Tacview improvement priorities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


MrClock -> Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 3:18:19 PM)

1) Tacview currently displays all units of all sides, even if the player’s current side cannot see them, similar to the God’s Eye View mode.

https://i.imgur.com/CtlMl4B.jpg

2) There are many stylized units.

https://i.imgur.com/440kU1z.jpg



Are there any improvements planned, especially with regard to the issue of God’s Eye View mode?




Gizzmoe -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 3:28:03 PM)

Hi :) There's a running poll for gameplay feature requests, "Tacview - Implement Fog Of War" is one of them.
You can vote here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4709794






[BSM]Roby7979 -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 3:29:05 PM)

Ciao,sono entrambi dettagli evidenziati a fine settembre quando ci furono le prime notizie su CMO,stiamo lavorando per aumentare i modelli 3D e per eventualmente aggingere la "nebbia di guerra" su tacview per oscurare la visuale della fazione opposta.

Hi, both details are highlighted at the end of September when there were the first news about CMO, we are working to increase the 3D models and to possibly add the "fog of war" on tacview to obscure the view of the opposite faction.




MrClock -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 4:02:37 PM)

Thanks for your feedback.
I think that without add the "fog of war", tacview brings no benefit to the game, but it makes things worse.

(Sei stato gentilissimo nel rispondermi, sono convinto che l'uso del condizionale voglia dire che essendo un programma di terze parti potete metterci mano fino ad un certo punto e quindi non è detto che si possa fare, altrimenti era una cosa che sarebbe già stata fatta).




JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 4:31:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrClock

Thanks for your feedback.
I think that without add the "fog of war", tacview brings no benefit to the game, but it makes things worse.

(Sei stato gentilissimo nel rispondermi, sono convinto che l'uso del condizionale voglia dire che essendo un programma di terze parti potete metterci mano fino ad un certo punto e quindi non è detto che si possa fare, altrimenti era una cosa che sarebbe già stata fatta).


It would be one thing if we could use it for AAR, but we can't even do that, so...yeah, without FoW, Tacview is not usable.




guanotwozero -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 4:50:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr
It would be one thing if we could use it for AAR, but we can't even do that, so...yeah, without FoW, Tacview is not usable.


It's fine for viewing short range interactions where FoW is not an issue - I'm finding it very informative and immersive. But sure, I can see it's not currently suited for FoW scales.




stolowski -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 5:19:59 PM)

Unfortunately, even for short range interactions it often reveals too much. Whenever you open the view it always shows the entire globe initially, which may already reveal some enemies. In close encounters you may accidentaly see a submarine you didn’t even know is there. Plus, tacview always gives away full classification of a unit while you are still chasing a „bogey” in CMO.




guanotwozero -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 5:35:54 PM)

You're right. I tend to only use it for AtoA or strike, where the targets are already identified or at least narrowed down. Yep, I run the risk of finding out something I shouldn't, but I'm only using it where I think that's unlikely. It's of limited use but I wouldn't say useless.




thewood1 -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 6:56:37 PM)

Its not perfect, but it is entertaining for some of the A2A engagements.




AlGrant -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:12:13 PM)

Tacview FOW: I've been thinking about this ..... these are just my thoughts .... Yours may differ!

I understand wanting FOW but think we need to remember that it is not currently a feature of Tacview, so the Devs would need to work out how to make it do something it isn't designed to do.

Even if it could be implemented there is a question if how it should be implemented!

Knowing about a unit in CMO isn't just on/off.
There are various levels to what we know about it ..... Side ID, class ID etc as well as constantly changing uncertainty zones surrounding its location. All things that Tacview is not designed for or capable of showing.

For example, If a previously undetected 'not shown in Tacview' unit is detected as an unknown Bogie with a large uncertainty zone in CMO, do you want it to show you the full type of aircraft, side and correct position ... I think that would be only marginally better than what we have and many would still be unhappy.

I've not seen any suggestions on how these things should be handled, just the sort of "why didn't the Devs give us FOW" and "they need to fix this" type comments.

I think getting CMO to make Tacview do things it's not designed to do would not be easy and would no doubt eat into Dev time/resources and I have to wonder what else would get delayed!

When it comes to Dev time, what feature would you be willing to delay in order to get Tacview FOW?

Asking the Tacview Devs to assist is one option, but I doubt it would be their priority (Tacview has far more flight sim users than CMO users) and they'd need to be sure not to break things for other games that use it.

Don't misunderstand me ...... I'm not trying to be negative, as an existing Tacview user I'd love to see it have some FOW, I just don't think it's as straight forward as some are making out.







JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:15:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

Tacview FOW: I've been thinking about this ..... these are just my thoughts .... Yours may differ!

I understand wanting FOW but think we need to remember that it is not currently a feature of Tacview, so the Devs would need to work out how to make it do something it isn't designed to do.

Even if it could be implemented there is a question if how it should be implemented!

Knowing about a unit in CMO isn't just on/off.
There are various levels to what we know about it ..... Side ID, class ID etc as well as constantly changing uncertainty zones surrounding its location. All things that Tacview is not designed for or capable of showing.

For example, If a previously undetected 'not shown in Tacview' unit is detected as an unknown Bogie with a large uncertainty zone in CMO, do you want it to show you the full type of aircraft, side and correct position ... I think that would be only marginally better than what we have and many would still be unhappy.

I've not seen any suggestions on how these things should be handled, just the sort of "why didn't the Devs give us FOW" and "they need to fix this" type comments.

I think getting CMO to make Tacview do things it's not designed to do would not be easy and would no doubt eat into Dev time/resources and I have to wonder what else would get delayed!

When it comes to Dev time, what feature would you be willing to delay in order to get Tacview FOW?

Asking the Tacview Devs to assist is one option, but I doubt it would be their priority (Tacview has far more flight sim users than CMO users) and they'd need to be sure not to break things for other games that use it.

Don't misunderstand me ...... I'm not trying to be negative, as an existing Tacview user I'd love to see it have some FOW, I just don't think it's as straight forward as some are making out.






Tacview displays the information it's being fed. I would think it would be fairly low effort to just exclude any data the player can't see from the data feed.

Targets that have not been fully identified simply show as a generic platform of whatever it is (air,land,surface, sub-surface)

For contacts whose location hasn't been positively identified can either be shown where it is on the players screen, or if that's too difficult, still be shown in tacview at the 'true' location, because we don't have enough of a frame of reference in tacview for knowing the distance to really be an issue.

For good examples of how games properly handle FoW, look at Dangerous Waters, Fleet command, cold waters etc.

It's pretty straightforward, and the devs are wizards. Give them some credit [;)]




AlGrant -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:23:04 PM)

So if you exclude the Side ID, unit class ID etc and have a large, constantly changing area for the possible unit location ...... What model do you want Tacview to show and where should it show it?





JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:25:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlGrant

So if you exclude the Side ID, unit class ID etc and have a large, constantly changing area for the possible unit location ...... What model do you want Tacview to show and where should it show it?




A generic model of whatever contact type, and the location doesn't really matter, as figuring out distance from tacview isn't really plausible...so that's kind of a non-issue.

The biggest problem we have with the current tacview implementation is being able to see units we haven't detected yet.




thewood1 -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:30:16 PM)

I would suggest people really concerned about the FoW issue get refunds on TacView. I am pretty sure its going to be a lot of work because TacView has no infrastructure to support the FoW as CMO has it. Then you can re-buy it when it works to your expectations.




JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:35:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I would suggest people really concerned about the FoW issue get refunds on TacView. I am pretty sure its going to be a lot of work because TacView has no infrastructure to support the FoW as CMO has it. Then you can re-buy it when it works to your expectations.


Again, Tacview doesn't run off of magic - it displays what information is being fed to it from CMO. They just need to filter that information.

Of course, perhaps that is incredibly difficult to do with the current engine, we don't know. Hopefully they will have some news about it soon, as it's a pretty common complaint both here and on steam, and from a "game" perspective, doesn't make a ton of sense.




thewood1 -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:39:25 PM)

I am not sure its that easy. Just trying to tamp down expectations that this is the highest priority of the devs and that its an easy change. If it bothered me that much, I'd get the refund while I could and then re-buy it if it changes.

My reasoning is that its not broken and its optional. They have bugs to fix and other commitments they have to adding stuff. Just don't want someone to get caught holding the app and losing the ability to refund.




JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 7:55:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I am not sure its that easy. Just trying to tamp down expectations that this is the highest priority of the devs and that its an easy change. If it bothered me that much, I'd get the refund while I could and then re-buy it if it changes.

My reasoning is that its not broken and its optional. They have bugs to fix and other commitments they have to adding stuff. Just don't want someone to get caught holding the app and losing the ability to refund.


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you here, bugs are 100% top priority. I just think (among others) that the next thing that should be worked on is FoW.




thewood1 -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 8:10:50 PM)

Just be careful of the refund date. It seems to be a pretty big deal for a few people who are posting frequently about it.




guanotwozero -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/17/2019 8:18:47 PM)

While I understand the potential value of Tacview here, I still bought this game to play it as an improved CMANO - a strategy game.

Maybe I'm old school, but early on in CMANO there were calls to use a 3D display with unit models; I favoured the devs spending their man-hours on improving the game strategy and functionality rather than the visuals. For that reason I'd still prioritise the Advanced Mission Planner over Tacview FoW.

Visuals are nice, but I bought this game for the beef.




sfbaytf -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 1:15:13 AM)

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.




thewood1 -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 1:23:17 AM)

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.




JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:02:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. It really destroys the game in many aspects. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.


It can be, and is done for CMO PE. For whatever reason they don't want to allow it in the consumer version.




JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:04:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.


Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.




sfbaytf -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:07:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.



I could have done a better job wording things. I meant to say that the way tacview is implemented it destroys the value of tacview-you can't use it without seeing everything in most cases.

Otherwise the improvements to the game are excellent. Without tacview CMO is very well done. You really don't need tacview. May have been better just have left it out.




sfbaytf -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:10:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. It really destroys the game in many aspects. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.


It can be, and is done for CMO PE. For whatever reason they don't want to allow it in the consumer version.


Kinda strange as to why they don't want it in the commercial version. Not sure what the reasoning is.




sfbaytf -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:17:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.


Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.


I agree with the immersion part, but I was playing a scenario and used tacview to watch a Seahawk attack a sub, once I opened tacview a second sub that was undetected was visible and that pretty much ruined the scenario. I think it might have been better to have just left tacview out of the equation. Eventually it may get modified, so its a wait and see for now.

Otherwise the interface changes and other changes have made this a very big improvement to the sim. I had high expectations for tacview, its turned out to be the biggest dissapointment but I can use it for other purposes.




thewood1 -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:23:50 AM)

What the heck is "immersion"? This is a command level sim/game. "Immersion" should be sitting in a dark room building missions and getting delayed feedback on how they executed. If you want "immersion" where you can see cute little planes flying around, I still think you are the wrong game. The devs tried to satisfy the "immersion" crowd as simply and effectively as possible. And as the old adage goes...No good deed goes unpunished. I guess we can all stop playing since the game is destroyed.




JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:28:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

What the heck is "immersion"? This is a command level sim/game. "Immersion" should be sitting in a dark room building missions and getting delayed feedback on how they executed. If you want "immersion" where you can see cute little planes flying around, I still think you are the wrong game. The devs tried to satisfy the "immersion" crowd as simply and effectively as possible. And as the old adage goes...No good deed goes unpunished. I guess we can all stop playing since the game is destroyed.


You do realize that just because that's your idea of immersion, it doesn't mean it's that same for others? (as evidenced by the poll).





JOhnnyr -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 2:29:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This simulation has been used and enjoyed as a game for six years. And because you can't see the pictures of planes flying around, it "destroys" the game. Maybe you should talk to the thousands of people playing it or have played it in that time. I don't think any of them feel its destroyed.

I can understand some minor disappointment in a feature that doesn't do what you expect. If its such a personal affront, get the refund on CMO while you can. But getting all hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't make me think that TacView brings any kind of new mature part of the market to CMO. As I have said before, looking at how people are complaining about the implementation of TacView, I wish the devs had spent the time on something that really matters in the game.


Immersion is important to me, which is why Tacview makes such a difference, and in my opinion *really matters in the game*.


I agree with the immersion part, but I was playing a scenario and used tacview to watch a Seahawk attack a sub, once I opened tacview a second sub that was undetected was visible and that pretty much ruined the scenario. I think it might have been better to have just left tacview out of the equation. Eventually it may get modified, so its a wait and see for now.

Otherwise the interface changes and other changes have made this a very big improvement to the sim. I had high expectations for tacview, its turned out to be the biggest dissapointment but I can use it for other purposes.


Oh for sure, they have to fix FoW for Tacview to be useful. There isn't really any way around it, since we can't use it for AAR.

Tacview is a literal game changer, they just need to get the implementation right. (And I have faith they will)




MirabelleBenou -> RE: Tacview improvement priorities (11/18/2019 4:45:33 AM)

Hello !
I'm part of the beta tester team. We already had that kind of discussion within the beta team.

What I can say is that there may be a way to implement FoW (Al already made great generic shapes for that use), but it will take some manpower to do it.

Tacview is a big feature, but not a core one. I think that there is actually some more top priorities than FoW (I'm not talking for the Dev Team, just my own view).

BUT, priorities are not the same for everyone and the devs are really listening to us/you. So please, go to vote for request feature to show them.

At that time, FoW begin to be a priority user request (if I refer strictly to the vote result).

And you may have other helpfull suggestions :-)

Thanks !




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625