Ben Galanti

I still wonder if the MacDX DirectX Interface Library would work. I would think they could then use the DirectX calls in the PC source of Combat Mission and let the MacDX library convert the Direct3D callsto OpenGL. It obviously wouldn't preform as quickly as rewriting the engine for OpenGL would, but it would be a lot easier to to impliment. Now, whether it would be cost effective, since there would be licensing involved, who knows. I would think only the Direct3D portion would need to be licensed, which would save some money, but there is also the time factor involved of integrating these libraries. It's probably a pipe dream, but it sure would be nice if CM would at least run in Classic. Ben

Interestingly, the G4 towers currently at the Apple store all can boot into OS 9. From the picture, they look just like the Mirrored-Drive Door models that couldn't boot into 9 just a few days ago... Ben

The thing one needs to understand about Quesa is that it is a replacement for the QuickDraw3D APIs not RAVE. QD3D was/is a higher level API for dealing with 3D graphics in terms of objects and scenes and what not. It's a level higher then RAVE. Now, originally they were intertwined, because RAVE was the low level API that QD3D used. What the Quesa developers have done is allowed the QD3D API to sit on top of different rendering engines. So, you can use the same QD3D calls but the underneath stuff is RAVE, OpenGL, or even DirectX (I think). The programmer is the insulated from the low level calls and can just use the higher level stuff. Now, CMBO/CMBB apparently does use at least a few QD3D calls (I recently read that the models are in 3DMF format) but I think the problem is the low level RAVE calls themselves. Obviously, this is a lot of conjecture on my part, but for the most part QD3D calls weren't used in games, it was the direct RAVE calls for better speed. Quesa really wouldn't fit the bill for this. Now, the graphics library that translates DirectX calls to OpenGL (I forget the name off the top of my head) might be something that would work, but that won't happen for the reasons already outlined in other posts in this thread. Ben

Jagdratt, What video card do you have in your machine? Is it running with hardware or software rendering? At what resolution is it running? I had heard of folks running CMBO in classic with software rendering, but not CMBB. Maybe something's changed recently... Ben

Hearts of Iron is coming to the Mac... Anyway, I'm looking forwardto playing with a Mac version of this. I wish I had the time these days to help with the programming. It's an amazing idea... Ben

Heh, I meant to mention something about this. I thought that the reason that a lot of the scenarios were not as the usenet poster described was that they wouldn't be much fun. Whether they would be more historically accurate is a question best left up to some one much better versed in the history then I, but I can see how they would be boring... Ben

Just from reading those threads, it really sounds like they have a problem with the scenario design instead of the game itself. Now, this may be a very valid point that the shipped scenarios are "too close for comfort", but I don't think that is due to engine limitations. You can make (or of the game generate) a large, open, flat map fairly easily. One of the demo scenarios was a map like that. While I'm not usually one for "if you don't like it, make scenarios your self" but that is somewhat the case here. Now, if that is not your thing, and there are not a lot of downloadable scenarios more to your liking, I can see how someone could be wary of spending their $50. Ben

I had a somewhat strange setup in CMBO for a while, but it would allow me to run software at a higher resolution the 640x480. Basically, the monitor resolution was fixed, so CMBO was unable to switch the resolution to 640x480, so it happily played in software at the higher resolution. I've since upgraded, so I don't know if that would happen with CMBB or not. If possible, it would be nice if software would just keep the resolution at whatever the desktop is currently set for. Or, at least, starting with the option key down or something would bring up a dialog that would ask whether or not to switch resolutions. Ben

My understanding is that facing does have an effect on morale (as well as spotting for that matter). Another thing that infantry units don't like is getting fired upon from a variety of different places. Basically, being fired at from a unit in front and on each side is more of a morale hit then being fired at by those same three units from the front. Ben

You shouldn't have to move, it's just a bad miss. It's most painful when it's a large HE shell being shot by a thinly armored vehicle... Ben

Because PC's never have compatibility problems with games... Now, obviously, if you are buying a computer for the intent of gaming, a Mac isn't it. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, hence the negative responses to your comment... Ben

Ummm...might be. I dunno, I don't speak Russian http://klad.hobby.ru/military_rus1.htm Ben

I think sticking to scenario default is only for the AI side. The player always has the option to move his forces. If you turn this option on, the AI will always set up in the same palce (the place were the scenario designer put them), if you have it off, the AI will move it's forces as it sees fit during the setup phase. This will give you a different fight each time, but human designed placement will generally be better. I'm pretty sure this doesn't affect human players at all though. Ben

Was there maybe an arty round that you missed? Light vehicles like that will scatter when coming under arty or mortar fire... Ben

You might want to try to see if you can get a copy of Voidhawk's Mod Ben