How To Report Crashes/Bugs To Solecismic Software + Current List

[Ben E Lou]

This is your reminder that if you want to get things actually fixed and not merely complain about them, neither FOFC nor the Steam Forums are the places to do it. Solecismic Software has been clear about that process. From the "Contact" page of the online manual: contact [Front Office Football Nine Documentation]
{emphasis added by me}

Contact Information

For product support, you can email customersupport at solecismic.com.
If reporting a bug, please check the Updates page to see if it has already been reported or fixed. If reporting a crash of any kind, please include as much detail as possible, since we have to be able to recreate the crash in order to fix it. Include the information from the Windows Event Viewer, if possible. Most crashes produce an entry in the Event Viewer, under Windows Logs, Application. Please do not send files.
For other questions, if not already covered in the FAQ, we will do our best to answer in a timely manner. Unfortunately, we can't help you with particular customization requests.

And the "updates" page has a current list, as mentioned, so no need to re-report these:

updates [Front Office Football Nine Documentation]

CURRENT TEXT THERE:

Issues under investigation:

• Frequent crash when trying to complete a trade for an opponent's player (confirmed)

• Players eligible for Injured Reserve (out or doubtful) cannot be placed there through player card (confirmed)

• AI needs to be less aggressive about putting players on IR, though this still won't be perfect (confirmed)

• First day of free agency now reserved for offers to your own players, “can't find player” message given in error (confirmed)

• Restricted free agents on your team can now receive offers during early free agency (confirmed)

• Text should be added for clarity when can't make offer because of cap room, and it's only because you need to leave space for the upcoming draft (confirmed)

• Sort on Pancake blocks on individual and career statistics screen is returning random results (confirmed)

• Illegal Touch on the Punt penalty is miscategorized and can result in the offense keeping the ball after the penalty (confirmed)

• Typo on staff hiring screen when trainers are eligible for hire (confirmed)

• Filter for individual statistics, qualifiers only, uses wrong criteria to determine minimum (confirmed)

• Logic for AI retaining head coaches is not firing often enough

• Looking into the relationship of the coach file for the game-supplied 2023 league and the defensive front used by the team

• Verify that cohesion blocks are correctly calculated (they seem to be calculated correctly, requesting more information)

• There have been a couple of reports about low retention by AI teams - teams go through release cycles to work with the cap - they are likely too aggressive at times (deferred to near future)

• The recommend button on the ticket price screen is invisible (confirmed)

• Controlled team's ticket prices are 0 for first season if setting to handle GM duties is off (confirmed)

• Ensure that any player who can be traded appears on the trade screen (confirmed working - can't sign-and-trade the same year in this game)

• Preview screen is reversing visiting/home statistics (confirmed)

• Function for returning college level text searches on the wrong information (confirmed)

• Filter for end of experience range on player recommendation screen cuts off last season (confirmed)

• Player recommend screen future evaluation can be misleading (confirmed)

• Issue with scheduling algorithm with 32-team, 16-,17-, and 18-game leagues can lead to occasionally playing a conference opponent twice in a season (confirmed)

• Pre-season play-calling substitutions may not work once second-stringers are called for (solution might be disabling substitution screen in pre-season - the game tries to play everyone and rest starters - deferred to near future)

• Year-end team jersey sales and merchandise totals are overflowing an integer buffer, producing random results (either far too high or too low) (confirmed)

• Improved the scope and logic for allowing GMs to highlight players during the amateur draft, added this to saved games (confirmed)

We are anxious to get the first update out and anticipate doing so Tuesday evening (11/7). If you're experiencing a crash not listed above and have a event report or minidump, please send it to customer support. For all reports, please be as detailed as possible.

[jamesUMD]

I reported the issue to solecismic.com with with teams running the wrong defense.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jamesUMD

I reported the issue to solecismic.com with with teams running the wrong defense.

And they've updated the list with it.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. This ranks right up there with one of my favorite bugs.

Originally Posted by Updates Section

The recommend button on the ticket price screen is invisible (which means it won't work)

(Updating the first post in this thread as well.)

[cupofjoe]

No offense to the testers or Jim, but this game has a lot of majorly bugs that are easily detected after playing 1 season. Not sure how all of this was missed when Jim got his testers a couple of months ago

[garion333]

Originally Posted by cupofjoe

No offense to the testers or Jim, but this game has a lot of majorly bugs that are easily detected after playing 1 season. Not sure how all of this was missed when Jim got his testers a couple of months ago

While I wasn't a tester, I have tested pre-release games in the past and there's a lot to look at. Sometimes the dev wants you to try and break the game by (for this game) simming a ton of seasons. Other devs want feedback on basic usability or the look of the game.

Point is, I'm not sure what Jim wanted from his testers, but with the UI being wholly new I'm sure it was easy overlook something like Rexxing ticket prices being invisible.

[Solecismic]

I tried to switch things up based on what the beta testers seemed most enthusiastic about. At times, I had focus areas, but for the most part, all I told them was "try to break things."

I thought they did fine. Really well. I know it seems daft, but I've done this a lot now and I think the QA went better than with past releases. The first week always hurts. A lot. You miss a simple thing like not fully testing the trade screen, and it seems so obvious once it is pointed out.

The big difference is that for the first time since TCY, this is all new code. The underlying database is completely new - everything was redone, even geography (I was going to use OOTP's, since they gave me permission, but I wanted to do different things). So when I ported concepts over, they had to be completely rewritten. And sometimes I wanted to do something differently so I rewrote it from scratch.

Point being, there is at least three times as much completely new code as I've ever had in a new release. The development cycle was much longer. And yet, my sense is fewer bugs than in the past. I'm slower, but I'm more careful. Or maybe just more experienced. So I'll get a patch out pretty soon (don't know exactly when, I'm still really not able to work hard) and hopefully I'll "turn some of those frowns upside-down" and we'll all forget what's always a very, very difficult week. I hate release week. But that's why there's an initial discount. Not quite early-access, but because I know even the most careful testing will miss things.

[NawlinsFan]

Take your time Jim. I for one am enjoying the journey and that will make the destination (patches and fixes) appreciated even more. There is a lot here to digest. I look at it as not being FOF9 which implies a continuation of your work on FOF8. From what you have said this as almost all new having been developed from the ground up. So while it is FOF it really is FOF "Next Gen".

[james17]

Kudos to you Jim for your comments and for posting here and I know you'll 'get it right' eventually.

[cupofjoe]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I tried to switch things up based on what the beta testers seemed most enthusiastic about. At times, I had focus areas, but for the most part, all I told them was "try to break things."

I thought they did fine. Really well. I know it seems daft, but I've done this a lot now and I think the QA went better than with past releases. The first week always hurts. A lot. You miss a simple thing like not fully testing the trade screen, and it seems so obvious once it is pointed out.

The big difference is that for the first time since TCY, this is all new code. The underlying database is completely new - everything was redone, even geography (I was going to use OOTP's, since they gave me permission, but I wanted to do different things). So when I ported concepts over, they had to be completely rewritten. And sometimes I wanted to do something differently so I rewrote it from scratch.

Point being, there is at least three times as much completely new code as I've ever had in a new release. The development cycle was much longer. And yet, my sense is fewer bugs than in the past. I'm slower, but I'm more careful. Or maybe just more experienced. So I'll get a patch out pretty soon (don't know exactly when, I'm still really not able to work hard) and hopefully I'll "turn some of those frowns upside-down" and we'll all forget what's always a very, very difficult week. I hate release week. But that's why there's an initial discount. Not quite early-access, but because I know even the most careful testing will miss things.

Is there a downside of marking a game as early release/access on steam? I feel like people would hold off on the poor reviews on steam if it was marked that.

I personally am holding off on a review because I know things will be fixed. Like I said in another thread, I really like FOF9 but with the IR issue and trade screen, I can’t play.

Looking forward to the patches and thanks for the game!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by NawlinsFan

There is a lot here to digest. I look at it as not being FOF9 which implies a continuation of your work on FOF8. From what you have said this as almost all new having been developed from the ground up. So while it is FOF it really is FOF "Next Gen".

This is extremely well said. Yeah, this is clearly a "NextGen" type product and not just "the next version." It may be a bit of a bumpy road, but MAN there's a metric buttload of potential/opportunity within this new framework.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by cupofjoe

Is there a downside of marking a game as early release/access on steam? I feel like people would hold off on the poor reviews on steam if it was marked that.

I personally am holding off on a review because I know things will be fixed. Like I said in another thread, I really like FOF9 but with the IR issue and trade screen, I can’t play.

Looking forward to the patches and thanks for the game!

I’d say the main difference in offering a game as early access is in price - normally they are offered for less than they will end up costing once a full release.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cupofjoe

Is there a downside of marking a game as early release/access on steam? I feel like people would hold off on the poor reviews on steam if it was marked that.

I personally am holding off on a review because I know things will be fixed. Like I said in another thread, I really like FOF9 but with the IR issue and trade screen, I can’t play.

Looking forward to the patches and thanks for the game!

The length of time with early access is the biggest difference (I provide the first-week discount instead). This is my eleventh game, and the bug list seems about normal at this point. It really does. The first week is always difficult.

I wish people who have enjoyed past products would refrain from dropping bad reviews because they do have an impact, but I can't control that.

The world feels very different with 24/7 connectivity. I think that plays a big part - the last new game was seven years ago.

[garion333]

https://i.ibb.co/WnHXVG5/Screenshot-20231105-110211.png

Anyone having this issue with Solecismic.com? Both my personal computer and my phone won't allow me to go to the site even when I force it.

[Gallifrey]

No problem at all.

[garion333]

Maybe it's personal.

[HansMellman]

Originally Posted by garion333

Anyone having this issue with Solecismic.com? Both my personal computer and my phone won't allow me to go to the site even when I force it.

It looks like from the address bar snippet that you're trying to access the help documentation from the official site which is still broken for some reason. (the /docu)

As you can see from trying this link - File Not Found

Do you get the same thing if you try clicking this - http://www.solecismic.com/frontofficefootball.php

[garion333]

Originally Posted by HansMellman

It looks like from the address bar snippet that you're trying to access the help documentation from the official site which is still broken for some reason. (the /docu)

As you can see from trying this link - File Not Found

Do you get the same thing if you try clicking this - Front Office Football: A Windows PC Football Simulation

Neither link in your post works. I can't get to Sole.com at all. Something to do with the HTTPS being not secure. I'm running BitDefender on my pc and put in an exception for the site, but even on my phone this is happening.

"This server could not prove that it is www.solecismic.com; its security certificate is from *.prod.iad2.secureserver.net. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection."

It was working just fine until the other day. I've tried turning off all protection in Chrome and it's still taking me to that 404 error page.

Let me see if I wipe all Cookies, cache, etc.

Edit: That worked. I think the site kept pointing me to the 404 page, even when I went to a good page. Thanks!

[Ben E Lou]

First post in this thread updated with the latest and greatest.



NOTE: If you click on "Recent Changes" near the upper right of the documentation, you can see specific recent changes to pages. That's how I noticed the customization changes I posted a few moments ago.

[BKL]

I think the game looks great already! Thanks for your hard work. I’ve been with you for over 25 years! I think this is the best release yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beatle]

I started playing the game and I have unknown gets the ball and so forth in the text, hopefully the picture shows up. I simed a season to the playoffs and the entire text of the logs had no players in the game, just unknown. I did change some players names in the file, but I did not think that would make much of a difference.

Even with the teams that I did not change the names the unknown shows up.

Also the game keeps crashing when I try to sim a game. I very frustrating. About to give up.

[james17]

Originally Posted by beatle

I started playing the game and I have unknown gets the ball and so forth in the text, hopefully the picture shows up. I simed a season to the playoffs and the entire text of the logs had no players in the game, just unknown. I did change some players names in the file, but I did not think that would make much of a difference.

Even with the teams that I did not change the names the unknown shows up.

Also the game keeps crashing when I try to sim a game. I very frustrating. About to give up.

Maybe your player changes corrupted a file. Perhaps reinstall and try using the default file.

[beatle]

I figured it out. The CSV file needs to be in order by ID#. To make changes I had the order by teams to make some changes. In the older versions of FOF games it did not make a difference with files as I played mostly historical games, however in this it makes a difference. The log or replay will say unknow and eventually crash in replay or during live gameplay. I took a guess that was the case, and it was correct.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by beatle

The CSV file needs to be in order by ID#.

Yeah, that's in the help file for this function. (Highlighting to help others--including myself if I end up coding for random player/draft files--remember this.)

Originally Posted by players.txt

PLAYERID - The interal identifier given this player in the initial universe. This must be unique within the universe and must be 1 or greater. When creating new players after the initial universe is created, they will be assigned unique IDs sequentially, beginning with one more than the highest ID in this file. Players should have player IDs of at least 1000, and entries should be sorted, lowest to highest ID.

Also, first post edited with latest updates on fixes forthcoming.

[beatle]

Thanks, Ben, for telling me about 1000 players. I would like to make a 70's file some day and this would help avoid a lot of frustration why the file is not working if the file is less than what should be.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't get the impression that it needs 1000 players, just that it needs the lowest player id# to be 1000 or higher.

[Rofar1]

What is the best way to submit suggested enhancements. I realize these won't even be considered until bugs are all ironed out but would still like to be able to provide some.

On another note, I am truly surprised and disappointed that there have been a good many bad reviews on Steam. I think that's a little unfair and, quite frankly, can't agree with them one bit. I'm sure I could help the situation and post my own review and will get to that soon.