Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

a developer/with Windows 10

Not sure if we have one of those.

Uhm...which part? [;)]

many place names on the map

Can the guys having this problem try switching to Hidden Placenames during the PO Turn to see if it changes anything?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not sure if we have one of those.

So what you're saying is, you are selling a product for, and claiming it supports, an operating system you have no actual way of testing? [:D]

Surely at least Matrix Support are able to do this, without just throwing the problem over the fence to you guys? They are after all still responsible for distribution and support for the product.

sPzAbt653:
Can the guys having this problem try switching to Hidden Placenames during the PO Turn to see if it changes anything?

I thought we already established this? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not sure if we have one of those.

So what you're saying is, you are selling a product for, and claiming it supports, an operating system you have no actual way of testing? [:D]

Surely at least Matrix Support are able to do this, without just throwing the problem over the fence to you guys? They are after all still responsible for distribution and support for the product.

I'm sure it was tested under Win 10. But I don't have Win 10, and I don't know if Ralph has it, either.

I thought we already established this?

Ok sorry, I did look and didn't see it mentioned, so I asked *shrug*

a developer with Windows 10 needs to recreate this to have any hope of fixing it

Yes we had W10 guys in Beta and I've said before that they didn't experience this so we didn't know about it, but I know that is not what you are asking Shad. But what you are asking is a little difficult, because what we do at TOAW Beta Testing is to create a situation and hand it to Ralph to experience and fix. What we don't do is give a fault description to Ralph and expect him to find it. What I'm saying is, if we have a rock solid repeatable, then we can give that to Ralph, otherwise ...

And I will also stress that it is best to get such a repeatable using a stock scenario delivered with TOAW. We can't expect Ralph to diagnose custom scenarios, he might do it, I'm not speaking for him, but ...

As far as I'm concerned, this is a "rock solid repeatable" [:D]

And I think France '44 is a stock scenario? But it's pretty clear this is not related to the specific scenario, this is something in the code for the game, so there's not really any point in sending someone a save game to have a look at.

I think I've described the issue as well as I can by now, so if nothing else happens there's nothing to do but wait for a fix. Again, this is why a simple "Yes we are aware of it, and looking into a fix" from the people who know the code would be enough to let the issue rest.

Also let it be clear, I'm just helping investigating the issue for the one who originally reported it (Fastfrank), because I think it's an interesting case. I've not experienced the issue myself when actually *playing* the game. I have managed to make it crash *on purpose* to recreate the issue, and this is very much repeatable, independent of specific scenarios.

Scenario is as released, no edits. Only change I made was to random seed to -1 in advanced player options to ensure repeatability. And it looks like it's readily repeatable. I'm trying to replay it now with place names invisible as a workaround, but at a reasonable map scale it is easy to get lost in the big picture without place names.

To me one irony is that TOAW IV has many great scenarios, obviously representing the contribution of lots of dedicated players. Not all represent the scale of a AOR and the range of a OOB sufficient to permit the Operational Art to produce a significant difference in outcome. Don't know about the Eastern front, but on the West Cobra is the most significant opportunity. Would be a lost opportunity to not be able to use TOAW IV to study the Operational Art. TOAW IV is a great effort to advance, would be such a pity to realize the climb stopped 50m below the summit. Realized I was at risk of inserting my first emoticon (spelling?) so I'll sign off for now.

Are you testing this player vs PO or still PO vs PO?

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

As far as I'm concerned, this is a "rock solid repeatable" [:D]

And I think France '44 is a stock scenario? But it's pretty clear this is not related to the specific scenario, this is something in the code for the game, so there's not really any point in sending someone a save game to have a look at.

I think I've described the issue as well as I can by now, so if nothing else happens there's nothing to do but wait for a fix. Again, this is why a simple "Yes we are aware of it, and looking into a fix" from the people who know the code would be enough to let the issue rest.

Also let it be clear, I'm just helping investigating the issue for the one who originally reported it (Fastfrank), because I think it's an interesting case. I've not experienced the issue myself when actually *playing* the game. I have managed to make it crash *on purpose* to recreate the issue, and this is very much repeatable, independent of specific scenarios.

Confirm as repeatable. The scenario in question eats memory like its going out of style -- every time (this on a W10 machine). I can try running COW on an older machine, but because it uses the Vista OS, I don't if I can get a working copy of the process monitor software that Shadrach used.

Cheers

No one is saying how this is being tested. PO vs PO or player vs PO.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

No one is saying how this is being tested. PO vs PO or player vs PO.

Lobster, on my PC it was set up as human vs human.

Cheers

Much more reliable test than PO vs PO.

Ran up the Cobra scenario in TOAW version 3,0,4,202 (not COW as I originally posted) on a Vista machine. Private Bytes usage stayed at a steady 178MB no matter how much I moved around the map. Another indicator this may be a conflict with Win10.

Although TOAW III started slower on the older machine, map scrolling was much smoother [:'(]

Cheers

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Ran up the Cobra scenario in COW on Vista machine. Private Bytes usage stayed at a steady 178MB no matter how much I moved around the map. Another indicator this may be a conflict with Win10.

Although COW started slower on the older machine, map scrolling was much smoother [:'(]

Cheers

ACOW used the old bitmapped fonts only. TOAW III/IV uses Windows fonts.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Ran up the Cobra scenario in COW on Vista machine. Private Bytes usage stayed at a steady 178MB no matter how much I moved around the map. Another indicator this may be a conflict with Win10.

Although COW started slower on the older machine, map scrolling was much smoother [:'(]

Cheers

ACOW used the old bitmapped fonts only. TOAW III/IV uses Windows fonts.

Thanks Bob. The heat here has me in an error condition. I corrected my post above; the version I tested under Vista is a TOAW III version, not COW. Sorry for the sidetrack.

Cheers

But if you do have a working copy of CoW, we may have an interest in you ...

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

But if you do have a working copy of CoW, we may have an interest in you ...

I have it on CDROM I think (but not installed on a PC). PM me if I can be of assistance.

Cheers

[:)] We've been looking for a CoW Interdiction Test, so if you have it running let us know and we can give you details. Otherwise, we continue the hunt for Operational CoW [;)]

see post 40, this string

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

[:)] We've been looking for a CoW Interdiction Test, so if you have it running let us know and we can give you details. Otherwise, we continue the hunt for Operational CoW [;)]

Not running, sorry.

Cheers