Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Tacview improvement priorities

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Tacview improvement priorities Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/18/2019 12:31:01 PM   
Andrea G


Posts: 318
Joined: 10/9/2017
From: Genoa, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

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.


+1
It would be a pity if CMO steers in the direction of flight simulators.
But I think the devs have a clear view of their objectives.


_____________________________

"My name is Maurizio Cocciolone"
Italian pilot downed during Desert Storm
Start phrase of his interviw on the Iraqui TV

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 31
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/18/2019 12:51:52 PM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrea G


quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

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.


+1
It would be a pity if CMO steers in the direction of flight simulators.
But I think the devs have a clear view of their objectives.



You are kind of making a false argument - they don't need to come up with a 3d engine and all the issues that come with that - they are relying on a third party program for visualization. They just need to adjust the data that's being fed to it, a significantly easier task.

(in reply to Andrea G)
Post #: 32
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/18/2019 1:01:23 PM   
CmdSoda

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 11/17/2019
Status: offline
The challenge is to display units whose radar data is no longer up to date. In case of an aircraft you would see a static object hovering in the air. Or how would you represent an old unit radar blib? TacView has its limits as well.

(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 33
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/18/2019 1:05:40 PM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CmdSoda

The challenge is to display units whose radar data is no longer up to date. In case of an aircraft you would see a static object hovering in the air. Or how would you represent an old unit radar blib? TacView has its limits as well.


As I said before, other games have tackled this issue quite nicely and simply - whatever your map says, is what tacview displays. I already went over how other games handle ambiguous contacts.

It's really that simple.

(in reply to CmdSoda)
Post #: 34
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/19/2019 5:33:18 AM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12420
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr
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)


It is VERY annoying when you keep saying the dev team has to "fix" this. "Fix" implies something is broken, ie. something is not working as designed. This is not the case here. Tacview has always, I repeat _always_, worked like this. There is _nothing_ major to fix. Adding FOW is a major development item for implementing _additional functionality_ and making Tacview work in ways it was never designed to in the first place.

So please, say "add" or "implement". It's a small change for you, but it's an important distinction for us.

Thank you.


< Message edited by Dimitris -- 11/19/2019 8:55:48 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 35
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/19/2019 11:05:46 AM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr
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)


It is VERY annoying when you keep saying the dev team has to "fix" this. "Fix" implies something is broken, ie. something is not working as designed. This is not the case here. Tacview has always, I repeat _always_, worked like this. There is _nothing_ major to fix. Adding FOW is a major development item for implementing _additional functionality_ and making Tacview work in ways it was never designed to in the first place.

So please, say "add" or "implement". It's a small change for you, but it's an important distinction for us.

Thank you.



Dimitris, Tacview was designed for AAR, where FoW does not matter - Since we can't use it for that in the consumer version, in it's current implementation it's not usable by anyone who doesn't want to cheat, which is why I've been using the word "fix" up until now.

I have a ton of respect for you and the other devs, so I'll do as you ask, but please try to understand it from our point of view as well.



< Message edited by JOhnnyr -- 11/19/2019 11:09:34 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 36
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/19/2019 11:57:28 AM   
Archer53

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 12/19/2014
Status: offline
oops

< Message edited by Archer53 -- 11/19/2019 12:00:44 PM >

(in reply to MirabelleBenou)
Post #: 37
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/19/2019 1:07:05 PM   
Marder


Posts: 241
Joined: 10/25/2013
Status: offline
I use tacview the follownig way without cheating:

i use a small tacview window with max zoom in just to see the chosen unittype in 3d :) i know, it's too expensive for this kind of "fun".

(in reply to Archer53)
Post #: 38
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/19/2019 1:31:32 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
I'm going to make a potentially contradictory argument here.

Immersion is important for games. It mentally puts us, the player, into the hot seat of a particular game.

Maybe it's a Warthog driver moving mud or a Supercub pilot waterskipping its tundras. Perhaps it's a pioneering colonist chopping wood for a granary or mining minerals for a Martian base. Could be a warrior countersniping in a ruined tractor factory or a tankie hurling sabot rounds at that faint glow through the gap in the trees. There's excitement in slaying a rogue griffon with a silver sword, while others have given up that adventurous stuff after taking an arrow to the knee. Some folks point and click their way around a detective thriller, others leap between platforms to collect eggs while dodging a giant flying duck. A few of us even remember having to "go south" and "get sandwiches".

While they're a relatively recent medium of entertainment, computer games have spawned a plethora of genres and produced an impressive amount of excellence. Key to that excellence is the ability to immerse the player in a particular role. CMO is a strategy game; the hotseat is that of an operational commander. We marshall our forces, coordinate actions and make judgement calls with a limited situation awareness like a real commander. IMO CMANO did an excellent job in providing such immersion, and CMO is set to take that further.

What about Tacview? Does it fit with that sense of immersion? I'm new to it and quite like it - but I admit it changes the nature of the immersion. When I use it I'm no longer the commander - I'm the wingman or observer viewing an action from close quarters. That's not usually what operational commanders do. I realise it's been edging me away from the main reason I play this game. So even if CMO is extended to include Tacview FoW why would I use it? The main reason would be as a learning tool, to better understand the consequences of the decisions I make as a commander. An excellent accompaniment for tutorials and trying out new techniques; an opportunity to learn from AARs and replays. Nevertheless I've a feeling I won't use it so much when I'm playing "for real".

But hey, that's me; everyone has a different take on this game. Other people will value Tacview for different reasons from me; they paid their money too so who am I to say they shouldn't? That's why there's a request thread - to get feedback on what players would like. I've already expressed my preference to prioritise the AMP; at present that's the most popular but TacFoW is close behind. I'd argue that the AMP will significantly enhance the operational command aspect of the game while TacFoW will not.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

Many commercial programmers are familiar with the idea of low-hanging fruit. Clients want all sorts of changes and improvements; some enhancements take a lot of work before any results are apparent, others take less effort to create satisfaction. A quick burst of wow! can make clients happy enough to stop breathing down our necks so we can get on with the tough stuff.

Could TacFoW be in that category? I read the argument that it's "only" filtering what's fed to Tacview; I don't know how CMO works under the hood, but I don't reckon it's quite as simple as that. I'm guessing there'll be all sorts of issues about sorting, timing, threading and synchronisation optimised for different purposes.

Nevertheless I don't reckon it will be quite the giant extended nightmare that the AMP could be. Not least because the TacFoW goals are pretty straight-forward, whereas narrowing down what an AMP should do will likely take much debate and thrashing out of concepts before a single spec or line of code is written. It follows that it may be worth the devs' efforts to get Tacview FoW out of the way, impressing many close-quarters combatants and bringing new blood to CMO, before embarking on The Big One for all of us old-school commanders.

So, OK - maybe "do" Tacview first.

(in reply to Archer53)
Post #: 39
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/19/2019 9:58:54 PM   
c3k

 

Posts: 265
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline
I just fired up my first CMO scenario. It took about 3 minutes to figure out how to get my Steam-installed TacView to work with CMO.

Well, now that I've seen it...I love it.

Sure, it could be improved, but it was great seeing the 3D geometry of the fight.

I'm a fan.

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 40
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/20/2019 3:51:59 AM   
Anathema


Posts: 93
Joined: 10/4/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MirabelleBenou

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 !

I was actually going to suggest invisible textures on tacview models to simulate faux FOW, or even a simple model of an invisible cube with a few LOD levels if tacview expects it to represent the invisible enemy.

It wouldn't be perfect since any labels or UI might still be visible and would be an all or nothing approach with the enemy always invisible, so isn't an ideal solution as it introduces the exact opposite problem of not seeing enough instead of too much.

It also isn't that user friendly since the right models would have to be made invisible for every single scenario. Although a modding type tool might be able to swap the right textures or models in and out of Tacview based on the scenario file.

If you need some manpower I can donate some time and have commercial versions of most 3D software like Maya or 3D Max for work.

(in reply to MirabelleBenou)
Post #: 41
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/20/2019 4:05:32 AM   
Anathema


Posts: 93
Joined: 10/4/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf


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.



If you are charging professionals significantly more and I don't know the exact price, but let's say 10 times as much for the sake of argument then you are going to have to give those customers value for money and a reason to pay the higher price.

Considering professionals and the military use CMO and Tacview for AARs, simulated exercises and teaching then that is an obvious feature you can offer to professionals to convince them to pay the far higher price, especially as the vast majority of home gamers aren't going to ever want or need to do an AAR.

I think it's actually a pretty clever decision and perfect way to differentiate the professional edition from the game we all play.

< Message edited by Anathema -- 11/20/2019 4:07:37 AM >

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 42
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/20/2019 7:11:20 PM   
MirabelleBenou

 

Posts: 310
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anathema


quote:

ORIGINAL: MirabelleBenou

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 !

I was actually going to suggest invisible textures on tacview models to simulate faux FOW, or even a simple model of an invisible cube with a few LOD levels if tacview expects it to represent the invisible enemy.

It wouldn't be perfect since any labels or UI might still be visible and would be an all or nothing approach with the enemy always invisible, so isn't an ideal solution as it introduces the exact opposite problem of not seeing enough instead of too much.

It also isn't that user friendly since the right models would have to be made invisible for every single scenario. Although a modding type tool might be able to swap the right textures or models in and out of Tacview based on the scenario file.

If you need some manpower I can donate some time and have commercial versions of most 3D software like Maya or 3D Max for work.


Hello ! Manpower will mostly be needed for coding :)

But, if you want to help for custom shapes, feel free to do ! Dimitris just opened this thread :
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4720276

I personnaly use Blender, and Al use Rhino3D.

Thanks !


_____________________________


(in reply to Anathema)
Post #: 43
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/20/2019 7:26:43 PM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
Coding should be as simple as:


Tacview Filter

If (object.Side !=playerSide){
   if (object.detected){
      if(object.identified){
         object.modelToTellTacview = object.model
      }

      else{
      object.modelToTellTacview = GenericModels(object.type)
      }

   else{
   object.modelToTellTacview = invisibleObject
   }

  }
}


Right guys? right??

< Message edited by JOhnnyr -- 11/20/2019 7:29:09 PM >

(in reply to MirabelleBenou)
Post #: 44
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/20/2019 7:30:03 PM   
MirabelleBenou

 

Posts: 310
Joined: 4/3/2010
Status: offline
Well.... I'll not answer this

_____________________________


(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 45
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/20/2019 7:50:17 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4787
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Holy crap. Let me get my compiler out.

(in reply to MirabelleBenou)
Post #: 46
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 11/22/2019 7:38:53 AM   
LordFlashheart

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 4/3/2014
Status: offline
My vote would be for an AAR function ahead of implementing full FOW.

Anyone know if you record a CMO session and then 'replay' it - will TacView pull its data from the replay to give you a 3D AAR?

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 47
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/16/2019 4:13:18 AM   
kosmoface

 

Posts: 101
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anathema

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf


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.



If you are charging professionals significantly more and I don't know the exact price, but let's say 10 times as much for the sake of argument then you are going to have to give those customers value for money and a reason to pay the higher price.

Considering professionals and the military use CMO and Tacview for AARs, simulated exercises and teaching then that is an obvious feature you can offer to professionals to convince them to pay the far higher price, especially as the vast majority of home gamers aren't going to ever want or need to do an AAR.

I think it's actually a pretty clever decision and perfect way to differentiate the professional edition from the game we all play.



Oh it's also a perfect decision to create a trailer full with TACVIEW scenes, lure new players in to pay for both programs and then inform them that there is no Fog of War in TACVIEW - which is very unusual for a serious wargame.

I feel duped in this regard. CMO is brilliant, but I hardly use TacView anymore, even though I shelled out a lot of money for it. Pretty clever!

(in reply to Anathema)
Post #: 48
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/16/2019 8:57:18 AM   
Surtur

 

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/6/2013
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
Hi kosmoface,

We are sorry that you are unsatisfied with your purchase. Please allow me to elaborate on a couple of things mentioned in this thread.

- TacView has always worked the way it does currently. It is a 3D visualisation of whatever is going on in the game or simulator that is attached to it. It is an extra and optional tool, to help immerse our playerbase. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Adding in a feature such as replicating fog of war (or maybe other effects, features etc.) is not an easy task in itself. It is something we have on our list, with many other changes and additions as requested by the community. WarfareSims has a great track record delivering post-release support, going well beyond what most devs are willing to offer. This is not something we expect to change soon, but at the same time, manpower is limited and features in a sim as complicated as Command, always takes time. Even if it looks something very small and easy to do on first appearance.

- Adding to this. TacView is there because the fans asked for it. This is also why it is highlighted in the trailers. All store pages warn that they are separate purchases though.

Best,

Surtur


_____________________________

- Slitherine Group Producer -
Twitter
Steam

(in reply to kosmoface)
Post #: 49
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/16/2019 10:39:01 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4787
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
There was a ton of information on TacView, its relationship to CMO, and its limitations on the product page, in the forums, and even mentioned in the streams. I sure hope you do a little more research next time you buy something.

(in reply to Surtur)
Post #: 50
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/16/2019 5:10:03 PM   
kosmoface

 

Posts: 101
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
quote:

- Adding in a feature such as replicating fog of war (or maybe other effects, features etc.) is not an easy task in itself. It is something we have on our list,


I see. That you want to implement it later on is really encouraging to hear and I am looking forward to this.

quote:


- Adding to this. TacView is there because the fans asked for it. This is also why it is highlighted in the trailers. All store pages warn that they are separate purchases though.


I don't have a problem paying extra for TACVIEW, as you say - this was very prominent to read. What I didn't know was that there is no Fog of War in TACVIEW - somehow I expected this, because it is very unusual for a serious wargame like CMO.

All I am saying is another Disclaimer that TACVIEW doesn't offer Fog of War would have been nice. I wouldn't have bought it if I had known this beforehand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

There was a ton of information on TacView, its relationship to CMO, and its limitations on the product page, in the forums, and even mentioned in the streams. I sure hope you do a little more research next time you buy something.


Should I really apologize for not following every thread and watching every stream? Really?

I know that CMANO had a following, but I also saw that it was quite an undertaking to get into this game - the reason I never tried. Now I saw the new trailer for CMO, saw 3D models and the non-grognard I am,I thought I buy it and with TACVIEW, because I wanted to play it like it looked in the trailer. Silly me!

All I am saying is that "no Fog of War in Tacview" would have been a very important information to me. Blame me all day long, but I didn't imagine this.

Anyway - I see the devteam will work it out somehow so it wasn't for nothing that I bought it.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 51
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/16/2019 5:25:37 PM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12420
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kosmoface
I don't have a problem paying extra for TACVIEW, as you say - this was very prominent to read. What I didn't know was that there is no Fog of War in TACVIEW - somehow I expected this, because it is very unusual for a serious wargame like CMO.


Just to be clear; Tacview is a completely separate program developed and sold from a completely different company. WarfareSims and Matrix/Slitherine do not make a single dime off Tacview sales.

CMO (and CMANO before it) has always featured FOW. It is Tacview that does not have FOW, and that's a fundamental design element it always had, from its inception.

The dev team has no obligation to implement FOW in Tacview (it is not a bug to fix), but we _will_ give it a shot because it's a hotly-requested feature, and we try to serve our customers as best we can. It will be a long shot at best, because Tacview was never designed for this, but it just might work.


< Message edited by Dimitris -- 12/16/2019 6:24:32 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to kosmoface)
Post #: 52
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/16/2019 5:54:57 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4787
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Its right on the product page when you buy it.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 53
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/17/2019 2:19:47 AM   
magi

 

Posts: 1476
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline
I have always said and thought TacView was totally unnecessary and really not a consequential scope of the game ...... however I bought it anyways… And now that I have it I think it’s really fun ... I always use it pretty selectively so I don’t ruin my game play.... command is pretty intense and watching a little tacky is like taking a little fun break ......

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 54
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/17/2019 2:21:59 AM   
magi

 

Posts: 1476
Joined: 2/1/2014
Status: offline
I have always said and thought TacView was totally unnecessary and really not a consequential to the scope of the game ...... however I bought it anyways… And now that I have it I think it’s really fun ... I always use it pretty selectively so I don’t ruin my game play.... command is pretty intense and watching a little tacview is like taking a little fun break ......

< Message edited by magi -- 12/17/2019 2:23:18 AM >

(in reply to MirabelleBenou)
Post #: 55
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/18/2019 2:36:56 PM   
Marder


Posts: 241
Joined: 10/25/2013
Status: offline
Imho is tacview a great enrichment for C:MO!


(in reply to magi)
Post #: 56
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/18/2019 7:09:49 PM   
kosmoface

 

Posts: 101
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
quote:

The dev team has no obligation to implement FOW in Tacview (it is not a bug to fix), but we _will_ give it a shot because it's a hotly-requested feature, and we try to serve our customers as best we can. It will be a long shot at best, because Tacview was never designed for this, but it just might work.


Understood and fingers crossed. Thank you for trying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Its right on the product page when you buy it.


Not on Steam.

In the best case I would create a Trailer without TACVIEW or insert a clear warning at the end of the Trailer that this is a separate program which has to be bought seperately and doesn't feature "Fog of War". Clear message - end of story.

In Europe this could be called out as misleading advertising as it is now, which is forbidden by law. Having to read in a forum or watching a stream to get this information wouldn't help much in a trial.

As much as you want to blame me, thewood1 - it is not always the customer who is at fault.

< Message edited by kosmoface -- 12/18/2019 7:15:03 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 57
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/18/2019 7:19:01 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4787
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
This time it is.

Let's come back to this. Where does the product page say FOW is an included feature on TacView. TacView works with CMO exactly like the product page and the streams show. Where did anything say FOW is included.

Its very clear that TacView is a operate package developed by another company. So did you assume without doing any due diligence? Did you ask for a refund when you discovered TacView didn't show FOW? Show me where the devs did anything even close to breaking advertising laws. I'll wait for your reply.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 12/18/2019 7:24:57 PM >

(in reply to kosmoface)
Post #: 58
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/19/2019 3:04:35 AM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This time it is.

Let's come back to this. Where does the product page say FOW is an included feature on TacView. TacView works with CMO exactly like the product page and the streams show. Where did anything say FOW is included.

Its very clear that TacView is a operate package developed by another company. So did you assume without doing any due diligence? Did you ask for a refund when you discovered TacView didn't show FOW? Show me where the devs did anything even close to breaking advertising laws. I'll wait for your reply.


Not to stir the pot, but you are being a bit ridiculous . Anyone not familiar with Tacview would 100% assume it uses Fog of War, because that's how games work, and how every game ever made has worked. It just is.

Without FoW, you are forced to cheat, whether you want to or not. That's why you are seeing some of the confusion and people being upset, because as a game, it makes no sense. And that's what people who aren't familiar with CMO or Tacview approach the product, as a game. (because it is a game)

< Message edited by JOhnnyr -- 12/19/2019 3:05:46 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 59
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/19/2019 3:19:15 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4787
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I'm talking about the guy saying the devs have broken some law on false advertisement. Where is he with that proof?

(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Tacview improvement priorities Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.255