in all respects for the Axis interdiction PO all the way from start to finish. However, the PO for the Allied side will provide no interdiction at all. I have not figured out why one side works and the other does not.

Ground action works well in all scenarios along with PO movement of ships at sea and ground troops moving at sea.

[thomasharvey]

With a functioning PO interdiction you see this. Note the one sea interdiction unit and the interdiction of 4% on the right side of the screen shot. It is under PO control. If you see a single interdiction or sea interdiction in the list of aicraft, it is working. If none are seen when there should be some, then it is not. This is the allies in the pacific early in the scenario. They have relatively few aircraft at this point.

[thomasharvey]

With a non functioning air PO you see this. Note no interdiction assignments of any kind when there should be both interdiction, sea interdiction as well as ground support. This is the same scenario in the Pacific with the Japanese at their peak first few turns. They can't function at all if there is no interdiction assignment. No allied ships would be attacked by the PO. Also note the interdiction level is 0%.

[thomasharvey]

The air staff assistant also gives the same result when under PO control. It will assign air strikes on airfields in addition to both types of interdiction when working normally. When it is not working it will default everything to just ground support or air superiority.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The 'New' editor is not complete [and from what our project manager says it will not be completed]...

A falsehood.

This is confusing. It was my understanding that the scenario editor was going to be left as is. Seems I'm not the only one who thought the same. Now you say that is a falsehood. Does that mean the scenario editor is going to be worked on after all? Has the thinking about a separate scenario editor been changed?

[sPzAbt653]

Thanks for the info Thomas. I might guess that when Elmer is assigning missions that he has some parameters to go by, so he is doing different things in different scenarios. Similar to the blowing of bridges. If there isn't now then maybe someday there will be a way for designers to influence Air Missions.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The 'New' editor is not complete [and from what our project manager says it will not be completed]...

A falsehood.

This is confusing. It was my understanding that the scenario editor was going to be left as is. Seems I'm not the only one who thought the same. Now you say that is a falsehood. Does that mean the scenario editor is going to be worked on after all? Has the thinking about a separate scenario editor been changed?

First of all, the above was about the Force Editor, not the whole smear. (The Scenario Editor itself is being expanded as I speak.)

And how one gets from "delayed" to "never completed" I just don't know.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And how one gets from "delayed" to "never completed" I just don't know.

I think the distinction is often remarked at about the 4-5 year mark, especially when there is no news about on-going work or progress. From what you've said before, it sounds like this is also an issue for Tamas...

For instance, I bought WiF to play the Europe-only scenarios, which were supposedly to be released shortly after the game was released. By now we're 8-9 years down the road, and they are still not released (AFAIK, uninstalled game long ago). Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I'm putting that in the "never completed" box.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And how one gets from "delayed" to "never completed" I just don't know.

I think the distinction is often remarked at about the 4-5 year mark, especially when there is no news about on-going work or progress. From what you've said before, it sounds like this is also an issue for Tamas...

For instance, I bought WiF to play the Europe-only scenarios, which were supposedly to be released shortly after the game was released. By now we're 8-9 years down the road, and they are still not released (AFAIK, uninstalled game long ago). Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I'm putting that in the "never completed" box.

This is what happens when a conversion that belonged on the Development Board (where there's plenty of news about on-going work) gets exposed on the Main Board.

[Blond_Knight]

Maybe you could expand or open up your development group? There's clearly a desire to see IV succeed.
Im no world class coder but I have written a little LUA and I write powershell scripts for work.

[sPzAbt653]

And how one gets from "delayed" to "never completed" I just don't know.

I guess it's a relic in my mind from when we switched to the Graphics from the Editor, a mis-remembrance or misunderstanding, but it doesn't matter as long it isn't in the 'never completed' category.

Tom does, however, have a point about the time frame. Is there any consideration for enlisting any help from the volunteers here or elsewhere?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

First of all, the above was about the Force Editor, not the whole smear.

I have information to the contrary. It's good to know things have changed.

[Zovs]

I am free to volunteer.

[Lobster]

Free and volunteer. How can they pass that up? [;)]

[Zovs]

The radio waves went silent, the night was fast approaching and in the distances the steady din of creeping artillery was churning towards our CP and then there was a deadly silence...