awesome! :) im gonna try it ;D glad to see there are still people helping the devs out with singleplayer
by the way are you gonna join the dev team for the single player/coop part? and will the devs add this to the launcher download to? :) anyways keep up the good work :D
Darman i didnt think you would do it! That sounds awesome im downloading to test them now. Thanks a lot i really appreciate it
- Nice job Darman! I had lots of fun playing the maps. Missed the HE shells a little bit but no big deal. Also the maps appear to be COOP only and no Singleplayer for now.
I'm such a happy boy!
I have notified Gavrant on beta chat.
Why do you say it's doubtful this makes it into build? If it fixes the mesh issues of the new statics, I think it should definitely be included into an official update.
For starters something right is going on with bridges, at least the narrow one in Dukla near the German base. Tanks do actually cross it sometimes esp. StuG's but it can still get jammed up. But I don't think I've EVER seen a large AI tank navigate such a narrow bridge before in any FH game.
Navmesh error around 88 @ German base on Dukla (think there's only one 88 there). AI tanks try and navigate out through the whole in the wall. Of course there's an 88 in the way. Even when the 88 is destroyed they get stuck there as well.
The arty gun next to the big barn at the Western river crossing CP on Dukla still causes a CTD on entry by human player.
1. Some AT guns would best be replaced with static AT guns. Their current position allows them a good defense of the area. making them mobile simply weakens this.Are you referring to Seelow Heights like in point 2 and 3? Because afaik most AT guns on that map are indeed static. I would like to take a look at this issue though, just point me to the ones that struck you.
2. Is it possible to make an _ai variant of the Katyusha with perspective raised like is the case with static artillery. That way, it can fire at enemy from range. Otherwise, it will be the first vehicle to the front and the first vehicle to get killed. Another thing to do would be to reduce the temperature of the driver's seat so that bots are less inclined to drive it and more inclined to camp the rockets.That would probably be a job for gavrant but I'll look it up. It would definitly be a cool addition.
3. Finally, I noted that the plane on Seelow heights; the Russian fighter has it's propeller not moving at all. It may be a bug that was introduced when AI was added. Something to check out.Yes, thats what I pointed out in the "fixed vehicles" spoiler in the opening post. Basically I had to clone the vehicles I wanted to be fixed and somehow the La-5 FN Propeller got messed up in the process. It isn't a game breaker though and I had more pressing matters and hand at this time, so I scheduled it for later. EDIT: Fixed. Will soon be patched in.
the artilllery tractor and the captured french tank was not ready for bot support yet? i couldnt see those new units at pegasus bridge map =-pThey are perfectly usable, however I haven't seen the AI actually use the artillery tractor. Probably the same issues as with the Katyusha mentioned by djinn above. You can find both vehicles on the SOUTH part of the map, which is the 32 size layer. As for why the map is split, please refer to the opening post.
if you put a fix on do we have to redownload the maps?As it is now, yes. I won't be releasing standalone hotfixes / patches to download separatly during the first week after release or so.
another thing i wonder why your work wont be included in the official game or the devs want to use your work as basics improve it and use it later on in the launcher? (just curious) ;DI can't speak for the devs. But using my work as a basis for improvement to meet FH2 standards is not possible. For that several EF statics would have to be adjusted for navemshing and then the navmesh would have to be regenerated, which means you'd have to do everything from scratch again, which would render my work or any already generated navmesh obsolete.
maby this question is kinda out of place here butI have looked into this as part of my Forgotten Maps Project about a year ago. Short answer: NO. Long answer: Water is a problem, especially the ships, a major part of the WaW/FHT Pacific Maps, are a problem. I won't say it is impossible, but tbh, with the exception of Wake Island - the bf1942 ported Pacific Maps look rather... graphically and optically underwhelming, to put it lightly. As for Catania and most of the other Italy maps from WaW/FHT - although Para Spawns are possible (yet complicated) there are some issues with these as well as a bunch of other community maps that prevent me from generating pathfinding on them. Basically the Editor will CTD if you try and just produce another useless dump file. I couldn't figure out why, I am suspecting custom Statics though. But I won't invest more time in that issue, it did cost me enough already.
is it possible for bot support on naval maps like pacific, supplies for malta and such? or maps where the bots needs to jump out of an transport plane at the start of the game (catania 64) :P
ah alright =-p i understand thanks for the info man ;D ;)the artilllery tractor and the captured french tank was not ready for bot support yet? i couldnt see those new units at pegasus bridge map =-pThey are perfectly usable, however I haven't seen the AI actually use the artillery tractor. Probably the same issues as with the Katyusha mentioned by djinn above. You can find both vehicles on the SOUTH part of the map, which is the 32 size layer. As for why the map is split, please refer to the opening post.if you put a fix on do we have to redownload the maps?As it is now, yes. I won't be releasing standalone hotfixes / patches to download separatly during the first week after release or so.another thing i wonder why your work wont be included in the official game or the devs want to use your work as basics improve it and use it later on in the launcher? (just curious) ;DI can't speak for the devs. But using my work as a basis for improvement to meet FH2 standards is not possible. For that several EF statics would have to be adjusted for navemshing and then the navmesh would have to be regenerated, which means you'd have to do everything from scratch again, which would render my work or any already generated navmesh obsolete.maby this question is kinda out of place here butI have looked into this as part of my Forgotten Maps Project about a year ago. Short answer: NO. Long answer: Water is a problem, especially the ships, a major part of the WaW/FHT Pacific Maps, are a problem. I won't say it is impossible, but tbh, with the exception of Wake Island - the bf1942 ported Pacific Maps look rather... graphically and optically underwhelming, to put it lightly. As for Catania and most of the other Italy maps from WaW/FHT - although Para Spawns are possible (yet complicated) there are some issues with these as well as a bunch of other community maps that prevent me from generating pathfinding on them. Basically the Editor will CTD if you try and just produce another useless dump file. I couldn't figure out why, I am suspecting custom Statics though. But I won't invest more time in that issue, it did cost me enough already.
is it possible for bot support on naval maps like pacific, supplies for malta and such? or maps where the bots needs to jump out of an transport plane at the start of the game (catania 64) :P
Final note: I think it would help on a map like Seelow, to make defenders spawn on static guns.
Missed the HE shells a little bit but no big deal.
is it possible for bot support on naval maps like pacific, supplies for malta and such?
The soviet IL-2 Bomber instantly recognizes the threats by the 88s and bombs the shit out of them before any russian tank reaches the front line or before you as player can enter the gun to use it yourself.
But is'nt this the kind of thing that FH is very good at doing ?; It ain't fair.Most definitly, sure. But djinns point here was that defensive emplacements should be instantly manned so that they are more of a challenge for the attackers to overcome. My point is: When I make this happen, it will become worse because the laser guided bombers will instantly wreck everything before you as attacker even arrive at the line. And just trust me about the HEs. I mean you can simply revert the change manually, but the spam is just too heavy against the attackers. MGs are there to engage infantry masses, PaKs aren't.
I think the Katyusha with _ai can be a clone. The only difference between the _ai version is that it's point of view is about 15m in the air so it sees over stuff. You might try also making it driver/ gunner so it stops and fires instead of having some idiot bot drive it off - Or try reducing the heat of driver should do also.
Sadly, I doubt Gavrant will ever make an _ai katyusha. On principle, Gavrant doesn't believe mobile arty should have that as it tends to make them more clumsy to drive by both bots and humans.
This is wrong. The Stuka zu Fuss, Willys Calliope and Katjusha do get the cameras raised by a couple of meters in SP/Co-op automatically, without any _ai clones (if the map is properly packed). This is enough if the AI view distance on the map matches the "human" view distance. Raising the cameras more will increase the risk of hitting a wall just in front and killing half of their own team, so they must be treated as direct firing weapons in the hands of AI.
... probably due to the AI view distance though. That one is usually rather low to prevent Bots from firing their handhelds at ineffective range.I usually set the AI view distance (<level>/ai/AI.ai, aiSettings.setViewDistance) to the same value as the level's fog distance in sky.con. This is fair both to human players and AI bots, but damages static artillery on too foggy levels. In the case if the range of some weapon is an annoyance on a certain level (for example, the static MGs on PHL and Omaha Beach), I decrease the max. range in the AI template of that specific weapon on this level only. But in my experience handhelds are never troublemakers in this respect. Darman, what handhelds do you mean by "firing their handhelds at ineffective range"?
Since you mentioned proper packing - I suppose this feature is implemented by the "aifixes.con" ?Yes, the aifixes.con thing raises the cameras, among many-many other things.
But is'nt this the kind of thing that FH is very good at doing ?; It ain't fair.Most definitly, sure. But djinns point here was that defensive emplacements should be instantly manned so that they are more of a challenge for the attackers to overcome.
My point is: When I make this happen, it will become worse because the laser guided bombers will instantly wreck everything before you as attacker even arrive at the line.
And just trust me about the HEs. I mean you can simply revert the change manually, but the spam is just too heavy against the attackers. MGs are there to engage infantry masses, PaKs aren't.
Darman, what handhelds do you mean by "firing their handhelds at ineffective range"?I very often observe how bots start discharging everthing at their disposal right on spawning, even when the enemy is still far out in the fog or behind terrain obstacles. Firing from the hip, mostly.
Actually, yes. What is that ? Tanks and soldiers miss all the time even at high difficulty but bomb drops are almost always perfect. Could AI pilots be made less accurate ? Anyway I understand your approach.That is not my buisiness. I doubt it however and fear the risk of them no longer using the bombs at all is higher than the chance of them dropping bombs inaccurately.
But FH does put HE rounds in there. I'm just a bit uncomfortable about changing too much that's there in MP. After all Coop/SP is seen as training. What happens when the player goes online and has to face all those HE shells ?AI play may be training for some, but it is definitly just fun for me. Again, these changes apply ONLY for the PaK 40 Static and ONLY on a small number of defensive maps. And by default, prior to 2.5 I was totally fine with HE being there. But since Bots started to use the HE shells extremely often to great success to engage infantry in large numbers, I had to do something. Because, one last time - the Human would react to the threat, scatter, search for cover, flank the gun, call in arty, land a precision shot etc. The AI will not. They will walk slowly into their death. Again, and Again. Case closed.
I've also noted that German riflemen fire standard rifle grenades at T34. The damage is insignificant and focuses them away from infantry threats. This might not be a good threat assessment for them.Again, not my buisiness - the general behaviour like this should be reported in the 2.5 Singleplayer thread, this has nothing to do with my work in particular.
Actually, yes. What is that ? Tanks and soldiers miss all the time even at high difficulty but bomb drops are almost always perfect. Could AI pilots be made less accurate ? Anyway I understand your approach.That is not my buisiness. I doubt it however and fear the risk of them no longer using the bombs at all is higher than the chance of them dropping bombs inaccurately.
But FH does put HE rounds in there. I'm just a bit uncomfortable about changing too much that's there in MP. After all Coop/SP is seen as training. What happens when the player goes online and has to face all those HE shells ?AI play may be training for some, but it is definitly just fun for me. Again, these changes apply ONLY for the PaK 40 Static and ONLY on a small number of defensive maps. And by default, prior to 2.5 I was totally fine with HE being there. But since Bots started to use the HE shells extremely often to great success to engage infantry in large numbers, I had to do something. Because, one last time - the Human would react to the threat, scatter, search for cover, flank the gun, call in arty, land a precision shot etc. The AI will not. They will walk slowly into their death. Again, and Again. Case closed.
Thanks a lot. But one thing is sad. That Pegaus "32" is not original like in conquest, but thanks :)
Thanks a lot. But one thing is sad. That Pegaus "32" is not original like in conquest, but thanks :)
Pegasus 64 has been split into two parts, the North is now the 64 coop layer, the South is the 32 coop layer. Please refer to the opening post for further detail on the issue.
Sorry for that, but its not entirely my fault. When I am loading new map "64" i got error. But next time I'll be more careful :).
I thought you set the AI template for Russian tanks because they are clearly reacting to them as they would light armor, not medium armor. Or did Russian tanks already have that set?I've also noted that German riflemen fire standard rifle grenades at T34. The damage is insignificant and focuses them away from infantry threats. This might not be a good threat assessment for them.Again, not my buisiness - the general behaviour like this should be reported in the 2.5 Singleplayer thread, this has nothing to do with my work in particular.
Sorry for that, but its not entirely my fault. When I am loading new map "64" i got error. But next time I'll be more careful :).
Who said anything about fault? :) Would you care to tell me what kind of error you get when loading Pegasus 64 in Coop? For me the map is running fine in that mode. Make sure to redownload the pack if errors occur, I have significantly updated Pegasus in my last patch about 15h ago.
Its Memory error, only in "64 maps".
I thought you set the AI template for Russian tanks because they are clearly reacting to them as they would light armor, not medium armor. Or did Russian tanks already have that set?
Sorry if I'm mistaken.
Amazing work! :D
Why you say Dukla Pass 64 is not recommended? (I didnt play it in COOP yet)
The rifle grenades in the default German rifleman kit on Arad, Dukla and Seelow - they are not frag grenades, they are HEAT. The same HEAT grenades you can find in, say, the AT kit on Operation Cobra. On Cobra they are mildly effective against Shermans, but, as it seems, they are very weak against the Russian armor.I thought you set the AI template for Russian tanks because they are clearly reacting to them as they would light armor, not medium armor. Or did Russian tanks already have that set?I've also noted that German riflemen fire standard rifle grenades at T34. The damage is insignificant and focuses them away from infantry threats. This might not be a good threat assessment for them.Again, not my buisiness - the general behaviour like this should be reported in the 2.5 Singleplayer thread, this has nothing to do with my work in particular.
Sorry if I'm mistaken.
This is weird because the maximum range for weapons capable of automatic hip fire is set to 100m or so, far below the fog range on almost all maps.Darman, what handhelds do you mean by "firing their handhelds at ineffective range"?I very often observe how bots start discharging everthing at their disposal right on spawning, even when the enemy is still far out in the fog or behind terrain obstacles. Firing from the hip, mostly.
On HE shells: did I make them too accurate, especially in static guns, or it's just you, guys, being not accustomed to AI utilizing them against infantry? :)
This is weird because the maximum range for weapons capable of automatic hip fire is set to 100m or so, far below the fog range on almost all maps.
There are various ways to deal with this, from setting extremely high respawn times to the emplacements (this way the attackers have to destroy each gun once and it won't bother them anymore), to decreasing AI accuracy or ranges with that weapon (like it's done on PHL with the MGs), to counter-balancing the guns with bombers or artillery for the attacking team.On HE shells: did I make them too accurate, especially in static guns, or it's just you, guys, being not accustomed to AI utilizing them against infantry? :)
Oh, I can definitly adjust to that behaviour. The problem from my pov is, that the enemy AI infantry can not, does not, will not - and instead gets blown to bits in heaps of 5 men at a time while purposefully marching towards the defensive line. And again, afaik - a PaK just isn't there for anti personnel use. That is what MGs are supposed to do.
Rifles also have rather short ranges of around 250m, shorter than the fog distance on most of EF maps. And bots shooting through statics may be actually a sign of misconfigured collision or materials of those statics (that is, it might be a fault of the statics, not the bots).This is weird because the maximum range for weapons capable of automatic hip fire is set to 100m or so, far below the fog range on almost all maps.
I'm talking about Rifles/Carbines being fired from the hip - on further observation not necessarily at ineffective range, but often enough at ineffective range for the AI (they just won't hit like that) and very often behind terrain or static obstacles. But thats far from a gamebreaking issue. Its not like they are wasting any ammo as Bots.
There are various ways to deal with this, from setting extremely high respawn times to the emplacements (this way the attackers have to destroy each gun once and it won't bother them anymore), to decreasing AI accuracy or ranges with that weapon (like it's done on PHL with the MGs), to counter-balancing the guns with bombers or artillery for the attacking team.I will look into wether I can apply new aitemplates to the HE Ammo, scaling down the range or accuracy.
Rifles also have rather short ranges of around 250m, shorter than the fog distance on most of EF maps. And bots shooting through statics may be actually a sign of misconfigured collision or materials of those statics (that is, it might be a fault of the statics, not the bots).Makes sense. Anyway I will check wether the AI view distance matches / is lower than the fog distance / player view distance on the maps of this pack and make sure it does / is.
can someone please upload it to another source?
Hello everyone, i want to thank you for this because i only play offline so this is awesome :)
But i am having a problem wen i try to run a private server with the new maps, after 10 minutes or less the server crashes (Debug assertion failed). i use the same method that i have been using to play the old maps, i use the FH2ServerLauncher to run a sever otherwise the framerate goes below 20.
So what can be causing this crash? i Already reinstalled everything, any idea?
Developers should use this for next release.
THANKS FOR THE REPLIES GUYS. ;D I actually fixed it by, like you guys said, reinstalling it. But this time i turned my UAC off. It seems to work now but still crashes sometimes. It's fine, as it is just a temporary filler for us fh2 fans to play eastern front maps while waiting for the fh2 devs to port EF maps to singleplayer. Thanks so much for this effort! :D
'Debug assertion failed! Text: Networkable already added to network manager, netId=0'
Actually, that doesn't mean something is missing - it means something is being loaded twice, in that case once by the server and once by the client.Interesting. Looking at the server versions of other FH2 maps, they seem to be just stripped down versions of the client files. Basically, instead of having both client.zip and server.zip, there's only server.zip. I tried removing all the client related files for one of the maps but it didn't help.
Do you run the latest version of the map pack?I think so. I downloaded the pack around the time you last updated it on May 13, and the same files are on the server as are on my client. But how can I tell from looking at the files whether they are current? I don't really want to download them all again just to find that they are identical.
I ran into these errors after initial release but iirc I fixed all of them, at least for my personal dedicated server launched out of the original game folder it works. Unfortunatly as for advanced Ded Server hosting, my knowledge is very limited, therefore I was never able to test in that framework or release a guide to install it properly.I don't think there's much difference between running a dedicated server from a client folder and running a dedicated server from a separate, non-client install. Hopefully someone who understands these things better will see this and provide some clues. I do know that server installs are lighter, as they don't include any client files (mod-global and map-specific), but that's about all I know for sure.
if you want to fix this, try toying around with the [mapname]/server.zip/ClientArchives.con and [mapname]/server.zip/ServerArchives.con files. They are most likely responsible.Okay, I'll poke around in those files. I also plan to compare the working map (Pegasus Coop) with the non-working ones to see if that reveals anything.
EDIT: What came to my mind, since the map pack heavily relies on FHT/WaW content - this error may very likely appear if the FHT/762/WaW CMP is installed.Nope, that's not it. None of those things are installed on my client or server.
Finally downloaded and just started playing these maps; had one CTD I can't explain, but overall they look good and the effort to make them single player compatible is much appreciated!!
;D
Does this work with the current version of FH2?
As the author of this mappack, let me give a quick statement to avoid any confusion.
It is unfortunate (but was to be expected) that many aspects of this are now broken with the (excellent) recent patch to FH2.
This was created several years ago and I hope it was some fun to the people that enjoyed FH2 in singleplayer. Unfortunatly, due to my private life taking different directions, I can currently and in the forseeable future not work on any patch or update, or conversions for new maps. If anyone else wants to - please go ahead.
As the author of this mappack, let me give a quick statement to avoid any confusion.
It is unfortunate (but was to be expected) that many aspects of this are now broken with the (excellent) recent patch to FH2.
This was created several years ago and I hope it was some fun to the people that enjoyed FH2 in singleplayer. Unfortunatly, due to my private life taking different directions, I can currently and in the forseeable future not work on any patch or update, or conversions for new maps. If anyone else wants to - please go ahead.
Sorry for the stupid question but I'm new. I don't suppose it is possible to download older versions so as to play the older SP maps is it? Usually the servers are empty when I'm online. Thanks.
rem [ObjectSpawnerTemplate: CP_64_dukla_pass_germanmain_tank]
ObjectTemplate.create ObjectSpawner CP_64_dukla_pass_germanmain_tank
ObjectTemplate.activeSafe ObjectSpawner CP_64_dukla_pass_germanmain_tank
ObjectTemplate.modifiedByUser "Tobias"
ObjectTemplate.isNotSaveable 1
ObjectTemplate.hasMobilePhysics 0
ObjectTemplate.setObjectTemplate 1 t34_76_m43_de_fix
ObjectTemplate.maxSpawnDelay 30
ObjectTemplate.teamOnVehicle 1
rem [ObjectSpawner: CP_64_dukla_pass_germanmain_tank]
Object.create CP_64_dukla_pass_germanmain_tank
Object.absolutePosition 5.776/4.938/-786.010
Object.rotation 1.834/0.000/0.000
Object.setControlPointId 1
Object.layer 1
Any chance that Seelow will get the ISU-152 and the Luftfaust B added? I really want to destroy some bots with the Luftfaust.
Dukla/64
"CP_64_dukla_pass_germanmain_t34" not spawning bug is imminent
Can you consider revising Arads Pickup Kit and static AmmoBoxes/AmmoBlitz Wrecks?
layout to expand CPs and outside MainBases. Re-Supply change is really tough in Heat of battle.
The Map is fine, but would be lovely to get a bit support there. I know this Map is resource heavy...
Kind Regards
I am working on it along with the CMP maps. I'll be releasing an Iwo Jima Coop teaser video later tonight too.
Also I have the luftfaust & ISU-152 prepared for AI use as well.
Volkssturm, did you consider to work for FH2 as singleplay/ coop developer? Im not betatester nor dev, but I see you are comited to singleplayer developing with both maps and vehliches, so why not? You can continue working on CMP and especially FH2 as both could benefit from singleplayer developer ;)
Volkssturm, did you consider to work for FH2 as singleplay/ coop developer? Im not betatester nor dev, but I see you are comited to singleplayer developing with both maps and vehliches, so why not? You can continue working on CMP and especially FH2 as both could benefit from singleplayer developer ;)
Ah yes well I've definitely thought a lot about it & would like to be a dev so to contribute at least what I can however personally I feel my skillset isn't quite up to par with some of the other developers. There are a lot of things I don't have a full grasp on yet, and I'm still always learning. Though I've been invited to join the CMP Discord which I will do, and perhaps I can figure out the handful of things which currently puzzle me.
I mean I can create navmeshes for AI, map, code the mapdata.py for co-op, create kits, code vehicles & weapons for AI use, so on and so forth. This being generally easy as some of the AI coding which already exists in FH2 can be used. Troop transport trucks for instance. The Japanese Type 94 truck I simply used the existing Bedford AI templates. It's just a matter of editing the specific .con file & adding the line(s) for the AI template. However certain things like large bomber aircraft w/multiple gunner seats I custom code myself since there aren't really any existing heavy aircraft in FH2 except the Ju-52. Also planes like the Zero, Me-262, Bf-110, P-38, etc...all have their own specific handling characteristics which factor into the Objects.ai. The last thing I want to do is make it sound like I'm "egotistical" I guess or take credit for someone else's work. With the version of CMP Minimod I've been working with, probably 90% of the weapons, armaments, and vehicles were not AI ready. For some of the objects it's as simple as adding lines in the (object).con file linking it existing FH2 AI templates. For many others however I had to create new Objects.ai & Weapons.ai files to make them AI capable. All of that is pretty simple though.
The more complicated part is navmeshing then playing the map over & over taking note of the bot's behavior/seeing if they get trapped anywhere, then making a variety of tweaks to get the bots to perform optimally on the map. It doesn't help that my laptop is an old junk Celeron which barely runs FH2 and takes a LONG time to generate a navmesh. Been trying to save for a decent pre-owned laptop but, medical issues consume all of my income.
As for Iwo Jima co-op, for the 64p I am currently working on an amphibious assault by the allies. When after taking the beach position, new tanks & other vehicles will spawn there. Also I believe the bots should be able to fly air support from the carrier. They'll have an F4U Corsair, F4F Wildcat, and a B-25 Mitchell. Air support will be vital for the allies to take Iwo Jima. The landing craft will include a variety of LVT's and so forth, then once a beachhead is established they'll get the Pacific M3A1 Stuart, trucks, and so on.
The stock CMP version of the map gives the Japanese a carrier, my co-op version omits this because it is not historically accurate. The Japanese will have minimal air support provided from Motoyama Airfield, that is until if/when it is captured by the allies. The Japanese however will have Type 96 25mm AA guns, Type 88 75mm guns, Type 1 47mm AT guns, various Type 92 Nambu's. They'll have a couple tanks too probably a Type 97 Chi-Ha, Type 95 Ha-Go, & Type 1 Ho-Ki armored carrier. Plus a couple trucks & a kurogane.
Generally I find co-op maps best played with bot ratios which are historically accurate, and my custom maps are balanced as such. On Iwo Jima for instance, the Japanese were outnumbered some 5 to 1 by the Americans. In FH2 however it isn't necessary to set the ratio to such extreme unless you wish to be steamrolled in minutes.
As stated earlier, I intended to have a little preview/teaser type video of Co-op CMP Iwo Jima released by now, however two weeks ago I had to go in for a surgery. Originally my scheduled date was not until March, but I had an emergency thus couldn't wait. I've been slowly, painfully, recovering. The pain had been so bad that when I tried to continue my work on Co-op I simply couldn't focus on it & often couldn't even remember how to do the simplest things. The pain has began to subside now, and I am resuming work.