Bugs raised in 2017/18 still in Blitz

[No.54_Reddog]

I've just been working through the Channel Map bugs we at Storm of War raised on the bug tracker back in 2017 and 2018 based on the 4.312 version. Sadly, it seems that the following have not been addressed in 4.5 or the 5.0 releases.

 

766 - Oldham airfield should be named Odiham. For some reason the name has been changed to Odiham (Oldham) outside the village of Oldham, which should be ODIHAM. Seriously?

767 - Southend incorrectly spelled Sounthend in the airfield name. Should be RAF Rochford. Has been corrected - Bug in tracker still set to "in progress".

770 - Chatham Docks & St Mary's Island missing. - Still missing.

771 - RAF Ford is incorrectly laid out. - Still wrong.

772 - Missing Southampton Dock buildings - Still missing - Bug tracker still lists as "New"...

773 - Westhampnett Airfield - Bump and Incorrect layout. - Still incorrect.

775 - Tramecourt Airfield - Incorrect concrete runways and layout. Still incorrect. - Bug tracker still lists as "New"...

776 - Breakwater at Boulogne missing - This has actually been done. - Bug tracker still lists as "In Progress"...

777 - RAF Detling completely missing from the map - Bug tracker still lists as "New"...

787 - Reading airfield - incorrect layout and concrete runways. Still incorrect. - Bug tracker still lists as "New"...

788 - Christchurch airfield/RAF Hurn - buildings and revetments in fields with no runways. Still there. - Bug tracker still lists as "Closed"...

798 - Rye Radar station in wrong place. - This has actually been done! - Bug tracker still lists as "In Progress"

799 - RAF Middle Wallop missing from the map. This is still missing. - Bug tracker still lists as "New"...

 

Out of the 18 bugs we reported, 11 are still outstanding, 2 have been done but the bug tracker says they're in progress and 7 have been resolved per the bug tracker. So that's 50% in 2-3 years...

 

This is hugely disappointing from both a personal and community perspective. We took the time to report these issues on your Bug Tracker on the understanding it would be used to manage the project and be of use to you. I have posted a number of times over the years about the Bug Tracker's usage or lack thereof in relation to the project management of the Team Fusion patches and my belief it would have been a) useful for it's intended purpose of tracking individual items and pieces of work, and b) it would have allowed the community to see progress. It would also, and perhaps most importantly have formed the basis of the change log which is still MIA and I'm willing to bet will be lacklustre at best. 

What makes it worse is I suspect many of these issues are trivially solved and would really have gone some way to bridging the gap to a wider community you've lost.

 

I notice that the bug tracker has now been closed for 4.x and that at some point someone will port the existing issues to a new 5.x list. Is that list going to be the same utter waste of time that we have seen thus far and if so, can you please be transparent about it so people don't bother reporting bugs that won't be looked at?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Art-J]

Although I'm impressed by your deep knowledge of the areas depicted and dedication to finding such issues, I can't get rid of impression that your post is a bit too much on the "nitpicking" and "drama queen" side.

 

Rheinland map for Il-2GB series has half of the important towns, roads and railroads missing and we've been basically told by the devs to deal with it. Majority of customers doesn't care anyway. I fear their upcoming channel map will follow the same pattern. Caveat emptor.

 

Allegedly WWII Channel map for DCS has a schizophrenic mixture of towns and facilities ranging from 1940s to 1990s modelled on it, and I don't expect these to be corrected because of sheer amount of detail even in the "historically incorrect" places. Their older Normandy map developed by 3rd party has it's own fair share of missing towns and incorrectly orientated airfields as well. 3rd party has long moved to new project, though.

 

Compared to these more modern and better funded simulators, CloD's channel map despite its age is still relatively the most accurate one, which shows that there's clearly only so much money that publishing studios are willing to pay developers for chasing details nowadays. Not to mention the fact that the strictly BoB-related content is well past the peak sales era and 1C's investment in the project most likely wouldn't have happened at all if TF didn't propose developing a completely new theater of ops.

 

Although I agree with you that fixing typos is probably quick and trivial, remodelling the terrain or putting new facilities on the map is not, at least in my opinion. I believe you're overestimating the community perspective on such things. I suspect for most players these issues do not detract from overall SP or MP experience, neither will you find many people noticing them being fixed or not, unless someone's local and/or really knowledgable (not to say "crazy") about these areas and their history. I understand you're passionate about the subject, but I think some expectations curbing about bug fixing priorities is mandatory here.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Art-J

[No.54_Reddog]

Art-J,

 

I don't think several missing airfields, key airfields in the battle being represented, is "nitpicking". I don't think that highlighting that bugs raised several years ago have not been addressed is being a "drama queen". I do however thank you for the time you've taken to respond to the thread. Quite possibly that took longer than the developers have spent addressing the issues above.

 

I'm not interested in accepting a slightly better crap product here because worse crap exists elsewhere. We should be holding developers to account as consumers. I'm here because I believe that the CLOD platform is the most capable and all round best compromise for what I (and the players who used to frequent my server and who continue to nag me to relaunch it) were looking for. I don't think I should be damned for wanting it to be better and pointing out where the developers are lacking. 

 

If one were to extrapolate your points a little, it would not be too difficult to postulate a position where neon pink aircraft skins were "acceptable" because it's only a minor part of the overall product and at least the bombs explode with a bang!? Extreme, I know and clearly ridiculous but where do you draw the line? Either we report the issues with an expectation that they're fixed or attempted to be fixed, OR, that the developers respond and say "actually, no, we aren't going to deal with these nitpicking and drama queen issues Reddog, go away". The current situation is that we report them, they're ignored, but general vague statements are made that "known issues will be addressed" etc and yet, lo and behold 3 years on they're not.

 

I would be willing to bet that fixing most if not all of these issues would take no more than a couple of days work. They've built tools to create a new map from scratch, they've already modified some of the same type of issues elsewhere. These are not rocket science issues, it's perfectly known how to amend the map. They just have chosen NOT to do so. That's their right, but I believe that having asked us to report bugs, they have a duty to reply whether or not those bugs are going to be looked at or indeed ignored.

[AndyJWest]

Being a 'customer' doesn't make anyone entitled to a product that exactly fulfils their expectations. That isn't what the word means.

[vipe155]

Whether this stuff is listed in the "bug tracker" or not, the cosmetic layout of an airfield in a flight sim isn't really a bug.  Doesn't fit the definition.

 

Perhaps the TF terrain guys will get around to these details, but the assertion that the "wider community" has been driven away because an airfield is missing it's historically accurate  runway material is ridiculous.

[Zoltann]

5 hours ago, Art-J said:

Although I'm impressed by your deep knowledge of the areas depicted and dedication to finding such issues, I can't get rid of impression that your post is a bit too much on the "nitpicking" and "drama queen" side.

 

Rheinland map for Il-2GB series has half of the important towns, roads and railroads missing and we've been basically told by the devs to deal with it. Majority of customers doesn't care anyway. I fear their upcoming channel map will follow the same pattern. Caveat emptor.

 

Allegedly WWII Channel map for DCS has a schizophrenic mixture of towns and facilities ranging from 1940s to 1990s modelled on it, and I don't expect these to be corrected because of sheer amount of detail even in the "historically incorrect" places. Their older Normandy map developed by 3rd party has it's own fair share of missing towns and incorrectly orientated airfields as well. 3rd party has long moved to new project, though.

 

Compared to these more modern and better funded simulators, CloD's channel map despite its age is still relatively the most accurate one, which shows that there's clearly only so much money that publishing studios are willing to pay developers for chasing details nowadays. Not to mention the fact that the strictly BoB-related content is well past the peak sales era and 1C's investment in the project most likely wouldn't have happened at all if TF didn't propose developing a completely new theater of ops.

 

Although I agree with you that fixing typos is probably quick and trivial, remodelling the terrain or putting new facilities on the map is not, at least in my opinion. I believe you're overestimating the community perspective on such things. I suspect for most players these issues do not detract from overall SP or MP experience, neither will you find many people noticing them being fixed or not, unless someone's local and/or really knowledgable (not to say "crazy") about these areas and their history. I understand you're passionate about the subject, but I think some expectations curbing about bug fixing priorities is mandatory here.

 

Well spoken sir...?

[No.54_Reddog]

1 hour ago, vipe155 said:

Whether this stuff is listed in the "bug tracker" or not, the cosmetic layout of an airfield in a flight sim isn't really a bug.  Doesn't fit the definition.

 

Perhaps the TF terrain guys will get around to these details, but the assertion that the "wider community" has been driven away because an airfield is missing it's historically accurate  runway material is ridiculous.

 

 I think that's possibly taking what I said to a rather silly conclusion but ok. All I can tell you that I know a large number of players who aren't coming back to CLOD and in some cases a large part of that is the lack of respect they feel the developers gave them when raising issues. If you think the real issue is that a runway is an incorrect material then fine. I'd say it's indicative of a deeper problem.

 

However it's clear that bothers me doesn't bother you. That's fine by me.

Edited August 7, 2020 by No.54_Reddog
Spelling

[Buzzsaw]

Hello Reddog

 

We inherited an incredibly bugged Channel Map.

 

And we have fixed hundreds of issues, but some are a function of an underlying error in the way the map was originally created.

 

And for TF 5.0, the Channel map is not the focus... we wanted to start fresh with the new TOBRUK map.

 

We are more interested in moving forward and creating new maps.

 

We will be looking again at the Channel map again if we move onto TF 6.0, but with a limited focus on the coastal areas.

[No.54_Reddog]

Buzzsaw,

 

I'm well aware that apart from possibly the naming of Odiham(Oldham) and West_Malling_(Maidstone) TFS are not responsible for the bugs reported.

 

Many thanks for your reply. That you willingly choose not to fix them is not the answer I was looking for but I won't waste any further time on it.

 

 

 

[Art-J]

Reddog, I didn't want to imply you should be damned for wanting improvements. We all would like all aspects of both maps to be as good as possible. Just noticed that with channel map being somewhat outdated content for both devs, publisher who funds the whole deal, and most of the community alike, the focus has moved elsewhere and I just don't expect channel improvements to be placed high on priority list anymore. I think new planes and new map fixes will be there in upcoming months instead.

[KoN_]

Where do i post bugs . In here or bug tracker as looks like i need to register . ??

Edited August 9, 2020 by KoN_

[69thSpiritus]

4 hours ago, KoN_ said:

Where do i post bugs . in here or bug tracker as looks like i need to register . ??

 

Prefer the bug-tracker but we are monitoring all the forums. 

[KoN_]

MY HOTAS keys are not being recognised `` some push buttons and switches are none functional this was the same in Blitz  .

Wheel brake on axis  goes from 0% to 100%  on one tap . And refuses to go back to 0% after release . 

Had a few game crashes trying 4k res . 

Canopy seems to float above aircraft and a bubble effect around aircraft . Took screenshots with print-screen key ,  but all are black with no picture  . 

On the fence with price tag . Sorry guys love you hard work and commitment. 

[danielprates]

On 8/7/2020 at 7:49 AM, No.54_Reddog said:

766 - Oldham airfield should be named Odiham. For some reason the name has been changed to Odiham (Oldham) outside the village of Oldham, which should be ODIHAM. Seriously?

 

Trully, a GAME BREAKING issue. 

[Sokol1]

13 hours ago, KoN_ said:

Took screenshots with print-screen key ,  but all are black with no picture  . 

 

Don't  use PrintScreen for take screenshots, this key never work for this in CLoD.

 

Use F11, a key that is not used in the game, or use STEAM screenshoot default key, F-12.

 

Using F11 screenshot is saved in Documents\1C Soft...dover\Screenshots.

 

Using F12 is saved in Steam\userdata\... but just see then in Steam interface.

 

Your joystick issue is not clear, modern joystick like VKB, VirPIl has more than 32 buttons, and buttons above #32 is not direct assignable in controls, requiring keymapper.

[E69_julian57]

23 hours ago, KoN_ said:

MY HOTAS keys are not being recognised `` some push buttons and switches are none functional this was the same in Blitz  .

Wheel brake on axis  goes from 0% to 100%  on one tap . And refuses to go back to 0% after release . 

Had a few game crashes trying 4k res . 

Canopy seems to float above aircraft and a bubble effect around aircraft . Took screenshots with print-screen key ,  but all are black with no picture  . 

On the fence with price tag . Sorry guys love you hard work and commitment. 

Hello, I have the same problem, it doesn't save my axis and key assignments.
And I had the same problem with the Blitz version.

PS: My peripherals are CH and I didn't assign that many keys. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by E69_julian57

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Blitz/Tobruk only supports 32 buttons at the moment. Use controller provided or 3rd party programs like Joystick Gremlin to program buttons/switches. 

[5th_Barone]

22 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

Trully, a GAME BREAKING issue. 

 

I think that the point rased by reddog was another.

There are still some tickets opened more than three years ago still classified as new.

While the developer wants us to report issues using bugtracker often they don't get noticed nor fixed.

That I think was the point.

On the other side I think buzzsaw clearly replied that some issues are not the main focus of the development and won't be fixed.

 

Now my question to the team would be:

can we still highlight issues using the bugtracker?

Is it still a useful tool for you? Or should we post only in the forum?

 

Cheers all

[FTC_Karaya]

The bugtracker currently is closed down but it's planned to make it open to the public soon-ish (tm).

[AndyJWest]

It should not be necessary to use third-party websites to report bugs in software being sold commercially.

Edited August 10, 2020 by AndyJWest

[OBT-Mikmak]

Why ?

[5th_Barone]

28 minutes ago, JG4_Karaya said:

The bugtracker currently is closed down but it's planned to make it open to the public soon-ish (tm).

this is noted.

thank you.

[Buzzsaw]

9 hours ago, 5th_Barone said:

 

I think that the point rased by reddog was another.

There are still some tickets opened more than three years ago still classified as new.

While the developer wants us to report issues using bugtracker often they don't get noticed nor fixed.

That I think was the point.

On the other side I think buzzsaw clearly replied that some issues are not the main focus of the development and won't be fixed.

 

Now my question to the team would be:

can we still highlight issues using the bugtracker?

Is it still a useful tool for you? Or should we post only in the forum?

 

Cheers all

We welcome feedback on the forum.

 

We are in the process of setting up the Bugtracker because it is easier for us to monitor.