Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: MirabelleBenou

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 !

I was actually going to suggest invisible textures on tacview models to simulate faux FOW, or even a simple model of an invisible cube with a few LOD levels if tacview expects it to represent the invisible enemy.

It wouldn't be perfect since any labels or UI might still be visible and would be an all or nothing approach with the enemy always invisible, so isn't an ideal solution as it introduces the exact opposite problem of not seeing enough instead of too much.

It also isn't that user friendly since the right models would have to be made invisible for every single scenario. Although a modding type tool might be able to swap the right textures or models in and out of Tacview based on the scenario file.

If you need some manpower I can donate some time and have commercial versions of most 3D software like Maya or 3D Max for work.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

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.

If you are charging professionals significantly more and I don't know the exact price, but let's say 10 times as much for the sake of argument then you are going to have to give those customers value for money and a reason to pay the higher price.

Considering professionals and the military use CMO and Tacview for AARs, simulated exercises and teaching then that is an obvious feature you can offer to professionals to convince them to pay the far higher price, especially as the vast majority of home gamers aren't going to ever want or need to do an AAR.

I think it's actually a pretty clever decision and perfect way to differentiate the professional edition from the game we all play.

ORIGINAL: Anathema

ORIGINAL: MirabelleBenou

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 !

I was actually going to suggest invisible textures on tacview models to simulate faux FOW, or even a simple model of an invisible cube with a few LOD levels if tacview expects it to represent the invisible enemy.

It wouldn't be perfect since any labels or UI might still be visible and would be an all or nothing approach with the enemy always invisible, so isn't an ideal solution as it introduces the exact opposite problem of not seeing enough instead of too much.

It also isn't that user friendly since the right models would have to be made invisible for every single scenario. Although a modding type tool might be able to swap the right textures or models in and out of Tacview based on the scenario file.

If you need some manpower I can donate some time and have commercial versions of most 3D software like Maya or 3D Max for work.

Hello ! Manpower will mostly be needed for coding

But, if you want to help for custom shapes, feel free to do ! Dimitris just opened this thread :
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4720276

I personnaly use Blender, and Al use Rhino3D.

Thanks !

Coding should be as simple as:

Right guys? right??[:'(][:'(][;)][:)][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Well.... I'll not answer this [:'(]

Holy crap. Let me get my compiler out.

My vote would be for an AAR function ahead of implementing full FOW.

Anyone know if you record a CMO session and then 'replay' it - will TacView pull its data from the replay to give you a 3D AAR?

ORIGINAL: Anathema

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr




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.

If you are charging professionals significantly more and I don't know the exact price, but let's say 10 times as much for the sake of argument then you are going to have to give those customers value for money and a reason to pay the higher price.

Considering professionals and the military use CMO and Tacview for AARs, simulated exercises and teaching then that is an obvious feature you can offer to professionals to convince them to pay the far higher price, especially as the vast majority of home gamers aren't going to ever want or need to do an AAR.

I think it's actually a pretty clever decision and perfect way to differentiate the professional edition from the game we all play.

Oh it's also a perfect decision to create a trailer full with TACVIEW scenes, lure new players in to pay for both programs and then inform them that there is no Fog of War in TACVIEW - which is very unusual for a serious wargame.

I feel duped in this regard. CMO is brilliant, but I hardly use TacView anymore, even though I shelled out a lot of money for it. Pretty clever!

Hi kosmoface,

We are sorry that you are unsatisfied with your purchase. Please allow me to elaborate on a couple of things mentioned in this thread.

- TacView has always worked the way it does currently. It is a 3D visualisation of whatever is going on in the game or simulator that is attached to it. It is an extra and optional tool, to help immerse our playerbase. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Adding in a feature such as replicating fog of war (or maybe other effects, features etc.) is not an easy task in itself. It is something we have on our list, with many other changes and additions as requested by the community. WarfareSims has a great track record delivering post-release support, going well beyond what most devs are willing to offer. This is not something we expect to change soon, but at the same time, manpower is limited and features in a sim as complicated as Command, always takes time. Even if it looks something very small and easy to do on first appearance.

- Adding to this. TacView is there because the fans asked for it. This is also why it is highlighted in the trailers. All store pages warn that they are separate purchases though.

Best,

Surtur

There was a ton of information on TacView, its relationship to CMO, and its limitations on the product page, in the forums, and even mentioned in the streams. I sure hope you do a little more research next time you buy something.

- Adding in a feature such as replicating fog of war (or maybe other effects, features etc.) is not an easy task in itself. It is something we have on our list,

I see. That you want to implement it later on is really encouraging to hear and I am looking forward to this.

- Adding to this. TacView is there because the fans asked for it. This is also why it is highlighted in the trailers. All store pages warn that they are separate purchases though.

I don't have a problem paying extra for TACVIEW, as you say - this was very prominent to read. What I didn't know was that there is no Fog of War in TACVIEW - somehow I expected this, because it is very unusual for a serious wargame like CMO.

All I am saying is another Disclaimer that TACVIEW doesn't offer Fog of War would have been nice. I wouldn't have bought it if I had known this beforehand.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

There was a ton of information on TacView, its relationship to CMO, and its limitations on the product page, in the forums, and even mentioned in the streams. I sure hope you do a little more research next time you buy something.

Should I really apologize for not following every thread and watching every stream? Really?

I know that CMANO had a following, but I also saw that it was quite an undertaking to get into this game - the reason I never tried. Now I saw the new trailer for CMO, saw 3D models and the non-grognard I am,I thought I buy it and with TACVIEW, because I wanted to play it like it looked in the trailer. Silly me!

All I am saying is that "no Fog of War in Tacview" would have been a very important information to me. Blame me all day long, but I didn't imagine this.

Anyway - I see the devteam will work it out somehow so it wasn't for nothing that I bought it.

ORIGINAL: kosmoface
I don't have a problem paying extra for TACVIEW, as you say - this was very prominent to read. What I didn't know was that there is no Fog of War in TACVIEW - somehow I expected this, because it is very unusual for a serious wargame like CMO.

Just to be clear; Tacview is a completely separate program developed and sold from a completely different company. WarfareSims and Matrix/Slitherine do not make a single dime off Tacview sales.

CMO (and CMANO before it) has always featured FOW. It is Tacview that does not have FOW, and that's a fundamental design element it always had, from its inception.

The dev team has no obligation to implement FOW in Tacview (it is not a bug to fix), but we _will_ give it a shot because it's a hotly-requested feature, and we try to serve our customers as best we can. It will be a long shot at best, because Tacview was never designed for this, but it just might work.

Its right on the product page when you buy it.

I have always said and thought TacView was totally unnecessary and really not a consequential scope of the game ...... however I bought it anyways… And now that I have it I think it’s really fun ... I always use it pretty selectively so I don’t ruin my game play.... command is pretty intense and watching a little tacky is like taking a little fun break ......

I have always said and thought TacView was totally unnecessary and really not a consequential to the scope of the game ...... however I bought it anyways… And now that I have it I think it’s really fun ... I always use it pretty selectively so I don’t ruin my game play.... command is pretty intense and watching a little tacview is like taking a little fun break ......

Imho is tacview a great enrichment for C:MO!

The dev team has no obligation to implement FOW in Tacview (it is not a bug to fix), but we _will_ give it a shot because it's a hotly-requested feature, and we try to serve our customers as best we can. It will be a long shot at best, because Tacview was never designed for this, but it just might work.

Understood and fingers crossed. Thank you for trying.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Its right on the product page when you buy it.

Not on Steam.

In the best case I would create a Trailer without TACVIEW or insert a clear warning at the end of the Trailer that this is a separate program which has to be bought seperately and doesn't feature "Fog of War". Clear message - end of story.

In Europe this could be called out as misleading advertising as it is now, which is forbidden by law. Having to read in a forum or watching a stream to get this information wouldn't help much in a trial.

As much as you want to blame me, thewood1 - it is not always the customer who is at fault.

This time it is.

Let's come back to this. Where does the product page say FOW is an included feature on TacView. TacView works with CMO exactly like the product page and the streams show. Where did anything say FOW is included.

Its very clear that TacView is a operate package developed by another company. So did you assume without doing any due diligence? Did you ask for a refund when you discovered TacView didn't show FOW? Show me where the devs did anything even close to breaking advertising laws. I'll wait for your reply.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This time it is.

Let's come back to this. Where does the product page say FOW is an included feature on TacView. TacView works with CMO exactly like the product page and the streams show. Where did anything say FOW is included.

Its very clear that TacView is a operate package developed by another company. So did you assume without doing any due diligence? Did you ask for a refund when you discovered TacView didn't show FOW? Show me where the devs did anything even close to breaking advertising laws. I'll wait for your reply.

Not to stir the pot, but you are being a bit ridiculous [;)]. Anyone not familiar with Tacview would 100% assume it uses Fog of War, because that's how games work, and how every game ever made has worked. It just is.

Without FoW, you are forced to cheat, whether you want to or not. That's why you are seeing some of the confusion and people being upset, because as a game, it makes no sense. And that's what people who aren't familiar with CMO or Tacview approach the product, as a game. (because it is a game)

I'm talking about the guy saying the devs have broken some law on false advertisement. Where is he with that proof?