Matrix Games Forums

NOTE: This is a public beta. Standard disclaimers apply. If you are uncertain, wait for the official release.

INSTALL: Steam should update automatically. If it doesn't exiting and restarting Steam should force Steam to check for updates.

CMO Build 1900.8 Release Notes (changes from B1900.5)
=====================================================================

ADDED: RTMP Civ added MP text chat.

Includes the v518 release of CWDB and DB3000.
CWDB Change Log
DB3000 Change Log

TWEAK: RTMP addendum to 'Improved UI behavior when dragging reference points.
TWEAK: RTMP Improved UI behavior when dragging reference points.
TWEAK: RTMP CIV fixed issues with PlayFab state on disconnect/re-connect.
TWEAK: RTMP Fixed course waypoint may go back to old position briefly when sim is running.
TWEAK: RTMP Fixed WP instance mismatch can prevent manual delete of last WP in course RTMP hides 'Restart' buttons on the Scoring window.
TWEAK: RTMP Added Try-Catch around client push state to insure correct cleanup.
TWEAK: RTMP Fixed 'Collection was modified' exception on intermediate position update RTMP Game.Recorder shows 'not supported in RTMP' message.
TWEAK: RTMP CIV - Changed 'AC required' message for Civ to 'Feature Currently Unavailable'.
TWEAK: RTMP Added support for Game menu Side Postures window in RTMP.
TWEAK: RTMP Added system to track when host has handled a requested UI event -- allows improved state sync.
TWEAK: RTMP Migrated CMORTMP.DLL project into the Command Solution.
TWEAK: RTMP Map Settings Window marked as RTMP enabled.
TWEAK: RTMP Disabled Naval Formation Editor during RTMP pending RTMP compatible version.

FIXED: DarkUITextbox.Focus() doesn't set focus to control.
FIXED: Attempt to load read-only scenario file generates unexpected exceptions.

Is this update for Steam only ? IF only for Steam, will this update be available soon to those that purchased CMO from Matrix ?

Eagle2046 wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2026 8:50 pm Is this update for Steam only ? IF only for Steam, will this update be available soon to those that purchased CMO from Matrix ?

Yes, the current public beta is Steam only. I'm not sure there is going to be a non-Steam beta. Yes, of course, the final update will be available for all users...

Running the new Beta and updated last night to the 0.8 build through steam.

Screen seems to have a weird red banner now that pops up and disappears when you hover the mouse over menus.

It reappears and comes back when you move the pointer.

serjames wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2026 11:21 am Running the new Beta and updated last night to the 0.8 build through steam.

Screen seems to have a weird red banner now that pops up and disappears when you hover the mouse over menus.

It reappears and comes back when you move the pointer.


Screenshot 2026-08-26 121421.png

Same here. I’m also getting the intermittent red graphical band when moving the cursor over the menus in Build 1900.8. I’ve seen similar graphical glitches with some previous Public beta patches as well.

I'm a bit confused, I saw yesterday that "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.20 (Public Beta)" was released, unless I'm missing something that "Number" (1900.20) comes before "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.8"?

I would have thought that any release after "1900.8" would be a higher number

zacklaws wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2026 2:26 pm I'm a bit confused, I saw yesterday that "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.20 (Public Beta)" was released, unless I'm missing something that "Number" (1900.20) comes before "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.8"?

I would have thought that any release after "1900.8" would be a higher number

20 is higher than 8.

Is it not?

I'm Still running the non-steam V1.10 Beta Build 1892, is there a way to update to whatever the latest beta without steam? is there something non-steam coming that I should\have to wait for?

Thanks
Brian

Nikel wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2026 4:13 pm

zacklaws wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2026 2:26 pm I'm a bit confused, I saw yesterday that "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.20 (Public Beta)" was released, unless I'm missing something that "Number" (1900.20) comes before "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.8"?

I would have thought that any release after "1900.8" would be a higher number

20 is higher than 8.

Is it not?

Yes your right, my brain has gone, I was reading 20 as just "2",

I've done some stupid things this past week oddly enough

I see that you created CMO scenarios in the past.

Time to design new ones to energize and entertain your brain

Nikel wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2026 4:13 pm

zacklaws wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2026 2:26 pm I'm a bit confused, I saw yesterday that "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.20 (Public Beta)" was released, unless I'm missing something that "Number" (1900.20) comes before "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.8"?

I would have thought that any release after "1900.8" would be a higher number

20 is higher than 8.

Is it not?

20 is higher than 8

But, notice the "."

When dealing with decimal numbers :
1900.8 it's the same as 1900.80
1900.20 it's the same as 1900.2

so 8 is greater than 2 when at the right of a decimal point.

I know that software versioning follows the ubiquitous X.Y.Z where each of X, y and Z are complete numbers of their own
So if we are talking software versioning, then 1900.20 comes after 1900.8 but as it does not have the Major.Minor.Patch semantic versioning format, it might be misleading.

Are people really having a hard time with this concept? There is more than enough context to figure it out.

mikerohan wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2026 5:34 pm

Nikel wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2026 4:13 pm

zacklaws wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2026 2:26 pm I'm a bit confused, I saw yesterday that "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.20 (Public Beta)" was released, unless I'm missing something that "Number" (1900.20) comes before "CMO v1.10 Build 1900.8"?

I would have thought that any release after "1900.8" would be a higher number

20 is higher than 8.

Is it not?

20 is higher than 8

But, notice the "."

When dealing with decimal numbers :
1900.8 it's the same as 1900.80
1900.20 it's the same as 1900.2

so 8 is greater than 2 when at the right of a decimal point.

I know that software versioning follows the ubiquitous X.Y.Z where each of X, y and Z are complete numbers of their own
So if we are talking software versioning, then 1900.20 comes after 1900.8 but as it does not have the Major.Minor.Patch semantic versioning format, it might be misleading.

That must explain it how my Brain is "Deciphering" it. Perhaps it should be "1900.8.0" and "1900.20.0?

This really is a dumb argument.

Software developers can be free to identify version numbers in their own ways, and it's really not complicated here.

The number after the decimal, in this context, is an increasing version number of a larger build number (in this case 1900).

The "basic" mathematical idea that the 'zero' at the end of the two can be rounded off to be "effectively" xxxx.2 does not apply here, due to the developer's own choices with how they decided to number builds of Command.

It's not a "normal" decimal point, and is just a way to separate smaller changes within a larger build.

This isn't new, and has been the case with their build numbers going back to the beginning of Command's history.

HalfLifeExpert wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2026 5:14 pm This really is a dumb argument.

Software developers can be free to identify version numbers in their own ways, and it's really not complicated here.

The number after the decimal, in this context, is an increasing version number of a larger build number (in this case 1900).

The "basic" mathematical idea that the 'zero' at the end of the two can be rounded off to be "effectively" xxxx.2 does not apply here, due to the developer's own choices with how they decided to number builds of Command.

It's not a "normal" decimal point, and is just a way to separate smaller changes within a larger build.

This isn't new, and has been the case with their build numbers going back to the beginning of Command's history.

Semantic versioning. It's been common place in the industry for decades now. Bizarre that anybody would spend time arguing about this

kneecaps wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2026 1:58 am

HalfLifeExpert wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2026 5:14 pm This really is a dumb argument.

Software developers can be free to identify version numbers in their own ways, and it's really not complicated here.

The number after the decimal, in this context, is an increasing version number of a larger build number (in this case 1900).

The "basic" mathematical idea that the 'zero' at the end of the two can be rounded off to be "effectively" xxxx.2 does not apply here, due to the developer's own choices with how they decided to number builds of Command.

It's not a "normal" decimal point, and is just a way to separate smaller changes within a larger build.

This isn't new, and has been the case with their build numbers going back to the beginning of Command's history.

Semantic versioning. It's been common place in the industry for decades now. Bizarre that anybody would spend time arguing about this

Thank you. I knew there was a term for it. And I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly.

mikerohan wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2026 5:34 pm So if we are talking software versioning, then 1900.20 comes after 1900.8 but as it does not have the Major.Minor.Patch semantic versioning format, it might be misleading.

Well, I wasn’t trying to argue… I just meant that I understand how it might have been misleading to someone who wasn’t familiar with the term.