v1.101b Public Beta Now Available!

[Mac Linehan]

Erik -

A sincere "Thank You" to the AE Skunkworks Team; may the magic continue!

Mac

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

My main issue with playing on 1920x1200 is that the order entry screens seem slower - I assume this is because I only have 512M on my video card. I will probably wind up with multiple icons as others are doing, so I can load up the game in HIRES mode when I want an overview or LORES mode when I need to key in lots of orders.

No problems here after some initial tweeking. You mean this screen correct? I just love being able to see the map now.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I was going to experiment on this.

Should I just try stretching the graphics to a uniform 125 or 150%?

Combat animations are fine, it's the display menu's that need resized.

Hi Halsey,

If you need larger icons have you considered just using a lower resolution and making it full screen??

In my case I have a 1920x1200 monitor but I can set up a 1680x1050 screen which will stretch to fill the monitor under full screen. This stretching will also increase the size of the icons as well though you will end up with less map displayed. Everything is a compromise but it is still better than the standard 1024x768 stretched to full screen.

I think your approach with the larger icons will be problematic as resizing them has so many knock on effects, not the least of which is there is only so much space in a hex.

However, I think an alternate color(/shape) icon set is a fantastic idea as it will help colorblind and sight impaired players immensely (at all resolutions).

Best of luck,

[Halsey]

Thanks for the info.
I'll give your resolutions a try.

Just trying to find a visual balance.
Nice to see more of the map, but still need to have the screen menus more visible for orders.

The colors I used were also to find a balance in veiwing the map.
Plus making it look more like a military representaion of what was going on.
The overabundance of Red and Green on the map was hurting my MkI eyeballs.[:D]

[WLockard]

I am using a 24" monitor in 1920 x 1200 driven by a Nvidia 8800 GTX with 768 MB and I love it. I did have some problems with graphics not updating on mouse overs in full screen mode that was fixed by not using the -dd_sw switch. Oddly, there are no glitches in windowed mode using the -dd_sw switch.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Thanks for the info.
I'll give your resolutions a try.

Just trying to find a visual balance.
Nice to see more of the map, but still need to have the screen menus more visible for orders.

The colors I used were also to find a balance in viewing the map.
Plus making it look more like a military representation of what was going on.
The overabundance of Red and Green on the map was hurting my MkI eyeballs.[:D]

Keep trying resolutions until you find the one that suits you best. [:)]

I would create a set of shortcuts with different options and put them on my desktop so you can pick and choose what resolution to start the game in. (Oh look at that, I already have.... [:D])

Just be aware that if the aspect ratio of the screen resolution you pick does not match the aspect ratio of your monitor, you may get stretch distortion or black bars (depending on how your monitor/video card image scaling options are set). There are multiple threads on this forum regarding this issue.

The other thing to take into account is that BigJ62 has already said there will be changes to widescreen with the official release of Patch 3 so I wouldn't get too carried away. [;)]

Best of luck.

[AW1Steve]

Is there anywhere on the forum that give detailed, simplified instruction for the "not technically inclined" to set up wide screen use? You know, wide screen WITP AE for dummies?[8|][:D]

[jwilkerson]

The instructions are in the beta patch 03 readme file ...

[Fishbed]

oops, please disregard. Wrong thread

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

We will only remove the "undocumented features" we can find - don't want a six month delay just to remove undocumented features! [:)]

Certainly.

Please only do so whenever with very dark glasses on [8D] I'd rather you leave them there and they get 'explained' later [;)]....

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Pascal
Certainly.

Please only do so whenever with very dark glasses on [8D] I'd rather you leave them there and they get 'explained' later [;)]....

Very funny, sure you are a big hit at partys. Those of us who developed these things are probably not quite as amused as you might wish though. But now they are gone: you win. So time to get off the pony and leave it be, yes? Thank you.

[captskillet]

If you like these.............






http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?z1jhrnh401v

[Grotius]

So is there an ETA on the arrival of the "final" version of this patch?

[Felmorian]

Well !
This game is amasing and the new patch (espacially for windows resolution) is great !
I've installed the new beta patch yesterday, and I use this command line to launch the game :
"War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -px1680 -py1050 -SingleCpuOrders –cpu2 -dd_sw -deepColor -altFonts -w

Everything works, but sometimes (something like every 15min), when I click on something (Air squadron for exemple) I have a CDT (crash, windows return)...
The only thing I do is patching and using this new comand line (before the patch, I haven't use command lines) !

I have an AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual 6400+, a GTX260, 4Go Ram... (screen resolution 1920/1080)

Any idea ?

[Cribtop]

Just to be very clear - the line discussing fixing TOE upgrades means we are ok to start with all facilities/units/bases set to not upgrade/expand now?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The instructions are in the beta patch 03 readme file ...

Thank you Joe. Yes, I read the instructions.



Now as I asked before, has anyone written the "Dummies guide" version? [&:]

[Grotius]

So this patch isn't "official" yet, I assume? My opponent and I are waiting until it gets to the "release" stage.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The instructions are in the beta patch 03 readme file ...

Thank you Joe. Yes, I read the instructions.



Now as I asked before, has anyone written the "Dummies guide" version? [&:]

There is a lot of discussion about this in one of the threads in the support forum - so check over there.

[Nemo121]

Is there any word on whether there two remaining problems will be fixed:


1. The code which prevents units getting "spread" between too many ships acts to prevent Allied naval forces from loading less than 250 points of cargo or troops per xAP or xAK and, as such, prevents ALlied amphibious TFs from unloading all of their troops/combat devices in a single day. End result Allied invasions of defended atolls are rendered almost impossible prior to the conversion of hosts of ships to APs since, right now, it would take 2 days to unload ( since more than 250 points of troops/devices are aboard each ship ) and the attacking unit would shock attack on two consecutive days, wrecking itself in the process.


2. The A2A battle typically tends to go to whichever side has the highest-flying fighters. Has any thought been given to including a relatively simple fix which compares the altitude differential and rolls a die to determine whether the high-flying sweep just fails to notice the low-flying CAP.

E.g. With a 20,000 feet altitude differential it ought to be 99% likely that the sweep would just fail to notice the CAP. This would prevent A2A ( which is hugely improved over WiTP ) from devolving into a very simple rock, paper, scissors game in which everyone just defaults to fighting at their maximum altitudes. It would make it important to have low-level sweeps also and add some complexity back into the A2A model.


3. Is there ANY possibility of being able to task fighters on CAP to either anti-fighter or anti-bomber tasking? Currently a Ki-45 which is a terrible dogfighter currently tries to dogfight with enemy fighters before attacking the bombers. It would make more sense to be able to set the Ki-45s to try and bore straight into the bombers, avoiding the enemy fighters.

When you look at German fighter defences they had a clear division between twin-engined fighter units and Fw-190F units which were tasked with going straight for the bombers and other fighters which were assigned to tackle with the enemy escorts to keep them from jumping the Zerstoerer units.



The reason I raise these three issues here is as follows:
1. Something which prevents the Allies mounting successful atoll invasions when they have more than enough ships available is, to my mind, a significant issue in a game modelling the Pacific War., It also pretty much condemns the Allies to doing no atoll invasions until mid-43... That may have been the case historically but that doesn't mean a bug in the game code should prevent it in-game. From what I understand disabling the bit of game code which prevents spreading units out over too many ships should fix this.

Of note: Later on in the war this same issue should begin effecting the IJN shipping and operations.


2 + 3... Right now Zerstorer -type planes are far less valuable than in real life because they always SEEK to tangle with the escorts before hitting the bombers. In real life they sought to avoid the escorts. As to altitude... well, that's just using a simple real-life based mechanism to restore realism to the A2A model and allow the complexity the team has built into it to be reflected in-game.


4. I've asked about 2 + 3 before but never really gotten an official answer.

[Misconduct]

where can we get the beta patch? sorry im confused