Leopard 2E hotfix (for v3.011 and v3.019b)

Thanks.

The fix doesn't seem to be working in 3.019 or 3.011, shooting the ammo box on the loaders gun (even with a 50 cal) takes out the main gun. The white treads ARE fixed however.

Thanks.

Gabbing V2 now.

Looks good here. :thumbup:

Thanks for taking the time to address and fix this. I hadn't noticed either issue, but it's nice to know these things are being taken care of.

And thanks to all the players who diligently document and report these bugs. You are doing us all a service.

Legend has it, that Volcano was attacked by a bug of some sort as a small child. It was a profound moment in his development, and forever altered him.

Since that point, thousands of bugs have fallen by his sword.

Legend has it, that Volcano was attacked by a bug of some sort as a small child. It was a profound moment in his development, and forever altered him.

Since that point, thousands of bugs have fallen by his sword.

I use a daily issue of wine for any bugs I may catch on my person, up to now it has worked....burp

I hesitate to ask this but will risk approbrium and humiliation and do so anyway...

Does the appearance of this hotfix/patch mean that other known bugs - some far more serious than this one IMHO - willl be fixed in the same way? I.e, before the next update.

I think such hotfix is due to the nature of the bug.

There is no coding involved just a model to be tweaked/ a file to be modified.

I hesitate to ask this but will risk approbrium and humiliation and do so anyway...

Does the appearance of this hotfix/patch mean that other known bugs - some far more serious than this one IMHO - willl be fixed in the same way? I.e, before the next update.

I suspect that's a function of the issue and how hard it is to fix.

Here is was identified that something had been omitted and it was an easy thing to address.

Something else like say "the Infantry modelling is $#@#$!%@#^%@" would require a whole bunch of effort to look into.

Then you need to work out the impacts of the fix. Here it seems to have been a pretty self contained thing that could be fixed in isolation. Something else might have impacts across the software (no idea if this is right but "fixing" Infantry pathing in built up areas might mess with Helicopters say) so it needs to be considered as part of the whole.

Then you then need to think of the impacts on the players.

There is already a bit of a divide between those with 3.011 and those with 3.019.

This hotfix doesn't matter if you don't have Leo 2Es in your scenario. If you do and you are playing MP then the server at least needs it.

Imagine the confusion if suddenly we needed 3.091 plus Hotfix1 + Hotfix2 + Hotfix3 and someone turns up with 3.019 and only Hotfixes 1 and 3.

You could spend half a MP session trying to confirm that everyone had all the hotfixes before hitting "start".

Lastly, it would result in a pretty fragmented production plan for eSim with hotfixes coming out in dribs and drabs and probably building expectations that things will be fixed very rapidly with a constant stream of these hotfixes.

I think their preferred model is to aggregate the hotfixes into the current system of periodic patches where they know Hotfix 1 and Hotfix 2 work together and if the person downloads patch X they get both.

Just a set of external observations though (no insider information at all) except for "living the dream" with TGIF sessions where people turned up without the Beta or the wrong version of it, etc.

Unlikely - but if you could give a compelling example...?

All the bugs currently affecting the movement of infantry and IFVs?

There is already a bit of a divide between those with 3.011 and those with 3.019.

Imagine the confusion if suddenly we needed 3.091 plus Hotfix1 + Hotfix2 + Hotfix3 and someone turns up with 3.019 and only Hotfixes 1 and 3.

You could spend half a MP session trying to confirm that everyone had all the hotfixes before hitting "start".

Not really IMHO. You would just send them off to get the hotfixes/patches required to bring them up to the latest version, and ask them to come back when they;d done that. IIRC, that's how IL2 worked. When a patch came out the word went round like wildfire and everyone updated asap. At worst, someone might turn up for a session needing the two latest patches, but as these were quick to download and self-installing, it took only about 5min for everyone to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'.

Not really IMHO. You would just send them off to get the hotfixes/patches required to bring them up to the latest version, and ask them to come back when they;d done that. IIRC, that's how IL2 worked. When a patch came out the word went round like wildfire and everyone updated asap. At worst, someone might turn up for a session needing the two latest patches, but as these were quick to download and self-installing, it took only about 5min for everyone to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'.

Well for what three TGIFs in a row we had 30min+ (out of an activity that is "meant" to go for 120-180mins) delays as people sorted out who had what versions, whether they could download it and apply it in time, etc.

Hence why I said:

Just a set of external observations though (no insider information at all) except for "living the dream" with TGIF sessions where people turned up without the Beta or the wrong version of it, etc.

Well for what three TGIFs in a row we had 30min+ (out of an activity that is "meant" to go for 120-180mins) delays as people sorted out who had what versions, whether they could download it and apply it in time, etc.

I don't understand this. TGIF is a multiplayer event officially sanctioned by eSim Games. Surely it MUST be played using the latest official version of the game: 3.011? Are you saying that someone who has just bought SB Pro PE with the totally reasonable expectation of playing TGIF cannot do so because it is being played using a beta version for which he cannot obtain a licence?

We certainly don't have this problem in DoW. We run our MP sessions using 3.019 UNLESS someone doesn't have it - or has the software but not a licence. I which case we go with 3.011. The decision makinng process takes about 30 sec.

I am genuinely confused. :confused:

...a "hotfix" of the EXE would break more than it would fix, while MRF files are isolated, focused fixes, with low risk).

Well I don't know why. Other games developers regularly update their .exe files successfully with patches.

Regarding the Mech Infantry, surely the existing 'broken' nature of this aspect of the sim must be hurting eSim's sales of SB Pro to potential military customers? Or have the problems been fixed in Pro but not in Pro PE? If that is the case - and introducing these fixes in Pro PE is some sort of problem - would it not be better to say so - and if possible explain why? People might be disappointed, but most would be understanding IMHO. What they can't understand - the people I've spoken to, at least - is why eSim appear not to be addressing this apparently important problem with any urgency.

'Yeah, we know it's broke, but we aren't going to fix it 'til next year' is, with all due respect, not great customer service.

I don't understand this. TGIF is a multiplayer event officially sanctioned by eSim Games. Surely it MUST be played using the latest official version of the game: 3.011? Are you saying that someone who has just bought SB Pro PE with the totally reasonable expectation of playing TGIF cannot do so because it is being played using a beta version for which he cannot obtain a licence?

We certainly don't have this problem in DoW. We run our MP sessions using 3.019 UNLESS someone doesn't have it - or has the software but not a licence. I which case we go with 3.011. The decision makinng process takes about 30 sec.

I am genuinely confused. :confused:

No I'm not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that when 3.011 first came out (not a Beta, no issue with limited licenses) and when 3.017/ 3.019 first came out (i.e. still advertised here, licenses still readily available) there were a host of long time SB players who either don't know / didn't look and so turned up with 3.002 and then there was a disruption while people went to get the still readily available software.

I am not talking about "now" when the number of licences available have expired/been reduced.

This was a counter argument to your comment of:

Not really IMHO. You would just send them off to get the hotfixes/patches required to bring them up to the latest version, and ask them to come back when they;d done that. IIRC, that's how IL2 worked. When a patch came out the word went round like wildfire and everyone updated asap. At worst, someone might turn up for a session needing the two latest patches, but as these were quick to download and self-installing, it took only about 5min for everyone to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'.

Because:

1. The word obviously didn't go "round like wildfire and everyone updated asap" and

2. It most certainly didn't take "only about 5min for everyone to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'"

Now perhaps the IL2 community is different (no idea) but this is the way things have happened here for the last three major updates / public betas.

Well I don't know why. Other games developers regularly update their .exe files successfully with patches.

This is where some knowledge of programming comes in handy. Some aspects of a program may behave in a more isolated way than others. On the other hand, some aspects may be fundamental to the way the program works.

Think of it this way: If you want to change the tread pattern of the tires on your car, you just pull the old ones off and put the new ones on and you're done. Now, if you want to change the size of the tires on your car, you may have to adjust the ride height, suspension, wheel well size, recalibrate the speedometer/odometer, etc...