Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

BTR

 
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 >> BTR Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
BTR - 5/29/2011 12:59:06 PM   
ool


Posts: 456
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
What is the status of fixing BOB/BTR? Its been a long time we have been waiting for the problems to be fixed with this game. Years as I have read elsewhere. Its all well and good to put out more and more new games but how about fixing this one?

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: BTR - 5/29/2011 9:32:58 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
What is BOB and BTR? Serious question, not being a smartmouth.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to ool)
Post #: 2
RE: BTR - 5/29/2011 11:59:14 PM   
sabre1


Posts: 1928
Joined: 8/15/2001
From: CA
Status: offline
Bombing The Reich, Battle of Britian

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 3
RE: BTR - 5/30/2011 2:32:14 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Thank you Sabre!

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to sabre1)
Post #: 4
RE: BTR - 5/30/2011 3:47:10 AM   
bairdlander


Posts: 2139
Joined: 3/28/2009
From: Toronto Ontario but living in Edmonton,Alberta
Status: offline
I cant beleive they have the balls to charge $51.99 for dd and no work being done.Its a good game.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 5
RE: BTR - 5/31/2011 4:04:33 PM   
ool


Posts: 456
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Whats amazing is how they won't respond to info requests about what is the status of fixing this software. They put out the product and then ignore the people that have paid for the product when they ask well where is the fix for the many issues this product has?

_____________________________


(in reply to bairdlander)
Post #: 6
RE: BTR - 5/31/2011 4:56:08 PM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
Hi Guys

First let have everyone calm down a bit. We been around a long time now and if anyone backs its customers its us. Let me talk with the developers and see what there plans are on an update. I am also moving this to the proper section of our forum.




_____________________________


(in reply to ool)
Post #: 7
RE: BTR - 6/1/2011 2:31:52 PM   
ool


Posts: 456
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Still awaiting word from on high.

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 8
RE: BTR - 6/1/2011 7:09:42 PM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
Yes I am waiting for the developer to contact me back. It may take a little time.



_____________________________


(in reply to ool)
Post #: 9
RE: BTR - 6/1/2011 8:23:03 PM   
joey


Posts: 981
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline
Not a problem. I am well aware of the old saying "hurry up and wait!"

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 10
RE: BTR - 6/1/2011 10:54:17 PM   
ool


Posts: 456
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Thanks.

At least you are responding a great step up from my post months earlier which was totally ignored.

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 11
RE: BTR - 6/2/2011 4:54:44 PM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
Sorry if it seemed like we left you hanging. Its not we are trying to be rude but we let our developers do the talking since they can really answer the questions better. Once I saw what was going on I started to look into it.



_____________________________


(in reply to ool)
Post #: 12
RE: BTR - 6/3/2011 5:11:50 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Sorry was in the Hosp, wasn't able to see or do much here on the forum

I am not sure where Harley is at with what he was working on, but will try and find out

can you give me a list of what you see as being the issues?


_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 13
RE: BTR - 6/3/2011 5:26:37 PM   
joey


Posts: 981
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline
I hope you are feeling better. I hope it was not too serious.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 14
RE: BTR - 6/3/2011 6:32:30 PM   
ool


Posts: 456
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Hope all is well with you.

Issues that I posted were already known as far as I recall.

A) Romanian airfields that you couldn't post units to as the alert status wouldn't work properly. A raid 44 miles from an air base in Romania the units based there had a reaction time of over half an hour. They should've been at 5 minute status to take off. Hence Romania in the GC was indefensible as units wouldn't respond in time to do anything.

B) In Italy as allied raids moved up the boot air units available to intercept said raid would not be properly shown as available. Specifically you would have to continually select the raid to intercept and see if the SW had recognized air units further up the boot to be allowed to intercept. So in the first miles the SW would let some units be shown as ready to intercept but others not.Even though they weren't that much further up the boot. So you let the raid fly a 100 or so further miles up and try again. Eventually the SW would allow other bases to intercept. It became a truly tedious exercise each time raids flew to Italy.

C) After having selected a raid to intercept the SW would display units in scattered order of ranges to intercept the raid. So a raid near Rome once selected the list of Axis air units ready to intercept would show units 600 miles or more away first. The previous incarnation of this game the SW worked perfectly and would list the closest Axis units first and then the next furthest unit and so on. It was a smooth process that would allow you to select units to intercept the raid in question. In this incarnation as it stands you get a dogs breakfast of Axis units starting with the furthest and a jumble of the rest. Leading you to have to dig through the list to select which units were closest to be assigned to intercept. A truly annoying process especially when you consider the number of raids in a turn. Would seem a corruption of the Excel smallest to greatest value function when considering ranges to the raid of interest.

Those are the three that I posted in the tech site about a year or so ago. Have been awaiting some sort of patch ever since. Have checked update status for the this game over the last year and have always gotten the message that I have the latest version.

Not a design issue but I did post a question in the tech forum asking what the name and location of the file that would contain the Axis production values after factories had been reallocated prior to starting the GC game. The thought being that the process of changing over your factories at the beginning is a time consuming and tedious process. So once done at the start you could save a copy of that file to a backup location. That way when you started another GC and didn't want to redo the production at the beginning you could just copy over the saved file to the location in the game directory and be saved the job of redoing it all again. Never got a response to that query. Eventually gave up checking for it as a lost cause.

Once again thanks for your efforts and hope you are well.

Love the game just would like to be able to play the Axis GC and have it WAD.



_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 15
RE: BTR - 6/8/2011 2:40:12 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Hope all is well with you.
STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE MED'S BUT, SHOULD BE FINE

Issues that I posted were already known as far as I recall.

A) Romanian airfields that you couldn't post units to as the alert status wouldn't work properly. A raid 44 miles from an air base in Romania the units based there had a reaction time of over half an hour. They should've been at 5 minute status to take off. Hence Romania in the GC was indefensible as units wouldn't respond in time to do anything.
I AM LOOKING AT IT, THIS AREA AND ITALY WERE ALWAYS A HASSLE IN THE OLD GAME TOO, LACK OF RADAR, AND THE DETECTION LEVELS, REACTION TIMES, MOST TIMES YOU GOT TO BE LAUNCHING WAY EARLY, TO HAVE A CHANCE TO DO ANYTHING, C&C IN THIS AREA WAS VERY POOR, IT WAS THE AA GUNS THAT WERE THE MAIN DEFENCES ?

B) In Italy as allied raids moved up the boot air units available to intercept said raid would not be properly shown as available. Specifically you would have to continually select the raid to intercept and see if the SW had recognized air units further up the boot to be allowed to intercept. So in the first miles the SW would let some units be shown as ready to intercept but others not.Even though they weren't that much further up the boot. So you let the raid fly a 100 or so further miles up and try again. Eventually the SW would allow other bases to intercept. It became a truly tedious exercise each time raids flew to Italy.
AGAIN, THINK THIS IS WAD, WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO ANY OF THAT, RADAR, DETECTION AND SPOTTING ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND LINKED TO AIRFIELDS, NOT ALL AIRFIELDS ARE LINKED TO THE SAME RADAR, I WILL ASK, BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS WAY, IN ITALY, THE PLAYER, ALWAYS HAD TO MOVE BACK AND DEEP, THE FRONT LINE AND MIDDLE RANGED BASES WERE ABLE TO BE JUMPED, BEFORE THEY KNEW ANYTHING WAS IN THE AREA

C) After having selected a raid to intercept the SW would display units in scattered order of ranges to intercept the raid. So a raid near Rome once selected the list of Axis air units ready to intercept would show units 600 miles or more away first. The previous incarnation of this game the SW worked perfectly and would list the closest Axis units first and then the next furthest unit and so on. It was a smooth process that would allow you to select units to intercept the raid in question. In this incarnation as it stands you get a dogs breakfast of Axis units starting with the furthest and a jumble of the rest. Leading you to have to dig through the list to select which units were closest to be assigned to intercept. A truly annoying process especially when you consider the number of raids in a turn. Would seem a corruption of the Excel smallest to greatest value function when considering ranges to the raid of interest. THINK THIS IS PART OF THE SORT FUCTION, YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU SAY BY CLICKING THE RANGE BUTTON ? THAT ALL HAD TO BE CHANGED, BUT WE PUT IN SO EACH OF THE SORTS COULD BE CLICKABLE, TO BE ABLE TO PICK WHAT YOU WANTED ?
?

Those are the three that I posted in the tech site about a year or so ago. Have been awaiting some sort of patch ever since. Have checked update status for the this game over the last year and have always gotten the message that I have the latest version.

Not a design issue but I did post a question in the tech forum asking what the name and location of the file that would contain the Axis production values after factories had been reallocated prior to starting the GC game. The thought being that the process of changing over your factories at the beginning is a time consuming and tedious process. So once done at the start you could save a copy of that file to a backup location. That way when you started another GC and didn't want to redo the production at the beginning you could just copy over the saved file to the location in the game directory and be saved the job of redoing it all again. Never got a response to that query. Eventually gave up checking for it as a lost cause. THAT WOULD BE IN THE LOCATION FILE, SHOULDN'T BE A EASY FILE TO REWORK, IT WOULD SAVE TIME, IF YOU WANT TO DO THE SAME THING OVER, BUT

Once again thanks for your efforts and hope you are well.

Love the game just would like to be able to play the Axis GC and have it WAD.

I HAVE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF TROUBLE GETTING THINGS DONE, FROM THE MATRIX FORUM (SOME REASON, IT SENDING ME TO A ERROR PAGE, WHEN I TRY TO SEND MESSAGES OR MOVE AROUND) BUT TRYING TO GET A HOLD OF HARLEY, AND AM LOOKING AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, TO SEE WHAT I CAN SEE, AND IF I CAN FIGURE SOMETHING OUT




_____________________________


(in reply to ool)
Post #: 16
RE: BTR - 6/8/2011 3:40:14 PM   
lastdingo

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
I had different bugs:

quote:

- bug: Two of my divisions in Italy have been at 94 disruption for months. they do not seem to recover, nor do they seem to receive higher disruption.

- bug: sometimes 'red' (allied) groups almost fly back to the launch point, then turn around, fly back into axis airspace and then turn again and land normally. This odd behaviour makes no sense.
Similar issue: I recently screenshotted a German patrol over England in '44.

- bug: sometimes scattered interceptors are suddenly assigned to very, very far away targets for a few minutes (such as fighters over Romania suddenly chasing bombers over Hamburg)

- bug: very often when I click on several stacked boxed in the"intercept" context I get an empty list. Back, click again - full list. This happens almsot always on my machine.


from here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2252507&mpage=5#


I also own a screenshot of German fighters over London...during BTR!




(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 17
RE: BTR - 6/9/2011 5:11:52 PM   
ool


Posts: 456
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

bug: sometimes 'red' (allied) groups almost fly back to the launch point, then turn around, fly back into axis airspace and then turn again and land normally. This odd behaviour makes no sense.


I have the same thing happen in my games as well. Very weird to say the least.

_____________________________


(in reply to lastdingo)
Post #: 18
RE: BTR - 6/10/2011 1:52:34 AM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 600
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline
Two of the bugs noted are real in my games as well. (Ive played since the initial version long ago.) Turn around of bomber units and redirection of interceptors.

The turn around of bombing units is a long standing problem. It may have been improved on, but it has never been eliminated. In PVP it is best to let them come and go unmolested.

The unexpected movement of air groups to intercept new units rather than the ones you want is probably caused by reassignment after a large target breaks into renumbered smaller groups. It is perhaps possible that something else is renumbering the interceptors after someone lands or something else happens. But anyway this is not new. This is not that big a deal.

Neither of these effects break the game.

I think there are also some problems with night bombing at "unusual" altitudes or against precision targets. The night bombing should be used only against area targets IMO.

Otherwise the game is very good, and can be played with great enjoyment by committed players.



(in reply to ool)
Post #: 19
RE: BTR - 6/10/2011 7:04:27 PM   
kaybayray

 

Posts: 417
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
Greetings <S>

Not being an experienced Luftwaffe player I cant really speak about issues associated with running the Axis.

The issue of the Heavy Bombers going back into Axis territory is well known. I refer to it as the "Way Point Tag Back Boogaloo". It is annoying but not a game breaker for me. I would like to see it corrected. But at least the Sicily to Dover Dash-N-Splash got fixed. And Allied Fighter Bombers actually fight back now and get kills even when engaging interceptors. So for me that is a good trade.

My experience has been mostly that what I typically initially thought was a bug actually turned out to be some feature that I didnt understand and / or was Working As Designed.

There is nothing else like this game that I have found anywhere. The only one thing I would really like seen with this is to expand it out similar to BOBII Wings of Victory where you can actually fly AC in missions. That would make this the Ultimate Strategic / Tactical Sim of the Air War in Europe.

OK Harely I wont say anymore But I can still dream!

Later,
KayBay

_____________________________

It's all Mind Over Matter....
If you dont mind... It dont matter

(in reply to joliverlay)
Post #: 20
RE: BTR - 6/10/2011 7:14:56 PM   
lastdingo

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/31/2006
Status: offline
There are a few comparable titles.

- Uncommon Valour
- War in the Pacific
- the ancient "U.S.A.A.F." (80's PC)
- IIRC also Adlertag (mission planning, intercept, flying in cockpit); 2005
- a sequel to Adlertag (?)
- MiG Alley
- the 1990's PC "1942 Pacific Air War" title (another operational + in-cockpit sim)
- some ancient (80's) Battle of Britain game (C64)
- 1967 Mid East Air War
- Vietnam Air War

(in reply to kaybayray)
Post #: 21
RE: BTR - 6/11/2011 7:58:44 AM   
john_txic

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 12/21/2007
Status: offline
Another silly little error: an Axis a/c is shot down - but an Allied pilot is notified as KIA - from a different theatre of operations.

And once on a Fighter Sweep - two Boston IIIs were destroyed on the ground.....

Plus my little niggle about the Oboe-equipped 105/109/139 PFF Detachments not being able to lead raids.

Bit for the Game overall - 8/10, easily.

_____________________________

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

(in reply to ool)
Post #: 22
RE: BTR - 6/11/2011 1:20:46 PM   
Dobey455

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: john_txic

Plus my little niggle about the Oboe-equipped 105/109/139 PFF Detachments not being able to lead raids.

Bit for the Game overall - 8/10, easily.


The Oboe mosquitoes can't be made the "lead unit" in a stream of 4E heavies, but their speed would never make that work anyway. HOWEVER you can still use them to mark the target for the main raids. Set them to arrive about 5 - 10 minutes ahead of the main raid, the Mosquitoes carry a purely incendiary load and the main stream will use the fires as an aiming point.

(in reply to john_txic)
Post #: 23
RE: BTR - 6/11/2011 7:33:50 PM   
john_txic

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 12/21/2007
Status: offline
Dobey,

They're on the day bombers roster, so (presumably) should be able to lead raids similar to the 4 x B-26s of the Prov. Pathfinders which can lead B-26 raids. Else why are they there?

In my Bomber Command offensive I use the heavies of 8 Group to mark for the Main Force, leaving the Mossies to conduct nuisance raids. I have converted a few squadrons from 3 and 4 Groups to beef-up those attacks. A-historical, I know - but it's only a game....

_____________________________

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

(in reply to Dobey455)
Post #: 24
RE: BTR - 6/12/2011 4:20:26 PM   
Dobey455

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
Ahh, sorry, thought you were talking about these ones.

forgot that there is also a 1/105, 1/109 and 1/139 in 2nd Tac AF





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Dobey -- 6/13/2011 9:22:42 AM >

(in reply to john_txic)
Post #: 25
RE: BTR - 6/13/2011 9:16:03 PM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
Hi Ron

Nice to see you are better and back in the forum. I am not sure what forum problem you have but leave me an email and I see if I can find anything wrong.

David



_____________________________


(in reply to Dobey455)
Post #: 26
RE: BTR - 6/21/2011 2:39:37 PM   
ool


Posts: 456
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Developers seem to have disappeared. Surely after over a year and a half in my case of waiting, some say waiting over two years, somebody has to to have done some work on a patch to address our issues?

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 27
RE: BTR - 6/21/2011 7:56:03 PM   
wernerpruckner


Posts: 4135
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ool

Developers seem to have disappeared. Surely after over a year and a half in my case of waiting, some say waiting over two years, somebody has to to have done some work on a patch to address our issues?

not really.....Gary Grigsby is still around and working on new stuff, so he has no time for us

HS and Harley are the only ones of us who have the source code of the game,
and both have family but try really hard to make the game better.

I do not really know the offical ob/oa release, but we had 30+ of them to play with.....and on the the problems in testing is that some stuff happens late in the game.......some of the stuff is known and has been dealt with in one of the many exe´s we got,
but some stuff has reapeared and some minor glitches seem to be new, or were never really seen as problem.......



_____________________________


(in reply to ool)
Post #: 28
RE: BTR - 6/22/2011 8:12:31 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2027
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
Multi-player is broken, don't ask me to waste my time explaining the issues, they're well known.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to wernerpruckner)
Post #: 29
RE: BTR - 6/23/2011 11:32:18 AM   
fochinell

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline
Waiting for updates can be frustrating. I should know, I've been playing this game for a decade, during which time updates and development have been done by individuals effectively in their spare time.

As gamers we are dependent on the limited support the development team can provide. I don't think recognising that is a criticism of anybody, just a recognition of fact. I also think that we as gamers are likely to get more output from the development team if we are supportive and understanding than if we allow frustrations at our end to end up harassing the team. Anything which deflects them or demoralises them will not be to our benefit, and frankly I don't think the market is there to provide a ready alternative development team to wave a magic wand and make everything work perfectly instantly.

There are issues which need attention, but the Matrix edition of game as I'm using it (extensive email campaigns over the last two years) incorporates a large number of substantial bug fixes. The Dover/Belfast fighter sweep bug, for example, was something far more significant than the remaining glitches, and has been fixed. Fighter-bombers fighting back likewise. I'm glad the Matrix edition was done, and I appreciate the effort involved even if I share some of your frustration at times.

HS, I hope you have a quick and complete recovery. I assume Harley is still grieving after Australia lost the Ashes and will return when he has recovered from the trauma.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> BTR Page: [1]
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

0.172