Jump to content
  • 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
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/20/2017 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Schrullenhaft

    Irratic Framerate Issue

    I ran the same scenarios as Hister using my system with the following specs: AMD FX 8320 3.5GHz 8-core (4 modules totaling 8 integer, 4 floating point, up to 4.0GHz turbo mode) 8GB of DDR3 1600 (CAS 9) MSI GeForce GTX 660 Ti - 388.00 driver Asrock 880GM-LE FX motherboard (AMD 880G chipset) Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD Windows 7 Home 64-bit SP1 (latest patches) Running at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. Using the default settings in CMBN 4.0 (Balanced/Balanced, Vsync OFF and ON, AA OFF) and in the Nvidia Control Panel I typically got about 6 FPS (measured with the latest version of FRAPS) in "Op. Linnet II a USabn UKgrnd" on the German entry side of the map (all the way to the edge) and scrolling right or left looking at the Americans in Richelle. In "The Copse" scenario it measured around 28 FPS behind the allied armored units at the start (scrolled around the map a bit). Messing around with Vsync (both on and off), anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, Process Lasso (affinity, etc.), power saving settings in Windows control panel, etc. didn't seem to have a significant performance effect on the low FPS of 'Op. Linnet II...'. I overclocked the FX 8320 to 4.0GHz (simply using the multipliers in the BIOS and turning off several power saving features there too, such as APM, AMD Turbo Core Technology, CPU Thermal Throttle, etc.). With 'Op. Linnet II...' the FPS increased to only 7 FPS. Turning off the icons (Alt-I) did bump up the FPS by 1 additional frame (the option reduced the number of objects to be drawn in this view) to 8 FPS. There are some Hotfixes from Microsoft that supposedly address some issues with the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture and Windows 7 involving CPU scheduling and power policies (KB2645594 and KB246060) that do NOT come through Windows Update (you have to request them from Microsoft). I have NOT applied these patches to see if they would make a difference since they CANNOT have their changes removed (supposedly), even if you uninstall them. A number of users on various forums have stated that the changes made little difference to their particular game's performance. I decided to compare this to an Intel system that was somewhat similar: Intel Core i5 4690K 3.5GHz 4-core (possibly running at 3.7 to 3.9GHz in turbo mode) 16GB of DDR3-2133 (CAS 9) eVGA GeForce GTX 670 - 388.00 driver Asrock Z97 Killer motherboard (Z97 chipset) Crucial MX100 512GB SSD Windows 7 Home 64-bit SP1 (latest patches) Running at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. Again using the same settings used on the FX system with CMBN and the Nvidia Control Panel I got 10 FPS in 'Op. Linnet II...' while scrolling on the far side looking at the American forces in the town. In 'The Copse' scenario the FPS went to 40 FPS behind the allied vehicles at their start positions. The biggest difference between the GTX 660 Ti and the GeForce GTX 670 is the greater memory bandwidth of the 670 since it has a 256-bit bus compared to the 660 Ti's 192-bit memory bus. So POSSIBLY the greater GPU memory bandwidth in conjunction with the Intel i5's higher IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) efficiency and the increased system memory bandwidth (faster system RAM) resulted in the higher frame rate on the Intel system, but only by so much. I ran a trace of the OpenGL calls used by CMBN while running 'Op. Linnet II a USabn UKgrnd' on the FX system. This recorded all of the OpenGL calls being used in each frame. The trace SEVERELY slowed down the system during the capture (a lot of data to be written to the trace file). Examining the trace file suggests that CMBN is SEVERLY CPU BOUND in certain graphical views. This is especially true with views of a large amount of units and terrain like that in 'Op. Linnet II...'. What appears to be happening is that some views in large scenarios of CM involve A LOT of CPU time in issuing instructions to the video card/'frame buffer'. The CPU is spending so much time handling part of the graphics workload (which IS normal) and sending instructions to the video card on what to draw that the video card does not have a full (new) frame of data to post to the frame buffer at a rate of 60 or 30 FPS (Vsync). At 30 FPS each frame would have to be generated between the CPU and the video card within 33.3ms. Instead this is taking around 100ms on the Intel system and about 142ms on the FX system (resulting in the 10 and 7 FPS respectively). Some frames in the trace file had hundreds of thousands of instructions, some reaching near 700,000 instructions (each one is not necessarily communicated between the CPU and video card, only a fraction of them are), whereas sections where the FPS was higher might only have less than 3000 instructions being executed. The low frame rate is a direct consequence of how busy the CPU is and this can be seen with both Intel and AMD CPUs. So the accusation comes up, is the CM graphics engine un-optimized ? To a certain extent, it is. There are limitations on what can be done in the environment and with the OpenGL 2.x calls that are available. CM could be optimized a bit further than it is currently, but this involves a HUGE amount of time experimenting and testing. Working against this optimization effort is CM's 'free' camera movement, the huge variety, number and size of maps available and the large variety and number of units.These features make it hard to come up with optimizations that work consistently without causing other problems. Such efforts at optimization are manpower and time that Battlefront simply does not have as Steve has stated earlier. Charles could be working on this for years in attempt to get better frame rates. While this would be a 'worthy goal', it is unrealistic from a business standpoint - there is no guarantee with the amount of time spent on optimizing would result in a significantly better performing graphics engine. Other, larger developers typically have TEAMS of people working on such optimizations (which, importantly, does allow them to accomplish certain optimization tasks within certain time frames too). When CMSF was started sometime in 2004 OpenGL 2.0 was the latest specification available (with the 2.1 specification coming out before CMSF was released). Utilizing newer versions of OpenGL to potentially optimize CM's graphics engine still involves a lot of work since the newer calls available don't necessarily involve built-in optimizations over the 2.0 calls. In fact a number of OpenGL calls have been deprecated in OpenGL 3.x and later and this could result in wholesale redesigning of the graphics engine. On top of this is the issue that newer versions of OpenGL may not be supported by a number of current user's video cards (and laptops and whole Mac models on the Apple side). As for the difference between the GTX 550 Ti and the GTX 660 Ti that Hister is experiencing, I'm not sure what may be going on. The GTX 550 Ti is based on the 'Fermi' architecture, while the GTX 660 Ti utilizes the 'Kepler' architecture. Kepler was optimized for the way games operate compared to the Fermi architecture which had slightly better performance in the 'compute' domain (using the GPU for physics calculations or other floating point, parallelized tasks). The GTX 660 Ti should have been a significant boost in video performance over the GTX 550 Ti, though this performance difference may not be too visible in CM due to the CPU bound nature of some views. It's possible that older drivers may have treated the Fermi architecture differently or simply that older drivers may have operated differently (there are trade-offs that drivers may make in image quality for performance - and sometimes this is 'baked into' the driver and isn't touched by the usual user-accessible controls). I have a GTX 570 I could potentially test, but I would probably need to know more details about the older setup to possibly reproduce the situation and see the differences first-hand.
  2. 7 points
    Macisle

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    Lots more work to do on this, but... Sneak Peek:
  3. 6 points
    Josey Wales

    CMFB Meeting engagement AAR

    A CMFB meeting engagement between Big Joe of the FGM and myself. Part One; Part Two;
  4. 4 points
    Macisle

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    Thanks for the kind words, guys! Well, since the cat's out of the bag on this project, I'll go ahead and post a few more pics. Again, it's early days and this won't be out until after the next CMRT module is released (KV-1, baby! Plllleeeeeaaase!) I've only added temporary foliage in areas where the door networks are largely done so I can get a little test combat going there. Also, I obviously, haven't finished adding all the buildings, let alone fleshing out the other terrain elements in those areas (or most of the areas with buildings). Since I'm going to have to slice up the map, I'll be adding some tall buildings back in later that are currently cut down in size. Here is an overhead. I just grabbed the Google Map screen on the right, so this is not my working overlay. Currently, my plan is to have the Soviet attacker start in the SE corner. I'd like to thank the people of Kharkov for providing a ready-made setup zone in the form of a large park and cushion of buildings! Here's the elevation overlay I did (which is, of course, matched to my working overlay). I will be doing some polishing work later, once everything else is in. Sorry for any seizures or flashbacks! It's not Stalingrad, but in winter, this area might serve for a little "Fallen Fighters" combat. Another angle on same area: And lastly, a bird's eye of one of the little neighborhood areas. I'll call this shot "Mean Streets." That's it for now. It may be awhile before I have additional pic-worthy content. I'll post it as I have it, along with any interesting combat test results (suicidal rout, path bugs, arty effects, etc.).
  5. 4 points
    jonPhillips

    Scalable UI

    This is a great point, well made. The fact that Battlefront can remain financially viable to what is, let’s face it, a fairly small niche group of players is in itself astonishing. My 11 year old son and I play CM2 together. Whilst I'm slowly teaching him the application of real world tactics and we have some good small-scale games, he still marginally prefers the 'instant gratification' and fast-paced action of the Call Of Duty series on his X-Box. I’ve been able to get him into playing CM2 through 11 years of sharing my passion for WW2 history (OK– indoctrinating a future opponent!) via museum visits, films like Battle Of Britain and series like Band Of Brothers. I reckon if I take it slowly, in another couple of years, he’ll be a very good player – but I wouldn’t have a hope of teaching some of his mates the nuances of CM2, because they don’t have the background interest. I don’t consider myself a Battlefront 'fanboy', but I do appreciate the hard work and dedication that goes into producing an extraordinary series of games. I sincerely hope BF continue to develop them for as long as I’m around to play them.
  6. 4 points
    Pak40

    Scalable UI

    I, for one, am ready for the next line of CM engine. My vote goes for stop making CM2 products, It's time for CM3.
  7. 3 points
    ThePhantom

    Smoke as a Force Field

    This is an interesting topic indeed. In a combat situation, with known enemy spotted in the area, a smoke screen to the front would initiate immediate suppression fire from an infantry rifle company (or platoon). There is no "waiting" until you see the enemy. The smoke deployment would mean the enemy is attempting a flanking maneuver or an advance (or hopefully a withdrawal). The infantry organization's life would depend on an aggressive reaction. So, I firmly believe we should be able to area fire into a smoke screen. A smoke screen is not a "Secret hiding spot" or "Safe Space".... it's extremely noticeable and would cause life saving reaction fire.
  8. 3 points
    raven80

    Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

    Some screens from the Gagarinina Avenue Checkpoint scenario Tank platoon moving to battle stations T-90A trying to spot enemies Fire! Close to the end of the battle, one of mine T-90 finally spots (trough smoke) and eliminate that pesky Bulat that was ruining my day Then i was able to close on objectives and win the battle, despite losing 2 tanks 1 apc and some troops
  9. 3 points
    Wodin

    REVIEW at AWNT!!

    First I apologise for this delayed review! Sorry! Click link to go to review of CMFI and DLC game engine 4!. LINK
  10. 3 points
    Pelican Pal

    Tactical Lifehack

    I've been enjoying the discussion on this thread, but I honestly don't get the absolute need to convince each other of your positions. Oleksandr has laid out his reasoning several times and you might not agree with it, and that is fine. I personally don't agree with his opinion on it, but I think his line of thinking is interesting to read. I also enjoyed reading the strong replies to his position. BTR, Chudacabra, Erwin, AKD, HerrTom, CptMiller's first post (even if a bit snippy) all added good content to the thread. It created a richer conversation about something that would otherwise not be talked about. I wouldn't have AKD's link for instance without this discussion. But holy **** guys. Do you absolutely need to string together a bunch of snarky, personally attacking posts that don't add any functional content to the thread just because someone likes the design ethos of the BMP-3 (Our IFV is both a weapon and a VBIED), seriously? Like RSulomon, is Oleksandrs' opinion really such a big deal that you have to make some weirdo post asking if he understands opinions can be wrong? Great guys, Oleksandr doesn't like the Stryker, many of you have made cogent arguments to the opposite of that, but do we really need to write a bunch of internet trash so you can "win" your argument? We don't need this whiny internet trash. Now ironically my complaint about internet trash has put further litter in this thread. But I expect better conduct here than some random reddit thread where every user is just trying to declare themselves the winner of some ****ty internet argument. Let **** go sometimes, you don't always need to "win"...
  11. 3 points
    Mord

    Scalable UI

    And then you'll be complaining that CM3 doesn't have all the units/nationalities/features/etc. as CM2 (as I will). As much as I like the idea of CM3 (and the cool stuff I imagine it could have), I do not want to see it any time soon, unless what we have now can be brought along somehow. I do not want to go through all the waiting for theaters/time periods/vehicles/formations/nationalities/features again. It's been a really long road just to get here. I sure as h*** don't want to go back to square one. I'd rather see them push CM2 as far as they can. Stuff like new animations and the like could help freshen it up. Mord.
  12. 3 points
    Hey, if you liked it, show me the love. Hit that heart. Once I get 300 up-votes, I can trade them in for the entire CMBN bundle on the BFC website.
  13. 3 points
    I'd have to say, of all the games I've ever owned, the editor in CM is one of, if not the, strongest. Drawbacks? Sure. It can be a bit arcane, but all of the information is in the manual. Advanced techniques are available on the forum. The editor is a tool which leverages the game engine and makes CM the one game which has always been on my hard drive. Every game owner has the same tools to create battles and campaigns which were used by the developers. That's rare.
  14. 3 points
    umlaut

    258 new force specific backgrounds

    Just thought I'd share this funny experience: This summer the family and I spent some of our vacation in Normandy (guess who came up with that brillant idea?). And as we were entering Cherbourg I noticed a place and a sign from one of the photos I used in the background set. I of course had to go back and take a picture - and try editing it in with the original: On the way there I realised that another of the photos in the set was taken in the same street (Avenue de Paris, IIRC), so I took another photo - with my kids standing in for the GI's.
  15. 3 points
    Sequoia

    A More Realistic Iron Mode?

    You do realize if you lose in that mode C3k comes over and shoots you.
  16. 2 points
    MOS:96B2P

    CC Question

    And +1 to that!!
  17. 2 points
    IanL

    CC Question

    +1 to that. I would go further and say that good tactics *is* about paying attention to firepower, terrain, cover etc *and* command and control, leadership and morale.
  18. 2 points
    IICptMillerII

    Stryker vs Bradley

    Wow. I'm impressed. I never would have expected to see someone honestly try to claim here that the US military is an outdated, antiquated force. Do I even bother asking the obvious; can you name a single Russian vehicle that is currently in service that is younger than 20 years old? No. The primary British contribution to the original M1 Abrams was Chobham armor. It was newly developed by the British, with the express purpose of being able to defeat HEAT warheads. The M68A1 105mm gun used on the Abrams and Patton tanks were the British designed L7 gun. This gun was in use with the US already. I don't get what you are trying to say here. Is it a bad thing that various NATO countries worked together and shared technology/parts/designs in order to develop new vehicles? Are you seriously claiming that just because certain countries do not immediately adopt US equipment, or vice versa, that said equipment is garbage? I'm actually surprised by the levels of ridiculous this got to. Basically this. A vehicle that can cross a river and do nothing else isn't very useful. To make the stryker amphibious, you would have to strip it down a lot, and say goodbye to the newer mine resistant variants with the V hulls, as well as getting rid of all ERA. The vehicle would essentially require a complete redesign. In short, it is out of the scope of that the stryker is supposed to do.
  19. 2 points
    Rinaldi

    Stryker vs Bradley

    ...and the BTR is not? Like yes, the LAV is showing its age, as are quite a few other things; that is the happy side effect of a world without a serious conventional conflict in the last 80 years - armed forces tend to stagnate a bit. I'd like to take the bait about all the other little nuggets you threw in from the peanut gallery re: Shermans, the M68 105mm, M256 120mm, etc. but its so off topic that I'd rather not fuel the fire. If your overarching point is that NATO and in particular the US is playing catch-up; you're doing a poor job of showing it.
  20. 2 points
    Pete Wenman

    Infantry Movement Rates

    To add to the replies above, which are both spot on, it is also important to understand the differences between the various move commands, so ensuring the appropriate order is used where possible. All of the five move commands for infantry units not only affect speed of movement, but also the likelihood, or not, of returning fire while moving, use of nearby cover, whether a unit will stop when under fire, or continue to move regardless etc. P
  21. 2 points
    slysniper

    Hard Choice!

    actually you are almost correct, I would do as you and get them the heck out of there but I would use the evade command for my movement. Evade button is the best tool in the game. Not only will the troops run to cover, but they will resist the urge to drop and get pinned again. I have found evade to be one of the best movement commands in the game.
  22. 2 points
    slysniper

    Infantry Movement Rates

    This is by far not a question that is easy to answer. First, I think you need to get your head out of how board games work, its hard to get cm to work on similar concepts. But my suggestion to you is this, you need to get a feel for how cm works with movement, yes, what you are requesting is good to understand. but getting a chart handed to you is not likely to happen. The best thing to do is set up a test map. place your units on the map and then run a test for what they will do in the terrain you want to check them against. you will get pretty direct results on distances a unit will make in that minute. Run the test multiple times, in each terrain type you want to check. But here is where the problem begins, ok that might get you a good number if the troops are in perfect order and no one is firing in their general area. but the truth is, the troops condition and how exhausted they are impacts how fast they move,. they might not even take your orders and follow them if they are having morale issues. Terrain does not work like a board game, woods is not always the same, depending on how the woods are created in the map, they can portray many different levels of obstruction to movement and viewing, none of which is easy for you to tell until your troops are actually in there doing it on the game. So in CM, its more of a feel for what you expect your units to do instead of knowing for sure what they will do. You will only get good at it after playing it alot and seeing the general tendencies of how troops react under certain conditions. So running troops that are fresh at full speed on turn one will result in what is expected. but running troops that might be exhausted, have a few men killed and still having to haul the same equipment is going to be a whole different world in what will happen. There just is no charts for this. The game is like real life, you don't know how far that second group is going to get in a minute, because in truth, you wouldn't know for sure in the real situation either. you would assume a logical guess and hope for the best, the same is true in the game
  23. 2 points
    c3k

    Infantry Movement Rates

    Good question. No. So much depends on the terrain and what the men are carrying. Are we talking two men with 3 Javelins, or a 13-man Marine squad who have fired off every round? Rubble, road, tall grass, hedges, slope, intermediate waypoints, entering a building...etc. Once you understand, and embrace, that CM doesn't give you answers but allows you to learn through experience, questions like yours become unimportant. Not busting on you: I certainly had those questions, too. "Will this team be able to cross that distance and gain cover in this turn?" IRL, does a platoon leader know how long it will take his scouts to cross the field? No...he has an idea, but no solid knowledge: Smith and Jenkins can cross this field (which I measure to be 204m) in 1:17. That's silly. Instead it's more, "Smith, Jenkins! Cross this field. We'll wait here and cover you until you get to the other side." The more you play, the more you'll get a feel for what's reasonable to expect as far as movement rates. With intermediate waypoints, solo teams move faster than squads made up of multiple teams. Giving an order to SLOW for 75m will exhaust your guys and take about 3 turns. Or more. The cool thing? If you really want to know the movement rates, the editor allow you to set up what you want. (But, yes, it would be easier/nicer(?) if that info were out there.)
  24. 2 points
    LukeFF

    CC Question

    Yes, he does, and for goodness sake, @Josey Wales himself recently wrote a lengthy topic about it that was discussed here. EDIT: geez, and he even answered your question in said topic!
  25. 2 points
    TJT

    Stryker vs Bradley

    The most perplexing thing with the Strykers for me, given one of their raison d'etre ( mobility), is the lack of true amphibious ability.
  26. 2 points
    HerrTom

    Stryker vs Bradley

    I think the most convincing argument against it is primarily that by continuing to tack on features you'll eventually get something that can't really do anything that the vehicle was originally meant to do. "A troop transport that can't carry troops. A reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance. And a quasi-tank that has less armour than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of DC." Everything is a trade, right? The Stryker was designed with strategic mobility in mind. You can strap it into a C130 and bring it wherever you want, unlike a Bradley or a BMP. Does adding the 30mm cannon compromise that? Take the M1128 - isn't that too big and heavy to carry on a plane anymore? Maybe a 30mm cannon is a good middle ground. I don't know - but what does the trade study look like?
  27. 2 points
    BTR

    Stryker vs Bradley

    I think the 30mm upgrade for stryker comes from exactly the same desire to improve vehicle versatility as our 30mm APC projects. It won't necessarily change its tactical niche but expand the application within that niche. Supporting dismounted infantry from a distance with a 30 is a lot easier and more effective than with a .50 after all.
  28. 2 points
    Oleksandr

    Oleksandr's Modding Space

    Gentlemen this is my first Tank reskin ever. I've decided to start from good old T-64BV. I hope you will enjoy it. Link to download: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5391
  29. 2 points
    BTR

    Tactical Lifehack

    I am of a firm belief that most of what works IRL, bar with some gamey exceptions like when working around trees that eat APFSDS, works in CM. I don't particularly find it any fun to come up with tactics that only work inside CM because I can't relate to that. As such I do not find it fun to go against opponents that use cookie cutter tactics, so I don't see a need to propagate that play-style and therefore I don't think we need an explicit distinction of where what tactics are applied. As a fun experiment I whipped out a rando page of some rather dated marine light armor employment material (for you eng speakers) and as I expected - stuff that is said there can also be applied in CM 100% .
  30. 2 points
    sbobovyc

    Irratic Framerate Issue

    Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned it on this thread, but I have found that limiting the frame rate through NVIDIA Inspector to 60 fps greatly improves smoothness. On my system, this is due to the fact when I look at a scene that is not busy, such as the sky or the horizon, the GPU will render the scene at a very high frame rate. Even though a scene is simple, this increases the temperature of the GPU and even makes the fan kick in. Transitioning to a more busy scene creates a stutter where the frame rate can drop into the teens while the GPU cools down and the various clock speeds adjust themselves.
  31. 2 points
    Nah...This is Engine 4, and no need for Big HE to realistically reduce buildings and occupants...Just need to use Small Arms or have small HE rounds fall anywhere on the Map to make sure the Building Occupants flee in quick manner Whatever happened when it realistically took several minutes or hours to take a Block of buildings...From an excerpt from "Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan"..."According to myth, the Earth was created in six days (then, v3). Now, watch out! Here comes Genesis! (v4) We'll do it for you in six minutes!
  32. 2 points
    Erwin

    Scalable UI

    +1 In addition to scalable UI, have also longed for a revamped ACQUIRE routine that allows units to swap weapons and ammo with adjacent units (with limitations of course); the ability of being able to order the AI to move a main weapons a few inches so it can attain LOS and shoot at what the 3rd loader can see and shoot at; one mouse click ability to set 180 degree arcs (as in CM1) etc etc. It's the UI that really needs TLC so that players can waste less time on figuring out how to do certain things using the game interface (eg making multiple mouse clicks when one could do), and spend that time on the more fun decisions re tactics & strategy.
  33. 2 points
    It doesn't make the Scenario Editor "really weak", although perhaps it's name should be changed to "Scenario Creator and Editor". In the meantime you can go to cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net to find Mad Mike's most recent version of his editor for both scenarios and campaigns.
  34. 2 points
    LukeFF

    Scalable UI

    Well, thank goodness you are in the minority with that opinion.
  35. 2 points
    I was going great guns in the KG von Schroif campaign, with minimal casualties, until I hit the mission where you have to take a large area of woods (split into four objective areas). --------------- Possible Spoilers ----------------- Crossing the large areas of open ground made recon on foot impractical and the overall geography meant recon by fire wasn’t really a viable option either. Cue recon by burning halftrack. This was one nasty, nasty scenario. The mission features an excellently laid out defence, centred around a couple of very cunningly positioned AT guns backed up by some very hard to shift infantry. The objectives are difficult to reach and the defenders seem to be able to shoot with impunity from areas that seem almost impossible to return fire at. Although I only lost two halftracks, I lost a lot of infantry in this mission which doesn’t bode well for further operations. --------------- End Spoilers ----------------- This is an excellent campaign and features the best CM maps I’ve seen – very evocative of actual Polish terrain. If you haven’t downloaded and played it, do so now. Great work and a big, big thanks to George.
  36. 2 points
    IICptMillerII

    Smoke as a Force Field

    Not sure wading into this is the best idea, but what the hell. I very much disagree. At all levels of warfare, firearms handling and safety, and common sense, the basic rule of "only point/fire at a target you are sure of" permeates all. You are NEVER supposed to dump wanton fire into unsure targets. At the very least, its a waste of ammo, and more than that it poses a severe security and safety risk, regardless of whether you are a rifleman being overrun by [insert horde stereotype here] or a civilian hunter off in the woods somewhere. ("Duck Cheney!") Yes, there are plenty of different types of targets that are viable even if you cannot see a specific person in a firefight, for example an occupied house/hedgerow/trenchline/etc. Herein lies the nuance of the issue. Some people think that an enemy smoke screen with the clear intent of concealing enemy forces that are maneuvering in the open constitutes a valid target to fire at/through. I would argue against this personally for various reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, and others. But at the most basic, I would rather be shooting at something I can see, than firing at something I only think might be there, at the very least risking an empty weapon when the enemy does emerge. A bolt action rifle with a bayonet beats a machine gun if the machine gun is out of ammo/reloading because it was dumping fire at targets it couldn't see. Further, it has been proven through history time and again that simply putting fire down is not enough. The fire must be effective, whether thats direct or in direct fire. Again, there is much more that can be said/argued about this. My main point is that in the real world, shooting randomly at unobserved targets is always a big no no (enough to be disciplined for a negligent discharge, even in a firefight) and that the ability to shoot or not shoot into/through smoke in CM makes very little difference on the overall outcome of the tactical situation. Besides, if you're going to dump fires into smoke to hinder enemy maneuver, you're better off calling on the red legs anyways. P.S: This all wasn't aimed at you MOS, just my general response to the topic.
  37. 2 points
    jonPhillips

    Scalable UI

    Good work fella. Maybe my son will still have some opponents when I'm gone...
  38. 2 points
    Hi Hister I did give the player a couple of 'Red Shirt' scout units in the first mission - just to ease them in! Aye the discussion re recce is an interesting one and full of variables. There is no 'one size fits all' approach. As a designer, I'm aware players often like to lead with scouts... Hence there will be a counter in place where it counts... BTW snipers are excellent spotters - you don't have to get within firing range - the fact they have scopes and binos is their key strength I think. So keeping this team out of harm was a good move - you'll find them very useful in future missions so treat em right! Re the victory conditions - yup how this works in CM for victory conditions if the enemy spot a marked unit they get points (much like how they would if they 'killed' the unit).Does not matter if you kill them after they spot you. This reflects these Soviet units as recce in their own right. Their job is to get intel on where a German attack is coming from and what strength. I'm still working on the other campaign - taking a bit longer now my wife and I have a wee baby. I've way less free time than I used to have. The campaign is coming along though. Cheery! George
  39. 2 points
    Hilts

    To the Meuse!

    "Get out!!"
  40. 2 points
    Erwin

    CMRT Campaign - Kampfgruppe "von Schroif"

    If you still have a fiancée, you're not playing the game properly.
  41. 2 points
    Sgt.Squarehead

    Scalable UI

    There's always one.
  42. 2 points
    Sgt.Squarehead

    CMSF2 Editor Question

    Very much in agreement with Mord. Could we get an extra-chunky rubble flavour object that will stick to or protrude through sharp elevation changes (as can be found between buildings or ruins that are in close proximity but different elevations), it's hard to create the appearance of mounds of rubble in the current setup: It's all just a bit too flat.
  43. 2 points
    Mord

    CMSF2 Editor Question

    That's funny, my job is your hobby, and my hobby is your job. BBM (Before the Beard Mord). Ok, Steve, I am willing to compromise on the trees because I like you and I think you are a decent member of this race we call humans, BUT PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEEEEEASE don't leave out new terrain features that would fit with the Syrian landscape; foot path, stream, weeds, grass tall, flowers, grass extra tall (VERY IMPORTANT), lt forest, hvy forest, deep marsh, reeds, heavy rocks, crop types. These are all excellent additions that will give map makers much more flexibility in future scenario design. I implore you with every fiber of my Mordness don't deny us the ability to make maps as great as they can be. These options are in all the other titles please allow them in CMSF2. On another note the regular marsh is impassable for infantry in SF but passable in the other titles. Will the Marines be able to use the amphibious capabilities of the AAVs? Mord. P.S. And how did you dodge that hellacious storm? CMP just got our power on down here, today. It's been out since 1:30 Monday morning! I missed Halloween!
  44. 2 points
    sburke

    CMSF2 Editor Question

    And “simple to do”.
  45. 2 points
    Combatintman

    CMSF2

    Simplicity is implied here: 'I would like to think that moving the OOB from CMBS to the new CMSF2 would be a lot less than developing a new module for CMBS'. Otherwise, I refer to you my original post in which I have presented an evidence-based answer to your question.
  46. 2 points
    Combatintman

    CMSF2

    The IED problem in CMSF is mostly a tactical problem to solve. As @Sgt.Squarehead said above, you're going about it the wrong way. There are also nuances to the IED problem in terms of how the scenario designer has implemented them in the scenario. Like most things in the military there are heaps of acronyms related to IEDs and this is why I talk about nuances which I shall try to explain. In CMSF terms, I would start with the manual definitions of IED and how they operate (pages 104-106 of the manual refer) in simple terms they boil down to: VBIED - this comprises a vehicle and a triggerman. Cell IED - this comprises the device and a triggerman (range 600m and 10% failure rate) Radio IED - this comprises the device and a triggerman (range 300m, LOS from the triggerman to device and 20% failure rate) Wire IED - this comprises the device and a triggerman (range 100m and 10% failure rate) A point to note is that although it only explicitly states that LOS is required for radio IEDs, my experience is that LOS is a requirement for all of them. Additional relevant factors are the experience and skill ratings of the triggerman plus the level of suppression/panic. Taking all of the above into account, defeating IEDs listed above generally involve the following (which, by the way, are real world tactical solutions to the problem): Analysing where you think an IED might be and consider avoiding that area. Denying the triggerman LOS. Killing or suppressing the triggerman. Otherwise, if you have platforms with ECM, you can risk manage situations because ECM (page 206 of the manual shows you the ECM icon) will increase the device failure rates for Vehicle, Cell and Radio IEDs, although by how much in game I do not know. So this is all fine and dandy but what about mines? Mines are in essence what are called in the COIN environment VOIEDs (Victim Operated IEDS). Indeed many VOIEDs, or their components started off as military specification anti-personnel or anti-tank mines. Now (and here is the nuance I was talking about earlier) what if the scenario designer has mentioned an IED threat but has implemented that threat by using mines to replicate VOIEDs? Well the obvious solution is of course to use engineers or pioneers to look for them or mark them. However, you are never going to know how the scenario designer has implemented the 'IEDs' until you either play the scenario or you cheat and peak in the scenario editor. That I'm afraid is that enduring characteristic of warfare called friction. So your solution here is one I've mentioned earlier which is to work out where you think the device might be and avoid it. As to your desire to have a means to physically clear devices - engineers/pioneers can identify and mark mines already but identification without detonation is, in my experience, rare in CMSF. It also takes time ... slow move, pause, slow move pause. This is reflective of real life - there are plenty of documentaries/combat footage of Afghanistan and Iraq that will verify that it is a slow and hazardous process with no guarantees of success. Bearing in mind that the maximum length of a scenario is three hours (plus possibly some added time - I'm relying on memory here) then you can see that your approach to the problem will require analysis and risk management. As to a physical clearance feature well again I would refer you to documentaries/footage because in many cases that requires a specialist EOD team which may have to be called in from a FOB and could take a couple of hours to rock up. All of that said - it would be nice to have the capability but if it is to be implemented realistically (which is how BFC does things) then I would still expect EOD clearance to be a time consuming process which would soak up a lot of scenario time.
  47. 2 points
    Combatintman

    CMSF2

    Not as easy as you think - the timeframe in which the two titles are set are at least a decade apart. While I can't speak for other TO&Es, as the person that researched, provided and formatted the majority of the data for the British forces in the CMSF British module, I can tell you that the work that is involved in writing a TO&E to BFCs standards is an enormous undertaking. Bear in mind that this does not include the work that BFC then does with that data to turn it into code and all of those other fancy ones and zeroes that computers need to make the thing perform. The British Army for the CMBS setting is very different to the British Army of the CMBS setting and in terms of TO&E implementation would probably require about at least about 50% of the research effort that I spent last time around plus whatever time it takes for BFC to code etc. Rinse and repeat for all of the other TO&Es in CMSF (ie Germans, Canadians, Dutch, Syrians etc ) and it becomes bigger than Ben Hur. I'm not denying that it is not doable but like everything else in relation to these games, it is a question of how much effort or how many resources Battlefront are prepared to throw at the problem. My guess is none, because their plan would not include CMSF 2, it would be CMSF type content added to CMBS or vice versa. As none of the announced development roadmaps/bones have stated that they intend to do this then, in all likelihood, it isn't going to happen.
  48. 2 points
    Badger73

    Irratic Framerate Issue

    +1 to @Schrullenhaft!!
  49. 2 points
    Combatintman

    CMSF2

    With regard to rain, no I'm not suggesting that Battlefront does not include it, in fact I did not suggest anything in my post. You asserted that weather was not in CMSF which was untrue. In regard to dust storms, while you did use the word 'may' in relation to their inclusion, you could not point to any statement from Steve that led to your assumption about their inclusion. The reason I have challenged you on this is because such speculation tends to get out of hand and leads to assumptions suddenly becoming facts in the minds of many and the second order effect of that is somebody whining down the track when the assumed feature isn't included eg 'why aren't dust storms included, you promised etc etc'. I tend to agree with what @sburkesaid in another thread about it being better to wait for statements from Steve about the details of what will be in CMSF 2 because in my view idle speculation can be unhelpful in that it creates false expectations.
  50. 2 points
    SLIM

    Armoured Infantry

    Halftracks should be seen as nothing more than bulletproof trucks, asking for more out of them is asking for trouble. Their job is to deliver your infantry to their jumping off point unharmed, providing some suppressive fires with their machineguns, allowing for rapid redeployment in between engagements, as well as providing an easy source of ammunition resupply. You would be better off keeping them out to around 400-500 meters while firing, and only closing within that range specifically to disembark infantry, then withdrawing again. One of Jeffrey Paulding's tactics videos features Armored Infantry (Time-Stamped to Relevant Portion): My playtesting of Rinaldi's scenario 'Duel in the Mist' does show some armored infantry in action, if you want to have a look: Of course, I possessed copious amounts of supporting weapons, so the actual tactical problem was one of time management, rather than the specific problem of employment. I do have plans to make a tactics video specifically about Armored Infantry, but life and work have sapped my schedule quite a bit. I hope this helps, and welcome to the forums, btw.
×