hoolaman

Yeah I understand plenty of stuff. Steve said that it is not happening because there was no solution that wouldn't look jarringly terrible (Paraphrasing). I said that the animations for guns already look jarringly terrible so why not just do your best on the animations and get the functionality in there. One idea suggested by someone else was to have a limbered and unlimbered model for these guns, which is perfectly practical, but I can see why even making the model is a very very low priority.

I understand you guys have to make compromises, but I'd point out that the limbering and movement of AT guns already looks and behaves horribly, so there isn't much of a quality bar to cross. It's not like there are animations of everyone rushing around packing up the guns, or animations of them properly pushing the guns. And I mean this in the most positive and constructive way.

A shame when the simulation is deliberately sacrificed on the altar of graphics.

The problem is that especially light vehicles have a very low threshold for becoming destroyed. 1 Bullet through the engine? Destroyed. Its a two part equation for me. A light vehicle should be far more likely to be immobilised rather than destroyed. Then you should be allowed to remount immobilised vehicles to use their weapons and remove ammo from them.

To be fair this guy's less than eloquent ravings are pretty much what this game gives you as a first impression. How many games even have manuals these days? Not even one of the recent PC games I've played have required a manual, they introduce game concepts and even a complex UI in the form of an interactive tutorial. This is what gamers expect these days. The UI and camera controls are pretty hard work, and very unorthodox. Even on the forums here in the past both have been lambasted. Performance too can be very poor on high end systems. Shadows ARE terrible, smoke is quite basic. Everyone here knows why these things are so and seeks to excuse them, but don't expect everyone else in the world to excuse them.

Could be they only bothered tagging the Panther correctly and the whole sub-system damage thing is bugged. The fact that tanks in CMSF never had any performance degradation from totally destroyed optics (or several other systems) is no real excuse. The system was designed for CMSF, I recall at one stage totally destroyed smoke launchers could still fire smoke too.

The DRM system can trigger an antivirus alert due to it having some form of encryption. If you downloaded the files from a reputable site, I shouldn't think there'd be a problem with malware. Just disable your AV. I think it might recommend to do so in the install readme anyway.

Trees block LOS and can even 100% block LOS, but the leaves at the top don't block LOS any more than the trunks at the bottom. Hence the "canopies" of (graphically) 100% obstruction do not exist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that show a 25% chance of rounds landing within the centre 4 boxes? Your original table said 11 rounds before a hit to target centre? So it seems pretty reasonable if you'd gone to the trouble of wheeling up a 240mm howitzer to fire on a hard bunker, that you could spend maybe a day and 10-20 rounds to kill it. Not precision fire, granted, but pretty plausible.

Treetops canopies don't really exist in the LOS system.

Yes simulationally that will work, you get a Sherman + crew fighting for the Germans. But that US tank will always be a US tank, including crew. Bunch of traitors.

The US 90mm is not a badass nazi ubergun, so no comparison.

lol. Translation: If we don't like your tone you'll get abused by forum regulars in a way that'll make you think twice about coming back.

The problem with the bugs that remain is that they are so subtle that they are nearly impossible to prove, in systems that have little or no UI feedback. But this AAR shows there are still things that can throw a whole battle into question. How many other vehicles have their 3D models tagged wrong or their crew upside down or whatever other esoteric thing that nobody will ever find? It doesn't help either that the community here is pretty hostile to people criticizing the game who don't submit 1000 replicate tests.

The unit of comparison is "nominal pounds" 25:40:50

I think everyone was too busy begging for movable waypoints for most of that time.

What makes you think anyone is jumping to conclusions? The OP was making a point about graphical representation of fog, not the game effects. As for my point, the tank essentially cannot fire its weapons at all in these conditions simply because there is no LOS. Sound contact 10m ahead? Too bad. Does that make sense to you? There were many examples where LOF=/=LOS and the two functions in the old games would be superior. I haven't played the last couple of versions of the engine though so I'm not sure what has been fixed.

Perhaps I didn't phrase it very well, but I was responding to the guys saying it is impossible to program the game to have a unit ignore the arc and defend itself. It's not impossible, only having it work perfectly every time is impossible. GaJ's incidient lies so far on the "defend yourself you idiots" end of the spectrum that it shows that behaviour that I understand is supposed to be in the game, is actually not in the game. Which could be a bug. Maybe. I haven't been involved in beta testing in a while.

This is the best example of why the targeting tool is NOT a LOS tool as claimed by BFC.

It is not that complicated to program in some self-preservation behaviour according to some set of criteria. Though that criteria will never please everyone, I'd have thought taking casualties from a spotted enemy at about 50m would trigger some sort of response and exempt the arc. In fact, from memory that is supposed to be in the game now, so this very well could be an actual bug. Which was GaJ's point I think. Yet everyone jumps in and tells him he's doing it wrong. You guys are bananas sometimes.

There's also the fact that Bil is far better at presenting his suspected and partial spots to us the reading audience, and he is not shy of gaming the game to correctly guess what he is facing. Not cheating of course, just wringing every bit of info from the game engine like a player has the right to do. That combined with the fact that many of us are reading both threads probably gives a false impression of what he really sees at any one time. However there are still many wonky spotting problems. Tanks still seem way too capable of spotting distant and supposedly concealed objects. And the fact that tree canopies do not actually exist in the game engine makes for some strange situations when there are different elevations.

Exactly. I've learned to not put too much stock in BFCs technical document writing.

That was a stationary gun in a defensive position so it doesn't at all compare to the situation going back the other way. Although I have no idea if an unmoved gun really gets a ranging accuracy bonus and concealment bonus or if that is just an assumption because CMX1 did.

Lol, every round in CMx2 "bursts".

Of course it'll be in the EULA that you can't redistribute the software. Vanilla windows install discs can be downloaded on torrents to use with valid licenses. I've done this with an OEM PC that doesn't even ship with a windows disc. With the bunch of nerds we have here I can't see the torrent running out of seeders. If you did you just get on the forums and ask for someone to seed instead of moaning about how evil/incompetent BFC are.