Jump to content

whitehot78

Members
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by whitehot78

  1. Ok, I just made a simple test: - CMBN installed on the hard drive. - I loaded up two battles from CMBN, the ones being the most complex ("My Honor is Loyalty", axis side: and "Colossal Crack", allied side). - I measured the loading times with a stopwatch. They measure as follows: My honor is loyalty - 1:28 mins Colossal Crack - 1:25 mins - I then transferred the entire CMBN directory from my sata3 hd to my sata3 ssd - Repeated time measurements: My Honor is Loyalty - 1.09 mins Colossal Crack - 1.15 mins Basically I must agree with wiggum, in stating that there is not much of an improvement (abt 20%), so I'll probably stick with the hd. One thing of note is that both the hd and the ssd are sata3 enabled. That probably means that with a sata2 hd the loading times would be kinda higher, and maybe transferring CM to a ssd would give more of a performance increase. Anyway, had no problems at all with drms.
  2. iirc chechens made good use of rpg-29s to smash russian armor. Since most of the chechen "army" of the 1994 war armed itself from soviet stockpiles on that territory, that would be meaning that there should be plenty of them in stockpiles in Russia. I understand that the russian army prefers the rpg-7 with advanced warheads, yet seems to me it's kinda naive not to make use at all of a weapon capable of dealing with modern western tanks, in a confrontation with the west.. Would be seeing this weapon well in the specialized teams section of the buying screen.. Besides, if it was modeled in CMSF, must not be a big deal to port it to BS
  3. yeah, I reckon that in-game there is no performance gain .. yet the loading times (which are particularly tedious sometimes imho) gonna improve I think. So I'll give it a try, maybe start with the older titles I rarely fire up like shock force or a'stan, Thanks for your replies folks
  4. I wish to gradually move all my CMs from a hard drive to my ssd. I was wondering if it's possible to just cut and paste the game directories and update shortcuts. Will I incur in problems doing so? My doubt is that the licensing system won't like such kind of move, so if a total re-install is needed I won't bother. thx
  5. I would broad out the concept that our present enemy rejects western culture and ideals to one where it rejects everything that is not its own pre-medieval "culture" (we shouldn't forget that in obscure ages muslims were considered kinda enlightened and tolerant); as these days one can watch these valorous warriors demolishing historical sites thousands years old, which imho are a heritage to the whole mankind.. if I were to decide, those acts alone should be triggering a global campaign to eradicate IS from the world forever, but sadly that doesn't seem to be some high priority for the leading civilizations leaders.
  6. I don't agree with you .. A projectile weighing several hundreds kilograms, even if they were only, say, 200 - and travelling at supersonic speeds will shake a 70 tons tank, and it would shake rather frantically..
  7. always liked the idea pretty much, a combat mission game in that setting. I read around though, that it is not in the devs plans.
  8. very nice.. was something I never heard of and I don't consider myself all that ignorant on the subject.. Although a Paladin "fan" I must say the pzh-2000 really has the crown when it comes to spa imho.. anyway, I doubt something like MRSI would be allowed by the CM current engine
  9. really impressive! thanks for your work and for sharing it with us!
  10. I agree about the fact that the BMP-3 crews seldom employ their weapons systems wisely. I don't know, maybe it's a rather complex vehicle for the game engine to manage, having so many different weapons. Yet I didn't notice the weak terminal effects of the 30mm autocannon when engaging Bradleys - so far seems to me that a couple of 30mm burst would disable the M2 80% of the times. One thing I'm rather skeptical though, its the ability of reactive armor (especially the "regular" one found on american AFVs) to defeat incoming ATGMs basically all the times. Although I don't know if the AT-10 on the BMP-3 has a tandem wh (If it's not there in the original version, I'm pretty sure they would make a "AT-10M" version with tandem wh), I see many ATGMs supposed to have that (AT-13, AT-14, Krizh, AT-5B, AT4-C) way too often defeated by ERA edit: I looked around the web and the 9m117m "kan" and the 9m117m1 "arkan" have tandem warheads. Should defeat any reactive armor present in game; and also 600 to 850mm RHA after that..
  11. when i previously stated that a single shot from an RPO would be dropping a team I was totally ignoring the fact that buildings have rooms abstracted into them. So I'd say that the current model is acceptable - seems that the men holing up in the "room" hit by the rocket are disabled. Won't be complaining for a little bit more effectiveness anyway - maybe something that clearly differentiate between open spaces and closed ones, as the discussed warheads reach their maximum effectiveness if they explode inside. Has anybody tested if there's actually a difference in RPOs effect against infantry in the open and on the inside? Or have they been treated like normal HE? If not I'd be willing to do some, as soon as I can and, the effects. I mean graphical ones. Shouldn't they make a lot of fire and smoke where they hit?
  12. As far as it concerns me, I would value realism over anything else "game-balance related" in tactical simulators like Combat Mission - and so far it's been a trademark of these titles. But: If we have enough technical informations that tells us how the aforementioned weapons work, It would be rather game-balance related not to implement it because would make RU infantry unstoppable in MOUT. Imho, when considering two opposing forces from the same time period, they both have some kind of advantage in different areas over the other one. Historically, what armed forces engaged in combat have always did, was to adjust their tactics to minimize the opposing force advantages and maximise theirs. I don't think that the American units facing those RPOs would lack tactical options to counter them - Americans have anyway a distinct advantage in fire support, especially in the very short times they can get accurate rounds on target from arty and air platforms. I understand that these RPOs system and thermo warheads in general have been particularly optimized after the heavy lessons learned by the RU armed forces in urban scenarios in Chechnya. These weapons systems are made, specifically, to destroy personnel taking cover in buildings, basements, bunkers: quickly and with a single shot, possibly by soldiers already engaged in small arms exchanges occurring at very short ranges. I didn't know about the precursor charge, but it makes sense - you have troops under fire from very close and you can't pop out of cover for many seconds to aim for the window in the building up front - you fire the thing in the general direction where the fire's coming from and, you can be almost sure to have the enemy suppressed. Anyway, I would say that if a system exists, it should be modeled correctly: no nerfs or buffs because it's a game. I agree with Vanir about overwhelmingly effectiveness: RPOs units need to be tactically employed correctly , they are dedicated squads which need protection by the infantry platoons to be effective anyway. Besides that, their presence on the battlefield wouldn't be realistically very massive (wouldn't expect to encounter dozens of RPOs in a given situation). Their price could be buffed , to reflect the increase in effectiveness. As the American player, having an advantage in spotting, I would be on a look out for troops carrying suspicious tubes in urban scenarios, and if I'd spot them, I would probably direct all the firepower at my immediate disposal at them. That said, there would be many other tactical considerations to be made, based on which combat scenario is really being discussed.
  13. If I have to be puzzled about something which has been talked about on this thread, I would say that the antipersonnel warheads on RPGs/RPOs are a little weak. Specifically, the thermobaric ones, I would expect to cause horrible casualties, in situation where the rocket actually manages to penetrate the building (I would imagine that such rockets will explode inside only if they passed through a window, a door or another opening - if they hit a wall their load would splatter against a wall). Basically, the in-game effects imho should be that if you have a squad holed up on a floor, and a RPO explodes inside that floor, no member of that squad would be able to keep fighting - think about the pressure effects the warhead has on a man's lungs, without considering the incendiary effect. Also, I was expecting the thermo warheads to have some sort of effect of their own; in WW2 CM titles we got the flamethrower effects, but in BS thermos seems to go up just like normal HE/frag to me. Are they planning to add some proper explosions or are we gonna make up with the current effects?
  14. looking at the sculptures, cannot avoid thinking about wot. There must be some real world of tanks enthusiast among those who made those... Anyway, nice find!
  15. Really? Are you implying that Tunguskas will try to engage also incoming air munitions like guided missiles and bombs? Totally didn't know it was modeled in-game, but if it is, hats-off to the devs.
  16. I think marines from several sides would be guaranteed to take part in this setting. I too wouldn't be all that excited with a reissue of the same armed forces we saw in CMSF. But generally speaking, there aren't many countries which would both realistically participate in a flashpoint like this and have the means to fight and win. Aside from the countries involved in SF, only a couple other could stand out, and mostly it's France. It would be both nice and refreshing for example to have a module with a Franco-German task force (although looking through its oob seems mostly a light infantry force, they could get some armor attachments in a Black Sea aop). There is also this entity called "Eurocorps", that could be something comprising units from several different euro countries - maybe it could be employed in game to make appear units from nations still not represented in the CM series (Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Italy and so on). As far as it concerns me, I would buy any module coming out, yet Poland and/or baltics wouldn't be of much interest to me (maybe stuffing them in a single module?).
  17. Yup, CMx2 engine is heavily CPU-bound. In fact, fiddling around with the graphic driver settings would not change fps, at least in my case. You can test this by changing the "3d model quality" setting (basically, it varies the number of polygons used in the 3d models, and their LODs). Putting it at the maximum will severely hamper the fps throughput. Since there is an option in the game to run it in high priority, there COULD be some improvement in altering that value to an even higher priority number. This could be done only with windows task explorer (at least in windows 7), or with utilities like Process Explorer. Remember, though, that giving a process a too high priority access to the cpu can hamper the functioning of other programs running in background, and in some cases, the operating system as well. All in all, I think that not being a game requiring extreme smoothness to be "playable" I'm satisfied with the fps I get with my build - even if sometimes it gets 15ish or something.
×
×
  • Create New...