metal_guitarist

And this is why Utd players should stick two fingers up at England and not bother. Game’s not even finished ffs, guess we’ve got our new scapegoat-

Friday 14th June Group A 20:00 | ITV | Germany vs Scotland Saturday 15th June Group A 14:00 | ITV | Hungary vs Switzerland Group B 17:00 | ITV | Spain vs Croatia 20:00 | BBC |Italy vs Albania Sunday 16th June Group D 14:00 | BBC | Poland vs Netherlands Group C 17:00 | ITV | Slovenia vs Denmark 20:00 | BBC | Serbia vs England Monday 17th June Group E 14:00 | BBC | Romania vs Ukraine 17:00 | ITV | Belgium vs Slovakia Group D 20:00 | ITV | Austria vs France Tuesday 18th June Group F 17:00 | BBC | Turkiye vs Georgia 20:00 | BBC | Portugal vs Czechia Wednesday 19th June Group B 14:00 | ITV | Croatia vs Albania Group A 17:00 | BBC | Germany vs Hungary 20:00 | BBC | Scotland vs Switzerland Thursday 20th June Group C 14:00 | ITV | Slovenia vs Serbia 17:00 | BBC | Denmark vs England Group B 20:00 | ITV | Spain vs Italy Friday 21st June Group E 14:00 | BBC | Slovakia vs Ukraine Group D 17:00 | ITV | Poland vs Austria 20:00 | BBC | Netherlands vs France Saturday 22nd June Group F 14:00 | BBC | Georgia vs Czechia 17:00 | ITV | Turkiye vs Portugal Group E 20:00 | ITV | Belgium vs Romania Sunday 23rd June Group A 20:00 | BBC | Switzerland vs Germany 20:00 | BBC | Scotland vs Hungary Monday 24th June Group B 20:00 | BBC | Albania vs Spain 20:00 | BBC | Croatia vs Italy Tuesday 25th June Group D 17:00 | BBC | Netherlands vs Austria 17:00 | BBC | France vs Poland Group C 20:00 | ITV | England vs Slovenia 20:00 | ITV | Denmark vs Serbia Wednesday 26th June Group E 17:00 | BBC | Slovakia vs Romania 17:00 | BBC | Ukraine vs Belgium Group F 20:00 | ITV | Georgia vs Portugal 20:00 | ITV | Czechia vs Turkiye Saturday 29th June Round of 16 17:00 | 2nd Group A vs 2nd Group B 20:00 | 1st Group A vs 2nd Group C Sunday 30th June Round of 16 17:00 | 1st Group C vs 3rd Group D, E or F 20:00 | 1st Group B vs 3rd Group A, D, E or F Monday 1st July Round of 16 17:00 | 2nd Group D vs 2nd Group E 20:00 | 1st Group F vs 3rd Group A, B or C Tuesday 2nd July Round of 16 17:00 | 1st Group E vs 3rd Group A, B, C or D 20:00 | 1st Group D vs 2nd Group F Friday 5th July Quarter-finals 17:00 | W39 vs W37 20:00 | W41 vs W42 Saturday 6th July Quarter-finals 17:00 | W40 vs W38 20:00 | W43 vs W44 Tuesday 9th July Semi-finals 20:00 | W45 vs W46 Wednesday 10th July Semi-finals 20:00 | W47 vs W48 Sunday 14th July Final 20:00 | BBC/ITV | W49 vs W50

Group A Germany Scotland Hungary Switzerland Group B Spain Croatia Italy Albania Group C Slovenia Denmark Serbia England Group D Netherlands France Poland Austria Group E Ukraine Slovakia Belgium Romania Group F Portugal Czechia Georgia Turkiye

Nothing at all I'm afraid, the patch from a couple of weeks ago with the China and MLS updates was the last one.

There are no further updates planned for FM24.

No match engine changes were made.

That's a real life change that's coming I believe, have seen it mentioned before.

If the researcher hasn't been able to find a reliable source to add the person's height into the database then it will be randomised upon starting a new game. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's ranges that can be used by the researcher so if a player is short but you don't know the exact height then they can be set to a range with a random height between say 5ft and 5ft5 for example so their height doesn't end up too far out of what it should be.

This is the sort of thing that would be really good to get reported as a bug if not done so already please.

His shirt name is set to "NWOSU" in the database. If you've then got "show shirt name on the pitch" ticked in Preferences that'll be why it appears in all-caps. Needs amending to "Nwosu" or removing entirely given that it matches his surname.

Because maybe we're volunteers who don't work 24/7 and when posts come through at gone midnight, a lot of us are in bed asleep? There's no obligation to approve posts the second they're posted, things get approved when we get round to it. Easiest way to avoid this is to not get yourself on post moderation to begin with.

Has been fixed in the latest update.

If the -95 was a -9 I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid, both he and the two other English -9s from that age group are fantastic young talents who are head and shoulders above their peers and have shown it both domestically and internationally in their own age groups and U21s. The problem is when you elevate him to the -95 bracket, he hasn't done anywhere near enough compared to the others rated with the same PA. Most of those have been playing first team football since they were 15 years old and consistently showcase their ability on the biggest stages whereas these 3 at 15 years old were either making U21s debuts or in one case a PL debut purely as a sweetener for a contract offer and to ensure the club received more than the standard compensation if they did leave. We likely just have different standards about what constitutes enough for a -95 but for me when it comes to 15-18 year olds, unless they're playing first team football already I think it's too high. If they were that good, they would be impacting the first team already because you're talking about the potential to be the best player in the world and when you look at the top players - Ronaldo, Messi, Bellingham etc, they were already playing mens football regularly by then.

In addition to the above, I would also question some of the PAs that have been handed out. A -95 for a player who has played 0 minutes of men's football and no international football higher than U17s when every other -95 player in the DB is a regular for the first team of their club and/or country. There is no other English player with a random PA that high, it's far too early to be claiming him to be the best player England could produce when he's not shown anything above his own age group internationally or above what is widely regarded as an unfit for purpose PL U21s competition in England. There's also 7 -85 players, only Ajax have more and they're the joint highest in England (Chelsea the other). If everything works out, they've almost got a full 11 of potentially world class level players of whom collectively have less than 100 games of senior football and 74 of those are from one player. Don't get me wrong, a number of those may be perfectly justifiable but on paper at the moment it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the DB and other players of similar ages who are already playing first team football at a high level.

There's a bug thread with a workaround here: https://community.sigames.com/bugtracker/football-manager-2024-early-access-bugs-tracker/1103_user-interface/it-is-no-longer-possible-to-change-the-managers-face-image-r20662/ It looks like it was removed as part of the fix for newgens/game created staff reusing IDs.

Some of the competition changes and the database changes will require a new game to take effect, the gameplay and match engine fixes should be saved game compatible though

Every player will be assessed ahead of the next major data update after the January transfer window and changes made where deemed necessary.

Head to here: https://community.sigames.com/bugtracker/football-manager-2024-early-access-bugs-tracker/ Choose the area that best fits the bug you are reporting. Click on "Add New Issue" at the top right. Fill out the form with as much information as you can, preferably with screenshots and/or a saved game depending on the type of issue.

If you holiday to that day/the day after, does the ban kick in? On previous games bans that have been set in the future kick in on the date.

Just to nip this in the bud, if it's the one I'm thinking of, I'm guessing they left out the part where the "disagreement" was them repeatedly abusing a researcher despite being told to stop and getting banned for it rather than an issue with SI.

SI had a public beta running previously. Many people didn't use it and the ones who did used it mostly for early access to updates rather than actually doing any beta testing, completely negating the point of a beta.

It's all good, we've all got different risk thresholds

Corporate environment is very different though, you wouldn't be running the consumer version of Defender in there because you need greater defence in depth, a higher efficacy rate and something that can be deployed and managed remotely at scale. Go back a few years and I agree, Defender was a joke but it's got a lot better. It's far from perfect but it does decent enough job these days. The average person for home use doesn't need anything too complex, the three main problems are phishing, downloading infected files and drive-by downloads from ads. The consumer version of Defender, an ad-blocker and the built-in capabilities in Edge/Chrome/Outlook protect you from a significant portion of those things. The main focus of threat actors against home users is for data and account access because they're less likely to get a decent payoff from ransomware compared to targeting a business. It doesn't hurt to add more layers to your defences of course but for a lot of people it's overkill.

Or maybe some of us have years of experience in IT and InfoSec and know where the main source of threats are, what's appropriate to protect against them and how the industry is currently working