Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

BFTB Build 4.4.259

 
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.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> BFTB Build 4.4.259 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 6:22:39 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Hi all,

I will be kicking off the upload of the new beta build in a short while. This will be to Matrix. Please be patient while they build the installer and make it publicly available.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
Post #: 1
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 6:30:38 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Fixes for Build 4.4.259

  • Handle cases inside PlanMove where the Route is recalced (becasue of a slip plan) and the subject is located on the route but not at the start. This ensures that the force does not try and go back to the satrt of the route. Addresses assert at ScenCommonAI line 7952.
  • Handle cases where a force with a delay mission bunkers down and then reassesses, having no blocking tasks. It now will force replan if the bossTask was not a delay or it will abandon its plan if the bossTask was a delay. This addresses assert at TaskDoctrine.cpp, line 7930
  • Ensure that objectiveTasks that have already started and whose HHour is not set do not try and slip their HHour even if the bossHHour and bossStart are slipped. This addresses assert at ScenTask 2220.
  • Ensure that PlanAttack:AdjustAdvanceRoute() caters for cases where the subject starts on the truncated approach route and therefore doesn't need a join route. This addresses assert at ScenCommonAI 7952.
  • Ensure that PlanAttack::DevelopScenarioEndQuickAttack() will not call GetValues() on the attackFG if it not populated. Addresses assert at ScenForceGroup.cpp, line 1070.
  • Ensure that the missionTask Hhour is not updated inside PlanAttack::ConfirmTimings() when plans are slipped if the HHour is self assigned. This addresses assert at PlanAttack.cpp, line 5198
  • Ensure that where a unit does not have a current task inside WillRedeployFirebase() that it does not try to call GetPlanningParams(). This addresses access violation st ScenTask 7094.
  • Ensure that the plan subject is valid before trying to acces its type inside GetIndirectAvailableOnCallSupport(). This fixes a crash that occured at ScenForceGroupUtils line 378.
  • Ensure MapSearchParams is thread safe so that the UI and AI threads can safely calc routes at the same time. This fixes a nasty CTD that can occur when placing multiple waypoints while the game is running fast.
  • Ensure that CalcInitialFrontageAndDepth() calls CullSupplyAndFirebasingUnits() so that the frontage and depth excludes the personnel from bases and long range arty.
  • Ensure that inside MustWaitForUnitAhead()it only ignores the unit ahead if it has a different task type and is waiting on a receive orders event. This prevents unnecessary formation lockups.
  • Added new feature to EstabEditor that enables the user to select the image file for a Side, Nation, Service, Vehicle or Ammo using a standard file requester dialog.
  • Added new feature to EstabEditor that displays the name of the opened estab xml document in the title bar.
  • Mods to the Estab XML schema to support the change from IDs to actual file references for estab images
  • Modify the conversion code for estab databases to automatically convert new estab image file references.
  • Modify the EstabManager's XML import and export code to handle new estab image file referencing.
  • Added new feature to MapMaker to import and export MapEffects data using CSV spreadsheet file format. This allows the scenario designer the power to compare and edit the different effects for all terrain layers in a spreadsheet table format.
  • Ensure that the path finding code is thread-safe. This avoids corrupting data when players assign tasks to forces while the game is running.
  • Fixed bug in LOS tool that sometimes displayed location as visible when they were not visible due to intervening terrain.
  • Changed LOS tool so that elevation profile lines always point up to the top of the screen.
  • Changed LOS tool by reducing scale of elevation profile lines. Improves visualisation where there are big differences in elevation.

    _____________________________

    Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
    www.panthergames.com

    (in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 2
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 6:36:48 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2950
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Thanks Dave. Looking forward to this one. I´d expect the patch to be up after coming easter weekend or so.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 3
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 7:06:24 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Yes I would expect so. But hey it's always nice to be surprised with an earlier release hey!

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 4
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 8:37:35 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Wow this is a very nice one

Some great surprises in there mate.
Looking forward to seeing the improved LOS tool.
Being able to add your own pictures with file references sounds cool too.
You even managed to fit in the change of footprint for the assault, to ignore the arty support.

Great job Dave
Thanks

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 5
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 10:51:00 AM   
pekische

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 8/20/2012
From: Czech republic
Status: online
super! improving of LOS tools is very useful.... ;)

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 6
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 11:00:29 AM   
Jafele


Posts: 430
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline
Thanks Dave, I´m amazed with your hard work on BFTB.

(in reply to pekische)
Post #: 7
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/28/2013 9:30:22 PM   
Ramses


Posts: 221
Joined: 2/11/2011
From: Samsara
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jafele

Thanks Dave, I´m amazed with your hard work on BFTB.


Same here.

The sad thing is I do have another ctd to report. Hell on wheels scenario. Savegame sent.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jafele)
Post #: 8
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/29/2013 12:26:08 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1974
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Great, Dave. Ran with .259 from the save I sent you in the Maas-Rhein game I was playing (with the crash caused by fixed arty thingumy) - doesn't happen!! Great. Thanks.

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 9
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/29/2013 2:26:14 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1601
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Thanks for the work.

Now a thing I noticed when checking some map values, the values of the Market Garden area seem to be sometimes very different from those of the BftB area.
For example:
MoveEffectNonMotorised on Arnhem map:
Light Woods 0.5
Woods 0.399902

MoveEffectNonMotorised on Elsborn map:
Light Woods 0.399902
Pine Woods 0.300049

I just wonder will this stay that way or will the MG maps be adjusted to the BftB values?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 10
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/29/2013 2:49:15 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
No BigDuke because the pine forests in the Ardenne were another magnitude thicker and taller than the ones at Arnhem. I can testify to this having walked through both battlefields. We could have just called all the woods in HTTR light woods but chose instead to use the extra layer to describe what would probably should be called scattered woods.

Please keep in mind that we started with the HTTR maps first and then when we got to the Ardenne realised we needed another woods layer but only had two.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 3/29/2013 2:50:08 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 11
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/29/2013 2:53:38 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1601
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Thanks for the info, as you speak of layers, you can't simply add more layers so to have a bigger amount different grounds in the map maker?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 12
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/29/2013 3:31:12 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Not with the current map data structures. They were designed back in 1995 when space, performance and RAM were all at a premium. We want to overhaul these but it's all a question of priorities.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 13
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/29/2013 5:01:14 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1601
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
1995?
I knew the engine was some years old but didn't think that the roots reached that far back.
Well I guess the real good things just need this time.

PS Just checked "Airborne Assault: Red Devils Over Arnhem" it's from 2002, well that is a long way back

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 3/29/2013 5:04:15 AM >


_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 14
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 3/29/2013 7:58:15 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2950
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Thanks for the info, as you speak of layers, you can't simply add more layers so to have a bigger amount different grounds in the map maker?


Think amount of layers is sufficient. You can check all terrain layers and you´ll find surely one, that you can tweak (data and GFX) for other purposes. Heide and Orchard would be some in the Vegitation section, if your map does not require these, as is maybe polder, broken and beach in ground. Only consideration needed to be made is layer draw order (bottom up).

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 15
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/3/2013 12:30:28 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ramses

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jafele

Thanks Dave, I´m amazed with your hard work on BFTB.


Same here.

The sad thing is I do have another ctd to report. Hell on wheels scenario. Savegame sent.






Ramses,

I have been investigating your save. One thing that intrigues me is that the OB display lists a string of individual units that are under direct human control, including the 5th Coy 4SS Gren Regt which later is destroyed and it's this that crashes the game. Now most of these individual units are on hold with no boss task. I am trying to work out why they don't have a specific order.

Do you recall what order you gave this 5th Coy unit? If so, what was its type and had you set an end time?

Also most of the other German forces are on hold as well including the onMapBoss KG Kreutz. Do you recall what your original orders to KG Kreutz or any of the other units were?

PLEASE IGNORE THE ABOVE - I have worked it out. You gave these units Move orders. I found them inside the Player Plan. The Move order to 5th Coy expired at D2 0428. Do you have a save taken before that time - preferably as close to it as possible? If so, please email it to me. I want to work out why it has not removed the task from the Player plan upon completion.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 4/3/2013 12:44:00 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 16
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/3/2013 7:07:39 AM   
Ramses


Posts: 221
Joined: 2/11/2011
From: Samsara
Status: online

quote:

Arjuna:
Do you have a save taken before that time - preferably as close to it as possible? If so, please email it to me. I want to work out why it has not removed the task from the Player plan upon completion.


I don't have any saves prior to this one; they were deleted. I have played this scenario a couple of times after this session and was able to play it out without any issues. Only in one other scenario did I experience another ctd, 'Skorzeny's bid for glory'.

Playing time has been sparse due to me having cought the flu which is no surprise considering the persisting BFTB weather over here. Will try to see if I can replicate it tonight.

Gotta go to work first.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 17
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/3/2013 9:16:15 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3663
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Fixes for Build 4.4.259
    ....


... I'm running thru the scenarios as the Axis, and the path finding code has so far proved to be thread-safe while the game is running.

BTW, will the HttR scenarios be updated when the latest beta becomes an official patch?


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 18
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/3/2013 9:30:06 PM   
Ramses


Posts: 221
Joined: 2/11/2011
From: Samsara
Status: online
Hello Arjuna,

Savegame sent. I hope it is useful for you.....

Regards,

Ramses


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 19
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/3/2013 10:25:21 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1974
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Dave. Is this really how you wish it to be? I've given an HQ a very slight Defend task. The pic is taken after surrender, so you can see how close the enemy units are. I'm guessing that the units at the bridge ramp are within the 1000m range, but this is counter-intuitive, I feel. And infuriating. I ought to be able to get this HQ and its base to move this short distance. No?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 20
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 3:01:47 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ramses

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jafele

Thanks Dave, I´m amazed with your hard work on BFTB.


Same here.

The sad thing is I do have another ctd to report. Hell on wheels scenario. Savegame sent.






Ramses,

Thanks for the save. I was able to confirm that part of the new code I had added to adjust the bounding box of the order icon wasn't checking for dud units. It now does. FIXED.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 21
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 3:12:25 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Dave. Is this really how you wish it to be? I've given an HQ a very slight Defend task. The pic is taken after surrender, so you can see how close the enemy units are. I'm guessing that the units at the bridge ramp are within the 1000m range, but this is counter-intuitive, I feel. And infuriating. I ought to be able to get this HQ and its base to move this short distance. No?





First off I think it is a pretty dumb idea sticking your Regt HQ in that exposed position less than 1000m away from the enemy. But I respect your desire to be able to do it.

There are two alternatives to satisfy you. First, turn off the threat assessment for senior HQs and support units or provide an order option for you to ignore this. The first one will then have you complaining that HQs and support units are heading off into danger and for that there was a loud clamouring last time IIRC. So I'm not going to do that. The second option is a new feature. I think it is a good feature but I am not going to hold up the final patch #4 for it. It will be added to the wish list for future development. That's the best I can offer right now.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 4/4/2013 3:14:07 AM >


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 22
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 3:52:39 AM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 629
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
I definitely do NOT want, even a very good AI, choosing whether or not to bring up a regimental HQ or a supply depot into range of enemy fire. I do think maybe if a human controller selects the HQ and chooses to move it forward, then perhaps that "direct order" should override the game's caution...perhaps if combined with a stubborn or aggressive commander rating. In the end though there are few regimental commanders who would have chosen to expose themselves so close to enemy units.. and most who did, did not survive to do it again.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 23
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 5:54:09 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17794
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Jim,

You may not want the AI to choose but choose it must because otherwise it would do as before - ie it has an order to Move to a Reserve Loc for an attack but on the way it runs into enemy that were not there when the original plan was developed. Without some reaction and reassess code to handle this case it would continue as ordered into harms way. I think everyone agrees that this is not a good thing. The alternative is to simply raise an alert message and continue, leaving it to the player to respond if they wish. This would have the irksome effect of requiring the player to get involved making decisions that normally would be left to the subordinates and/or of running the risk that the user misses the message while focussed elsewhere and then cursing the stupid AI for getting his Bde HQ destroyed.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 24
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 6:57:41 AM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 629
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
Was actually meaning that in agreement with you, but I did not phrase it correctly. I meant that I do not want it to choose (in favor of) a route that takes it close to the enemy. I prefer it always choose to stay far away, safely behind lines. The idea of a human override option is appealing, but I would want it only by human control able to override, never by AI control.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 25
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 8:14:38 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I actually agree with Phoenix on this one.

I preferred the way the HQ, and especially the Depot was before the 1000m rule. Sorry about that

Yes, it was annoying if the AI chose a bad route for HQ or Base that passed through locations you know will have enemy in them, and the AI was unaware of, but its far more annoying that you can't move them into positions that make tactical sense to you as a player, to save them from destruction as in some of the HTTR scenarios.

At least before once you became aware that this may be a problem you got into the habit of checking the route that the AI had chosen, and if it was a bad one you where able to issue a fire order to halt it in its tracks, then put in a more accurate route for it via more waypoints or shortest path etc.

This new way of handling the HQ takes away choice/options from the player, and places it in the hands of the AI, and until we have an option that

quote:


The second option is a new feature. I think it is a good feature but I am not going to hold up the final patch #4 for it. It will be added to the wish list for future development


It would be better to go back to the old method of keeping an eye on the HQ moves.

I'm not demanding anything Dave, this is just my opinion, if you and others think different, or you don't want to mess with it an more, or don't have time to fit it in then fine, I'm sure we can adapt

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 26
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 8:16:10 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Jim,

You may not want the AI to choose but choose it must because otherwise it would do as before - ie it has an order to Move to a Reserve Loc for an attack but on the way it runs into enemy that were not there when the original plan was developed. Without some reaction and reassess code to handle this case it would continue as ordered into harms way. I think everyone agrees that this is not a good thing. The alternative is to simply raise an alert message and continue, leaving it to the player to respond if they wish. This would have the irksome effect of requiring the player to get involved making decisions that normally would be left to the subordinates and/or of running the risk that the user misses the message while focussed elsewhere and then cursing the stupid AI for getting his Bde HQ destroyed.


Having the game paused - so the player has time to react appropiately - when such messages are generated is a new feature we can provide in the very near future, Dave. There's a problem with MP games, of course, as both players would have to get the game paused.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 27
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 8:23:18 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1273
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Jim,

You may not want the AI to choose but choose it must because otherwise it would do as before - ie it has an order to Move to a Reserve Loc for an attack but on the way it runs into enemy that were not there when the original plan was developed. Without some reaction and reassess code to handle this case it would continue as ordered into harms way. I think everyone agrees that this is not a good thing. The alternative is to simply raise an alert message and continue, leaving it to the player to respond if they wish. This would have the irksome effect of requiring the player to get involved making decisions that normally would be left to the subordinates and/or of running the risk that the user misses the message while focussed elsewhere and then cursing the stupid AI for getting his Bde HQ destroyed.


Having the game paused - so the player has time to react appropiately - when such messages are generated is a new feature we can provide in the very near future, Dave. There's a problem with MP games, of course, as both players would have to get the game paused.


Maybe it could be accompanied with a louder, or even adjustable in volume, warning sound? Even the warning sounds could be different for, different kinds of warnings?

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 28
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 9:38:25 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1974
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Thanks Dave. I certainly recall very well what it was like when HQs used to lead attacks etc, and I was a part of that clamour you mention, so wouldn't want to return to that. Second option sounds good to me. Thanks.

I'm not sure why it's 'pretty dumb' to site it as I have, Dave. I'm coming back at you on this little comment because it seems to me that variations of this problem occur all the time in the HTTR scenarios (the big ones) andf I would hope you would take it more seriously than thinking I was simply doing something dumb when you make your decision to relegate the fix to much later. It's an airborne operation and the problem you have in those (in HTTR) is that your extended supply lines are perhaps impossible to defend over the long term, if you want to also achieve the bridge objectives. They may not be impossible for you, Dave, but for me, anyway, and perhaps many other less capable players. At any rate, you might at least concede that it's possible faced with this problem that you might think it desirable to have your bases and HQs a little closer to the front line than the SEPs are. And if you concede even that, in these scenarios, then this piece of coding has already buggered you, right there. Because we're behind enemy lines and after a time it can be impossible to find a route to ANYWHERE further away than the SEPs without running into this code, because there are enemy units all over, even if they are pretty insignificant units that all other friendly units seem to happily ignore. In addition, it's possible that you simply give the HQ a defend order (without any movement) right where it has landed, right on the drop zone, next to the SEP and if there is an enemy unit within the range then it can't even comply with that defend order!!! It gets stuck.

The pic above is from a series of experiments I've been doing, changing SEP positions (tryng to enjoy a feature of the game which you have made!! :)). The one above is more extreme than others - but I've run into the same problem with all of them. So, I'll certainly be glad when you change that bit of code, by adding a new feature. But I'd add - I didn't see this pre-patch 4. So as long as we're sure it is working as planned.....

Plus, the other more obvious reason the above isn't dumb at all is that the units in threat range are not a threat at all. Absolutely not. I've played this scenario and variations on it so many times and those units are about to be rolled up no problem. That's why I should be allowed to get my HQ and base to a safe postion, within lines, completely ignoring the threat it perceives, because those units are, in fact, not a threat.

Unless there was some other reason it's dumb - something I'm not aware of?

< Message edited by phoenix -- 4/4/2013 9:41:58 AM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 29
RE: BFTB Build 4.4.259 - 4/4/2013 9:39:38 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3070
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
Maybe it could be accompanied with a louder, or even adjustable in volume, warning sound? Even the warning sounds could be different for, different kinds of warnings?


See that when you plot a Move-like task into unreachable terrain you get an audible warning. Is that too easy to go unnoticed?

Of all the reports generated, which do you think should allow the option to get the game paused and an alarm issued?

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> BFTB Build 4.4.259 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

0.113