Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Patch/Bug

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Patch/Bug Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 4:14:06 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
not sure how to set this up, but basicly, a list of what we are either working on, or what we have fixed/done so far



_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 4:19:48 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Data base side

Vadi to Vati

removed RailYards and replace them with Area in the BoBs, those 3 targets now take damage correctly

BTR
501 squadron moved to 11 group
41 squadron moved to 83 group
I./JG 27 moved to Handorf
II./ZG 1 moved to Luft 3

Chiusi moved southeast some
touched up the Brighton area



< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 10/9/2009 6:19:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 2
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 4:22:06 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Code work

don't want to step on Harley's toes, so will let him post what he wants to say about what he has gotten done

but, looks like we got some of the slow down, speed up working better

Hourglass no long shows when loading is complete

correction

correction

Goodie

Goodie

Goodie

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 3
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 4:29:51 PM   
harley


Posts: 1662
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
 Heh. I wasn't sure what we should say - some of the changes might not pass test.

This will wet their whistles - some are in test at present, others are completed in dev, but not yet passed to the testers.


Fixed the Vista cursor of infinite wait which didn't actually make you wait.
Added the affinity and Direct-Draw changes with the assistance of Bill and Michael from the WITP:AE team
Added the ability to set windowed mode (and the affinity modes) on the options page
Stopped AI from upgrading FACs on human control after turn 45.
Fixed sorting top pilots by mission.
Fixed an issue that prevented some ground forces from being created.
Fixed a bug preventing flight/intercept lines from showing up.
Fixed the tops and roundels when swapping BOB-BTR
Slowed down map scrolling.
Fixed a hanging scrollbar in reaction phase - review raids.
Fixed Raids hanging in late game.
Changed the way the AI finds new AC to upgrade to, to help the AI jump intermediate models if possible.
Added production stockpile to the "Production Requirements" screen.
Added the "Production List" button to the main defender movement/review screen.


_____________________________

gigiddy gigiddy gig-i-ddy

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 4
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 4:37:02 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
roger, and as I said, wasn't sure what to say, but wanted people to know we have been working and some of there concerns are getting fixed

and I know you like to keep some surprises

_____________________________


(in reply to harley)
Post #: 5
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 5:24:38 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Nice!  

Will any of these break an game in progress?

Thanks!

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 6
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 6:20:26 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
anything with the OOB will need a new start, normally a Exe fix, can keep on going, unless it changes the way the save data is used



_____________________________


(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 7
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 6:39:49 PM   
SireChaos

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 8/14/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

anything with the OOB will need a new start, normally a Exe fix, can keep on going, unless it changes the way the save data is used




So if I install the patch but continue a game already in progress, I will not get the OOB changes, but the rest will work - it won´t break anything?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 8
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 7:50:50 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
unless something has changed in the way the exe does something with the data

is the normal way it works, we can't tell until we get done with it, but right now, a exe should work with a game save, but that does not mean it always will, it depends on what is done to the exe

_____________________________


(in reply to SireChaos)
Post #: 9
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/9/2009 11:50:16 PM   
Steamfish


Posts: 11
Joined: 9/29/2009
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Nice work, gentlemen! Thanks for continuing to polish a timeless classic. I'm looking forward to the patch.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 10
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/10/2009 12:02:04 AM   
Otto von Blotto


Posts: 210
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

quote:

touched up the Brighton area


Hard Sarge and all you are stars, cheers now when I bomb the c**p out of it I can be sure I'm hitting the right place.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 11
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/10/2009 3:04:51 PM   
ecwgcx


Posts: 480
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline
what about resizing the bomber icons? I hate not being able to see my B-17's

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)
Post #: 12
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/10/2009 3:49:51 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

what about resizing the bomber icons? I hate not being able to see my B-17's


we would need new art work, I think we are using 72*72, we need 180*180

if we had that art work, we could have the planes scaled to size, and a much higher Res level to the art, and other good/better stuff

the art work details were sent off, before I was really in charge, so we had to work with, what we got

and to be honest, that is a lot of work for the artist, and I can not really ask someone, hey buddy, want to do me a favor

_____________________________


(in reply to ecwgcx)
Post #: 13
Blank - 10/10/2009 6:45:47 PM   
Golden Bear

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline


< Message edited by Golden Bear -- 10/11/2009 6:17:30 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 14
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/10/2009 7:27:17 PM   
Ranger5355

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline
The scroll speed fix is what I'm most excited about. If I so much as touch the screen edge the map jumps to the other side of the map. Even the arrow keys are unmanageable. As it is I don't play the game so you can imagine how much I'm looking forward to this patch.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 15
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/12/2009 2:39:54 PM   
Justascratch


Posts: 321
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline
I had a week off last week and was able to put in some game time with this one. I had lots of fun, but on my machine I noticed the information (detail) reports on various air groups would show up on screen with some of the data and text lines overlaping each other by a couple of pixels. I would press the "Show Desktop" icon to close the game window & then reopen the window and everything is fine for about five minutes, then it starts again.

I went ahead and checked that all my hardware drivers were up to date, and the problem still persists.

My gut tells me this may be specific to my machine, but I thought I would bring it forward.


(in reply to Ranger5355)
Post #: 16
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/12/2009 3:07:54 PM   
joey


Posts: 823
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Wilmington, DE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

The scroll speed fix is what I'm most excited about. If I so much as touch the screen edge the map jumps to the other side of the map. Even the arrow keys are unmanageable. As it is I don't play the game so you can imagine how much I'm looking forward to this patch.


I second this one!

(in reply to Ranger5355)
Post #: 17
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/13/2009 10:29:31 AM   
harley


Posts: 1662
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justascratch

I had a week off last week and was able to put in some game time with this one. I had lots of fun, but on my machine I noticed the information (detail) reports on various air groups would show up on screen with some of the data and text lines overlaping each other by a couple of pixels. I would press the "Show Desktop" icon to close the game window & then reopen the window and everything is fine for about five minutes, then it starts again.

I went ahead and checked that all my hardware drivers were up to date, and the problem still persists.

My gut tells me this may be specific to my machine, but I thought I would bring it forward.




I got bad news for you then...

I'm soooo overloaded on the information presented I've sqeezed things in as much as I can. If there's an overlap, it's 90% certain everyone sees it, but they probably aren't looking in the same place. I can try and resort things a little.

Your fix is actually a bug, and one that I have already found and fixed. To fit all that extra text in, I created a narrow font. It doesn't read as nice as the normal, but I use it for longer info such as Aircraft names, pilot names and bases when I can't fit everything. I have fixed the code that executes after a redraw to initialise the fonts differently, so the narrow text will not be the default any more. It never should have been, and it only was after the minimise-restore action.

It's not your drivers... Or your corrective eye-glasses... or LSD induced halucinations. It is what you see.

_____________________________

gigiddy gigiddy gig-i-ddy

(in reply to Justascratch)
Post #: 18
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/13/2009 10:23:20 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Sweet



_____________________________


(in reply to harley)
Post #: 19
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/14/2009 12:00:53 AM   
Golden Bear

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
Huh, and here I thought it was the LSD coming back.

(in reply to harley)
Post #: 20
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/16/2009 6:48:00 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
upped the Maint levels for Heavies and fighters



_____________________________


(in reply to Golden Bear)
Post #: 21
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/16/2009 6:50:52 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1999
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
That one intrigues me sarge, looking forward to it :-)

Keep up the good job!

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 22
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/16/2009 7:17:14 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen

_____________________________


(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 23
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/16/2009 7:57:16 PM   
von Shagmeister


Posts: 1273
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: Dromahane, Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen


That's where the structure of Allied units was superior to the Luftwaffe, they had inherent redundancy built into them.

ie
1943 TOE for a USAAF FG was 75 a/c (48+27, 3 Sqns of 25 a/c) ie 48 available for ops (16 per Sqn) with 27 immediate reserves (9 per Sqn), TOE later increased to 84 the in some cases 96 (8AF)

1943 TOE for USAAF BG was 32/36 a/c (24+8/24+12), usually 18 a/c per group required for ops (1 Sqn out of 4 usually rested every mission unless all out effort required, this was to rest crews and maintain a/c), TOE later increased to 48. At game start USAAF BGs have the 1944 TOE of 48 a/c of which a max of 32 can be available this is too high.

This system means for the USAAF that the required numbers can always be available for ops with significant numbers in reserve (in maintenance etc).

1943 RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn had a UE of 18 a/c (16 IE + 2 IR) and 27 pilots (24+3) presently 24+3 a/c. In real life 8-12 a/c was typical for a RAF fighter Sqn to generate for a mission.

However the above historical establishments do raise a number of issues with the game. I did calculate the over establishment of Allied fighters some time ago in the development forum and I will see if I can find the figures. I didn't calculate the over establishment of USAAF heavy bombers but at game start would be in the region of 33%. The over establishment issue is independant of the high servicabilty rates.



_____________________________

Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 24
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/16/2009 8:06:27 PM   
von Shagmeister


Posts: 1273
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: Dromahane, Ireland
Status: offline
Found the figures in the Wish List Thread, bear in mind it would have been with an older OoB though probably little differnce to the numbers of units involved.


9. RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn Establishments

Can the a/c establishment of standard RAF single engine day fighter units be dropped from 24+3 to 16+2 (from 3 flights to 2 flights)

10. USAAF "B" Fighter Groups

Can the number of "B" Groups be decreased

The way "B" Fighter Groups are structured at the moment results in consistantly more a/c being available for ops than in real life.

At BTR start date the real life TO&E for a USAAF fighter Sqn was between 25-28 a/c (75-84 a/c per group). Game has 72 a/c per group of which 48 a/c are available for ops (24 reserve). When "B" Groups were flown "A" Group would fly 36 a/c (instead of 48 a/c (12 per Sqn instead of 16)) and "B" Group would fly 36 a/c. Therefore a single fighter group putting up "A" & "B" formations would try to put up 72 a/c (ie nearly all its reserve a/c)

The way "A" & "B" groups are structured at the moment 48+48 a/c are available for ops (with a further 24+24 reserve a/c). So not only are more a/c available for ops (96 as opposed 72) than in real life but also a significant reserve of serviceable a/c is still available (24+24) for the next days ops.

The result in the game is that "A" & "B" Groups can be flown every day with a higher than real life number of fighters whereas if "A" & "B" Groups were flown everyday in real life serviceabilty would soon become an issue and they would not be able to generate the required number of a/c for ops.

Even allowing for a late war establishment of 32 a/c per Sqn (96 a/c per group) which some groups were allocated this still only allows for 96 a/c per group instead of the equivalent of 144 a/c.

So short of allowing all a/c within a group to be available for ops (which would require a major reworking of the code) and decreasing the serviceabilty rates (which I believe are too high for all a/c of all nationalties) the easiest solution would be to limit the number of "B" groups available for ops.

Just had a look through the OoB and there are the equivalent of 47 USAAF fighter groups in the game. If you include "B" groups this goes up to 62.

Total no. of a/c in game 62x72 = 4464 a/c
Total no. of a/c (real life) should be 47x84 = 3948 a/c

ie an additional 516 a/c more than there should be (equivalent to 7+ extra fighter groups)

Also worked out the extra numbers for the RAF SE fighter Sqns that should be 2 flights only (130 Sqns total)

Total no. of a/c in game 130x27 = 3510 a/c
Total no. of a/c (real life) should be 130x18 = 2340 a/c

ie an additional 1170 a/c more than there should be (equivalent to 65 extra Sqns)

As you can see the over establishment of Allied fighters is significant. 

_____________________________

Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum


(in reply to von Shagmeister)
Post #: 25
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/16/2009 8:22:19 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen


That's where the structure of Allied units was superior to the Luftwaffe, they had inherent redundancy built into them.

ie
1943 TOE for a USAAF FG was 75 a/c (48+27, 3 Sqns of 25 a/c) ie 48 available for ops (16 per Sqn) with 27 immediate reserves (9 per Sqn), TOE later increased to 84 the in some cases 96 (8AF) NOV of 43 was increased to 102, which doesn't count the fact that most Groups then became over strengthed

1943 TOE for USAAF BG was 32/36 a/c (24+8/24+12), usually 18 a/c per group required for ops (1 Sqn out of 4 usually rested every mission unless all out effort required, this was to rest crews and maintain a/c), TOE later increased to 48. At game start USAAF BGs have the 1944 TOE of 48 a/c of which a max of 32 can be available this is too high. again in Nov 43, the VIIIth BG went to 54

This system means for the USAAF that the required numbers can always be available for ops with significant numbers in reserve (in maintenance etc).

1943 RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn had a UE of 18 a/c (16 IE + 2 IR) and 27 pilots (24+3) presently 24+3 a/c. In real life 8-12 a/c was typical for a RAF fighter Sqn to generate for a mission.

and they also flew 2 or 3 missions a day, and most times the 2nd mission was a new set of pilots

However the above historical establishments do raise a number of issues with the game. I did calculate the over establishment of Allied fighters some time ago in the development forum and I will see if I can find the figures. I didn't calculate the over establishment of USAAF heavy bombers but at game start would be in the region of 33%. The over establishment issue is independant of the high servicabilty rates.




_____________________________


(in reply to von Shagmeister)
Post #: 26
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/17/2009 12:20:59 PM   
von Shagmeister


Posts: 1273
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: Dromahane, Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


quote:

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen


That's where the structure of Allied units was superior to the Luftwaffe, they had inherent redundancy built into them.

ie
1943 TOE for a USAAF FG was 75 a/c (48+27, 3 Sqns of 25 a/c) ie 48 available for ops (16 per Sqn) with 27 immediate reserves (9 per Sqn), TOE later increased to 84 the in some cases 96 (8AF) NOV of 43 was increased to 102, which doesn't count the fact that most Groups then became over strengthed

1943 TOE for USAAF BG was 32/36 a/c (24+8/24+12), usually 18 a/c per group required for ops (1 Sqn out of 4 usually rested every mission unless all out effort required, this was to rest crews and maintain a/c), TOE later increased to 48. At game start USAAF BGs have the 1944 TOE of 48 a/c of which a max of 32 can be available this is too high. again in Nov 43, the VIIIth BG went to 54

This system means for the USAAF that the required numbers can always be available for ops with significant numbers in reserve (in maintenance etc).

1943 RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn had a UE of 18 a/c (16 IE + 2 IR) and 27 pilots (24+3) presently 24+3 a/c. In real life 8-12 a/c was typical for a RAF fighter Sqn to generate for a mission.

and they also flew 2 or 3 missions a day, and most times the 2nd mission was a new set of pilots

However the above historical establishments do raise a number of issues with the game. I did calculate the over establishment of Allied fighters some time ago in the development forum and I will see if I can find the figures. I didn't calculate the over establishment of USAAF heavy bombers but at game start would be in the region of 33%. The over establishment issue is independant of the high servicabilty rates.





May I ask the source for the 102 a/c TOE for USAAF FGs for Nov 43, I can find a source for TOE of 96 a/c and 135 pilots for early 44 for certain FGs also source for TOE for 8AF BGs of 54 a/c for Nov 43.

_____________________________

Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 27
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/28/2009 3:49:17 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Freeman

two different books on the 56th

also, seeing, for Aug 17th, the IXth has 4 BGs of B-17s to aid in the raids of this day, and they are counting on sending 180 bombers to southern France

( I don't know where those numbers are coming from, but that is what Middlebrook is saying)

_____________________________


(in reply to von Shagmeister)
Post #: 28
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/28/2009 3:50:29 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Slovak's updated (Mikkey)

name corrections by Lutzow (a couple of other names used the - instead of the /, so I used it that way for Frankfurt-Oder, just too long for the an der to be used, may be why it was the way it was)

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 10/28/2009 4:15:02 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 29
RE: Patch/Bug - 10/28/2009 8:58:45 PM   
von Shagmeister


Posts: 1273
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: Dromahane, Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Freeman

two different books on the 56th

also, seeing, for Aug 17th, the IXth has 4 BGs of B-17s to aid in the raids of this day, and they are counting on sending 180 bombers to southern France

( I don't know where those numbers are coming from, but that is what Middlebrook is saying)



The Mighty Eight War Manual - Roger A. Freeman

Page 59

With the increase of some fighter groups of squadron aircraft complements to 32 and pilots to 45 in the winter of 43/44 .....

The Mighty Eight War Diary - Roger A. Freeman

Page 89-90

17Aug43

1BW (9xBGs: 91BG, 92BG, 303BG, 305BG, 306BG, 351BG, 379BG, 381BG, 384BG)

Despatched 230 B-17s (average per group = 25.5)

4BW (7xBGs: 94BG, 95BG, 96BG, 100BG, 385BG, 388BG, 390BG)

Despacted 146 B-17s (average per group = 20.8)

Total despatched 376 by 16xBGs (average per group = 23.5)

This was a max effort by 8BC with the 4th Sqn in each bomb group being required to fly as well as all servicable spares. Totals fall far short of the 32 per BG available for ops normally at the start of BTR (once the groups have filled out). The fact that the 48 a/c TOEs for BGs were starting to be adopted during this period isn't in dispute, but the amount of a/c they can routinely despatch is.

von Shagmeister

EDIT: Add date

< Message edited by von Shagmeister -- 10/29/2009 8:49:21 AM >


_____________________________

Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Patch/Bug Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.120