• Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
The search index is currently processing. Activity stream results may not be complete.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. No need to wonder for so many years, simply take a look at the manual, page 119: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=19
  3. Also the reverse is true. No matter how big tanks you are given, you can be sure the enemy will have guns big enough to take it out. Got a PzIV? The enemy will have Shermans. Got tigers? You'll be met with swarms of Fireflies. So basically it never really matters what tanks you have. But of course I understand the reasons why scenario designers make that choice. Not much fun having battles be complete walk-overs. I have the feeling that the next generation CM-like game will come out of the left field from some small, currently unknown game company, probably in Eastern Europe. It won't be perfect though. Things will never be perfect. But at least we will get to complain about new things
  4. How I do this: I open this file in PaintDotNet, choose options - invert colors, and then - save as - bmp - 24 bit- and that's all...
  5. Fair or unfair, this vid is priceless.The previous link was removed.
  6. Today
  7. Yeah! Capitalism!
  8. OK... it did load. Took 22 minutes but it did load. well if anyone runs to a same problem.. time is indeed the answer.
  9. I have tried waiting for quite a long time :> it's odd tho that same map, and same units load quite easily as a scenario but QB causes problems.
  10. My computer just takes a while at 83% in a large QB setup. It works if you just let it be for a bit.
  11. Just a minor point: With a little work-around, scenario designers are able to give specific information on enemy locations in individual scenarios (i.e. not emergent as a part of a campaign). They can use "landmarks" (text-labels that can be placed on the map) and set initial recon to "none". True, it doesn't work exactly like suspected contact markers, but it's an interesting idea and it might even be slightly more realistic when it comes to a representation of long-term-recon (as it is primarily used for planning rather than to increase reaction-time of individual units).
  12. Anyone else running in to this sort of problem? Seems like the game simply can't handle large maps and huge quick battle troop numbers and freezes during loading at 83% "read data". I don't know where the "watershed" is but I run in to problems with what I consider to be quite reasonable amount of troops. Defenders stripped down BTR/BMB battlegroup and some extra tank support and attackers with full BMP battlegroup and company of extra tank and recon support. I mean this is about max you can get with the HUGE QB points and I dont see any reason why the game would be unable to handle these troop numbers even if the map is large since we have scenarios that load quite reasonably with larger OOBs. I also tried dropping graphics down to lowest settings but it does not help at all. Edit: and I should clarify that i'm trying to set up hotseat game. I asume this problem would also affect pbem games as well. -H1nd
  13. Gone a bit quiet in here over the past few days so here's something to whet your appetite. I'm not quite sure how this mission will look in its final form but the essence of it will be similar to my recent Qarmat Ali mission. It is designed to be fairly beer and pretzels and the design motivations were driven by 1. An area on Google Earth that I thought might make an interesting mission. 2. I've always wanted to do a mission featuring the Canadians. No history involved here, so this is a representative action set in Kandahar Province. The following image shows real and CMSF maps laid side by side (area is 731m x 652m): In terms of development progress, the map needs some minor final touches and I've tested one mission concept which I think needs a bit of a rescrub.
  14. Vein I want to thank you for taking the time to do this, you do so much for the Battlefront community and I really appreciate it. Your mods are always outstanding and make gameplay so much more enjoyable. Cheers.
  15. Much more effective to release a swarm of ticks, especially if they are carriers of some debilitating disease that itches like crazy. Michael
  16. My dream: Shoot and scoot coming in as a new order brought in alongside CM: Fulda Gap... specifically for use with the Strv 103. I would buy CM:Whatever if it had a Strv 103.
  17. Pretty much since BN came out I've been wondering if the Probe mission can be recoded so that the primary objective is the identification of enemy units and their distribution. This is usually what probes were meant to accomplish in RL. At present, probes are just another kind of attack with the same kinds of objectives as all the other attack missions, namely destruction of enemy units and occupation of terrain. It might also be desired to have at least some of the reconnoitering units break contact and exit the map back to base in order to brief higher command elements of their findings. The other option is to maintain contact and observation, but without engaging in combat. Michael
  18. There are problems with this and I don't think it would necessarily result in a more realistic game. The reason being that units out of comms don't necessarily just sit inertly. That is one option. But they may do things on their own initiative, maybe stupid things, maybe smart things. So, until code can be written to give units that kind of complex behavior (and I would definitely not see this as a trivial exercise), I think most players would be very dissatisfied with your idea. So I would see this as not so much rejected outright as put on the back burner for now. Michael
  19. Rightly so! That's exactly my point. The current system does not allow that. If a campaign could reuse the same map and it's destruction for it's scenarios (some kind of stationary campaign), it would be no problem. Start the campaign with almost no or obsolete intel. It's up to the player to find out, what's really out there. In reality very important questions suddenly the player also has to answer: Was the recon good enough for a later attack? According to the own intel will the available forces be adequate? For which task will they be adequate?
  20. Large—not to say huge—sums of money spoil most things, professional sports not excluded. Wherever big bucks appear, a Mafia-type mentality is seldom far behind. Michael
  21. C'mon... you know it turns you on. (Are you still in Reading? - I'm over that way in late June - I could throw some rocks as I pass the paddock). Noba.
  22. THOR So as not to clot this up with duplicate plots, I only grabbed the interesting ones from the THOR runs: Here's the penetration velocity from a 5 g fragment according to THOR. Not much at all, eh? THOR, as previously mentioned, was the standard, as best as I can tell, for modeling armor protection. Unfortunately, as I previous mentioned, it seems to have problems with fragment-like objects. This is further reinforced by the surprising results that the Soviet Artillery Effects study showed, which as far as I can tell, old armor/artillery models used THOR. I suspect the truth lies between R&I and THOR here. THOR predicts the armor is pretty resistant to 5 gram fragments at ranges beyond 5 meters, while R&I predicts danger out to 20 to 30 meters. If we step up to 10 gram fragments, shown above, we can see the density start to fall off. It does so sharply. If you refer to the probability curve I posted earlier, you can see that the probability of has a strong negative curvature to it, so the larger we go, we'll see much fewer fragments. These 10 gram fragments are impressively dangerous, however. THOR predicts these 10 gram fragments maintaining a velocity of 146 m/s after punching through 10mm of armor, at a density of 1.03 fragments per square meter. Even under the conservative THOR model, our BTR gets perforated with 11 fragments of greater than 10 grams. That's going to cause some damage - whether it's injuring crew members or passengers, or damaging equipment. Unfortunately, this same barrage in CMBS presents absolutely zero identifiable damage to the BTR. It's worth noting that all this data is probabilistic, but CM clearly doesn't reflect this data. I'd say, from what I've shown here, at least light armored vehicles are more resistant in-game to artillery fire than they should. Combine this with the reports that we've seen from the SAE as well as front-line combat in Ukraine, and I'd say there's a fairly strong case here. I know these plots only show a single case of 12 shells, but it takes a while to write and generate them! I've recorded observations from a number of tests, both in real games and purposeful tests, in addition to the one presented here, but I don't have good enough data to present more plots on those cases. I leave tonight with this question: What else do we need to know here? What more can I do to help us understand this? Thanks everyone for helping in this thread, and I hope to see more discussion.
  23. Erwin, My problem with the AI regarding sighting is that, unlike me, it never blinks, never slows down, never has mental fog or a mind that wanders. It never tires or forgets to check--ever. I was massacred by it in CMBN by fire coming, so help me, from the far side of dense woods, where all I could see were, well, trees! Totally ruined my attack and forced me to put enormous effort into dealing with a deadly flank threat which made not one, but a series of shots, each one of which turned a tank into a funeral pyre. Almost gave up on CMBN right then and there, because it seemed the computer was cheating. While it wasn't in the formal sense, for the reasons I outlined above, it was, I believe, de facto cheating, by being able to perform in an essentially super human way. The AI may well be able to fire down a one pixel width lane, but real tanks and ATGs need more room for such minor things as seeing the target and tracking it before firing. Keyhole positions are great things, but I expect you'd be hard pressed to sell one, say, three projectile widths wide to a real tanker in a real war. I've seen photos of US snipers using loopholes tens of projectile widths wide, so I see no reason why the same shouldn't obtain for the armor or ATG case. Would further observe the sniper position was firing down the length of a major street, too, and at such a range that the angle subtended was considerable, allowing fire to be placed on at least from sidewalk to sidewalk, turning the entire area into one big sniper kill zone. Regards, John Kettler
  24. Recht & Ipson So, the BTR-70 has 10mm armor at its thickest. Seems artillery shell fragments can easily penetrate this! Here's the maximum velocity of a 1 gram fragment as it travels from the blasts. It can be seen that the fragments barely lose their velocity This can be used to calculate the velocity if a fragment impacts something. Say... a 10mm thick plate of armor on a BTR. So you can see the velocity of the fragment after penetrating a 10mm plate at any point in our artillery distribution. We can combine this with the density of the fragments greater than a certain mass. And, for the sake of thoroughness (if you can call it that haha), the same plots for a 5 gram fragment: At the BTR's position, we have the following data points: Density of fragments > 1 gram: 2.42 frags/m^2 Density of fragments > 5 grams: 1.49 frags/m^2 Penetration velocity of fragments > 1 gram: 98 m/s Penetration velocity of fragments > 5 grams: 270 m/s I showed earlier (the common knowledge) that heavier fragments are more deadly - and this is confirmed here (probably because I used the same model). If we take the dimensions of a BTR-70 (7.5 m X 2.8 m X 2.3 m) and call the average cross section presented to the artillery shells here as the average between the front and side cross sections, we get about 12 square meters. So this barrage hit our BTR with 29 fragments greater than 1 gram, which probably don't have enough energy to cause significant damage inside the vehicle. It also hit with 17 fragments greater than 5 grams, which certainly have enough energy to cause some significant damage to whatever they hit. According to Recht and Ipson's model. Next post, I'll run it using THOR.
  25. Finally getting back to playing some CM and noticed something weird last night. Second mission of "The Great Swan Campaign." Two of the three British M5 Stuarts only had three crew members inside their vehicles. (I think the Tank Commanders were missing). There was no issue with the Troop HQ tank itself which had it's full compliment of four crew members. Assuming these aren't individually assigned vehicles and part of a wider formation. Save game available if required.
  26. I could make a scenario that had no one there, but I am pretty sure there would be a s**tstorm from the user community about how they wasted 60 minutes of their day doing recon on a map only to find nothing there. Let's review some responses from folks on this forum The Normandy campaign with it's notorious battle that raised a fuss cause player couldn't figure out one that it might not be winnable and found it unacceptable to just ceasefire and accept a draw. Erwin (sorry Erwin, not trying to be a d**k, but I just found it striking that he is complaining about the very thing that you were asking for) commenting on the CMSF forum about a scenario that was being created and asking for assurance he'd have the resources to complete the mission. The constant complaints when folks feel a scenario is too hard or they run out of resources or time in a scenario/campaign. No offense @CarlWAW, but the things you are pointing out as ruining the game for you are the very things time and again players have made clear they want. I realize you did not apportion blame in your post, but in reality, it is your fellow players who have helped drive the nature of scenario construction. Stuff that gets created that doesn't meet those criteria likely never makes it to being posted as the creator doesn't want to deal with the complaints. What you are looking for can be done, but it takes something different - a managed op layer campaign. Even then you will still have some predictability. No one is gonna go through the trouble of creating a map with no battle. I can relate to your feelings. I personally have no issue with a battle having bad intel and the battle that I expected not looking anything at all like the battle I end up fighting. Most players though aren't into that and I have seen more than one complaint by folks feeling that the scenario briefing failed as it did not prepare them for the battle they fought.
  27. JK: much of the hatred directed at NE on the part of the rest of the NFL derives from jealousy. Hmm, I notice that the posted video is now unavailable. Here's a new one:
  1. Load more activity