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

[ultradave]

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).

[Dimitris]

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 ?

[ultradave]

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.

[ultradave]

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.

[mavfin]

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

More at the end.

[Rory Noonan]

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 shitshow.

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.

[IainMcNeil]

ORIGINAL: apache85

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 shitshow.

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.

[Dimitris]

[mavfin]

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.

[DWReese]

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

[mavfin]

ORIGINAL: DWReese

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

It is. He got me good. [&o]

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mavfin

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.

[thewood1]

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.

[mavfin]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

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.

[thewood1]

That's not the same as leaving it up.

[thewood1]

"where they threatened me"

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

[ultradave]

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.

[DWReese]

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>

[ultradave]

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.

[DWReese]

Progress....<G>