Matrix Games Forums

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. It really destroys the game in many aspects. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.

It can be, and is done for CMO PE. For whatever reason they don't want to allow it in the consumer version.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

I could have done a better job wording things. I meant to say that the way tacview is implemented it destroys the value of tacview-you can't use it without seeing everything in most cases.

Otherwise the improvements to the game are excellent. Without tacview CMO is very well done. You really don't need tacview. May have been better just have left it out.

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. It really destroys the game in many aspects. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.

It can be, and is done for CMO PE. For whatever reason they don't want to allow it in the consumer version.

Kinda strange as to why they don't want it in the commercial version. Not sure what the reasoning is.

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.

I agree with the immersion part, but I was playing a scenario and used tacview to watch a Seahawk attack a sub, once I opened tacview a second sub that was undetected was visible and that pretty much ruined the scenario. I think it might have been better to have just left tacview out of the equation. Eventually it may get modified, so its a wait and see for now.

Otherwise the interface changes and other changes have made this a very big improvement to the sim. I had high expectations for tacview, its turned out to be the biggest dissapointment but I can use it for other purposes.

What the heck is "immersion"? This is a command level sim/game. "Immersion" should be sitting in a dark room building missions and getting delayed feedback on how they executed. If you want "immersion" where you can see cute little planes flying around, I still think you are the wrong game. The devs tried to satisfy the "immersion" crowd as simply and effectively as possible. And as the old adage goes...No good deed goes unpunished. I guess we can all stop playing since the game is destroyed.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

What the heck is "immersion"? This is a command level sim/game. "Immersion" should be sitting in a dark room building missions and getting delayed feedback on how they executed. If you want "immersion" where you can see cute little planes flying around, I still think you are the wrong game. The devs tried to satisfy the "immersion" crowd as simply and effectively as possible. And as the old adage goes...No good deed goes unpunished. I guess we can all stop playing since the game is destroyed.

You do realize that just because that's your idea of immersion, it doesn't mean it's that same for others? (as evidenced by the poll).

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.

Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.

I agree with the immersion part, but I was playing a scenario and used tacview to watch a Seahawk attack a sub, once I opened tacview a second sub that was undetected was visible and that pretty much ruined the scenario. I think it might have been better to have just left tacview out of the equation. Eventually it may get modified, so its a wait and see for now.

Otherwise the interface changes and other changes have made this a very big improvement to the sim. I had high expectations for tacview, its turned out to be the biggest dissapointment but I can use it for other purposes.

Oh for sure, they have to fix FoW for Tacview to be useful. There isn't really any way around it, since we can't use it for AAR.

Tacview is a literal game changer, they just need to get the implementation right. (And I have faith they will)

Hello !
I'm part of the beta tester team. We already had that kind of discussion within the beta team.

What I can say is that there may be a way to implement FoW (Al already made great generic shapes for that use), but it will take some manpower to do it.

Tacview is a big feature, but not a core one. I think that there is actually some more top priorities than FoW (I'm not talking for the Dev Team, just my own view).

BUT, priorities are not the same for everyone and the devs are really listening to us/you. So please, go to vote for request feature to show them.

At that time, FoW begin to be a priority user request (if I refer strictly to the vote result).

And you may have other helpfull suggestions

Thanks !

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

While I understand the potential value of Tacview here, I still bought this game to play it as an improved CMANO - a strategy game.

Maybe I'm old school, but early on in CMANO there were calls to use a 3D display with unit models; I favoured the devs spending their man-hours on improving the game strategy and functionality rather than the visuals. For that reason I'd still prioritise the Advanced Mission Planner over Tacview FoW.

Visuals are nice, but I bought this game for the beef.

+1
It would be a pity if CMO steers in the direction of flight simulators.
But I think the devs have a clear view of their objectives.

ORIGINAL: Andrea G

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

While I understand the potential value of Tacview here, I still bought this game to play it as an improved CMANO - a strategy game.

Maybe I'm old school, but early on in CMANO there were calls to use a 3D display with unit models; I favoured the devs spending their man-hours on improving the game strategy and functionality rather than the visuals. For that reason I'd still prioritise the Advanced Mission Planner over Tacview FoW.

Visuals are nice, but I bought this game for the beef.

+1
It would be a pity if CMO steers in the direction of flight simulators.
But I think the devs have a clear view of their objectives.

You are kind of making a false argument - they don't need to come up with a 3d engine and all the issues that come with that - they are relying on a third party program for visualization. They just need to adjust the data that's being fed to it, a significantly easier task.

The challenge is to display units whose radar data is no longer up to date. In case of an aircraft you would see a static object hovering in the air. Or how would you represent an old unit radar blib? TacView has its limits as well.

ORIGINAL: CmdSoda

The challenge is to display units whose radar data is no longer up to date. In case of an aircraft you would see a static object hovering in the air. Or how would you represent an old unit radar blib? TacView has its limits as well.

As I said before, other games have tackled this issue quite nicely and simply - whatever your map says, is what tacview displays. I already went over how other games handle ambiguous contacts.

It's really that simple.

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr
Oh for sure, they have to fix FoW for Tacview to be useful. There isn't really any way around it, since we can't use it for AAR.

Tacview is a literal game changer, they just need to get the implementation right. (And I have faith they will)

It is VERY annoying when you keep saying the dev team has to "fix" this. "Fix" implies something is broken, ie. something is not working as designed. This is not the case here. Tacview has always, I repeat _always_, worked like this. There is _nothing_ major to fix. Adding FOW is a major development item for implementing _additional functionality_ and making Tacview work in ways it was never designed to in the first place.

So please, say "add" or "implement". It's a small change for you, but it's an important distinction for us.

Thank you.

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr
Oh for sure, they have to fix FoW for Tacview to be useful. There isn't really any way around it, since we can't use it for AAR.

Tacview is a literal game changer, they just need to get the implementation right. (And I have faith they will)

It is VERY annoying when you keep saying the dev team has to "fix" this. "Fix" implies something is broken, ie. something is not working as designed. This is not the case here. Tacview has always, I repeat _always_, worked like this. There is _nothing_ major to fix. Adding FOW is a major development item for implementing _additional functionality_ and making Tacview work in ways it was never designed to in the first place.

So please, say "add" or "implement". It's a small change for you, but it's an important distinction for us.

Thank you.

Dimitris, Tacview was designed for AAR, where FoW does not matter - Since we can't use it for that in the consumer version, in it's current implementation it's not usable by anyone who doesn't want to cheat, which is why I've been using the word "fix" up until now.

I have a ton of respect for you and the other devs, so I'll do as you ask, but please try to understand it from our point of view as well.

oops

I use tacview the follownig way without cheating:

i use a small tacview window with max zoom in just to see the chosen unittype in 3d i know, it's too expensive for this kind of "fun".

I'm going to make a potentially contradictory argument here.

Immersion is important for games. It mentally puts us, the player, into the hot seat of a particular game.

Maybe it's a Warthog driver moving mud or a Supercub pilot waterskipping its tundras. Perhaps it's a pioneering colonist chopping wood for a granary or mining minerals for a Martian base. Could be a warrior countersniping in a ruined tractor factory or a tankie hurling sabot rounds at that faint glow through the gap in the trees. There's excitement in slaying a rogue griffon with a silver sword, while others have given up that adventurous stuff after taking an arrow to the knee. Some folks point and click their way around a detective thriller, others leap between platforms to collect eggs while dodging a giant flying duck. A few of us even remember having to "go south" and "get sandwiches".

While they're a relatively recent medium of entertainment, computer games have spawned a plethora of genres and produced an impressive amount of excellence. Key to that excellence is the ability to immerse the player in a particular role. CMO is a strategy game; the hotseat is that of an operational commander. We marshall our forces, coordinate actions and make judgement calls with a limited situation awareness like a real commander. IMO CMANO did an excellent job in providing such immersion, and CMO is set to take that further.

What about Tacview? Does it fit with that sense of immersion? I'm new to it and quite like it - but I admit it changes the nature of the immersion. When I use it I'm no longer the commander - I'm the wingman or observer viewing an action from close quarters. That's not usually what operational commanders do. I realise it's been edging me away from the main reason I play this game. So even if CMO is extended to include Tacview FoW why would I use it? The main reason would be as a learning tool, to better understand the consequences of the decisions I make as a commander. An excellent accompaniment for tutorials and trying out new techniques; an opportunity to learn from AARs and replays. Nevertheless I've a feeling I won't use it so much when I'm playing "for real".

But hey, that's me; everyone has a different take on this game. Other people will value Tacview for different reasons from me; they paid their money too so who am I to say they shouldn't? That's why there's a request thread - to get feedback on what players would like. I've already expressed my preference to prioritise the AMP; at present that's the most popular but TacFoW is close behind. I'd argue that the AMP will significantly enhance the operational command aspect of the game while TacFoW will not.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

Many commercial programmers are familiar with the idea of low-hanging fruit. Clients want all sorts of changes and improvements; some enhancements take a lot of work before any results are apparent, others take less effort to create satisfaction. A quick burst of wow! can make clients happy enough to stop breathing down our necks so we can get on with the tough stuff.

Could TacFoW be in that category? I read the argument that it's "only" filtering what's fed to Tacview; I don't know how CMO works under the hood, but I don't reckon it's quite as simple as that. I'm guessing there'll be all sorts of issues about sorting, timing, threading and synchronisation optimised for different purposes.

Nevertheless I don't reckon it will be quite the giant extended nightmare that the AMP could be. Not least because the TacFoW goals are pretty straight-forward, whereas narrowing down what an AMP should do will likely take much debate and thrashing out of concepts before a single spec or line of code is written. It follows that it may be worth the devs' efforts to get Tacview FoW out of the way, impressing many close-quarters combatants and bringing new blood to CMO, before embarking on The Big One for all of us old-school commanders.

So, OK - maybe "do" Tacview first.

I just fired up my first CMO scenario. It took about 3 minutes to figure out how to get my Steam-installed TacView to work with CMO.

Well, now that I've seen it...I love it.

Sure, it could be improved, but it was great seeing the 3D geometry of the fight.

I'm a fan.