Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by IanL

  1. OK I reviewed your files and created my own tests... Bug logged. This does seem to be a bit different than the fixed bug I found. In that case rounds were penetrating through the roof and going off inside. That was back in v1. Now these rounds are going off inside the walls and the shrapnel radius is extending into the inside. At any rate not good. I agree that the mesh deformation seems to be contributing but it is not necessary. My tests showed the issue with flat no mesh deformation scenarios. But none of my tests resulted in KIA even in the ones with some mesh deformation. While your tests with significant mesh deformation actually did result in some KIA. Hti text does not seem to be working either. I mentioned that too. I do not agree that the building rubble is related to this but I have not investigated that yet.
  2. Missions that are specified with in ~50m around a TRP. So you can call a point mission anywhere inside that circle or create an area mission with a radius of up to 100m or a short line mission. If you have two TRPs then you can create a line between them or an area mission that centres near one and has a radius out near the other.
  3. This comes up from time to time because it is confusing. It does not appear on the FAQ post and it should. I did some digging and found two useful threads that answers the way the game works question:
  4. I would recommend against adding branching just for testing. Either test the individual scenarios or the fully compiled campaign - with branching as designed.
  5. My understanding is that the Mac version has always been 64bit. It's the windows version that is 32bit - but it now has the large address aware flag turned on so it can actually use the full 4Gb on a 64bit OS.
  6. I would suggest having some helpers test the individual battles for the first pass. That lets you avoid the issue of becoming blocked by a mission that is too difficult. The flip side of that is some battles might be too easy because core units will be full strength instead of depleted by casualties. To compensate for that you could just take that into account when reviewing or have testers hold back some of those forces and not fight with them. For example, if your core company lost a third of its strength when you tested the first battle then have a platoon just stay out of the fight.
  7. There are two ways that you can see OpFor icons right from the beginning. One is by playing on Scenario author test mode. This video starts with the skill level set to Elite so unless there is video slight of hand that's not it. The other way is first turn intel. Scenarios can be designed so that one side or the other can have early intelligence on the enemy positions. When that happens the intel is displayed using the contact icons ?. Watching a little of the second video it really does look like scenario author mode but it is also possible to swap out the ? icons for other ones. So the mod could be responsible. For example there is an icon for unknown infantry which is a ? with a solider figure. If you use a mode to swap that for a standard X icon for infantry very similar or the same as the one for fully spotted infantry then that would also explain the appearance of number of fully spotted X icons on the battlefield. Icons can be modded. I don't know which mod those icons are from but for example here are the ones I created for CMSF: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=2684
  8. Sort of you want to run the Activate Module short cut that should have been installed. Run it once and enter one key and then run it again and enter another key. If that doesn't work I recommend contacting support - they are the licensing experts: Battlefront Help desk
  9. LOL aren't I lucky. I should warn you I have a back log of stuff I am supposed to be looking at. You might get board waiting for me and cry uncle first
  10. I was specifically referring to bridge related bugs. I should have been more clear. There are lots of bugs reported here. Some actually are bugs. Many of them those get fixed. It is true that some do not. I am unaware of a bridge bug that was reproduced (with a save or by a tester following the report) that was not fixed.
  11. If you hit the bug in more then one then general but if you have examples in specific games then in their sub forums.
  12. My impression is he intends to do that but that made the file too big to attach to the post. I am presuming that a final version would include it and by hosted in an appropriate place...
  13. That is an interesting example but that is how things are designed. Hopefully the ? remains - since they saw it. There is no "can I see dust" spotting check. Dust is visible when the generator is and invisible when not. This is so you cannot, with your god like powers, see vehicles driving (by their dust) in areas of the map your troops cannot see. To process your units being able to see dust or not is too taxing for the current engine so it is a limitation we have to live with. It is a trade off but the right one.
  14. Awesome - new scenarios are only good. Your file allocation here on the forum is crazy small so you probably will not be able to upload another one even. May I suggest you look at an alternative. Dropbox is ok for some testing and back and forth but not good once the scenario is ready to be distributed. Once you are done definatly post to the scenario depot: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/ An alternative during testing is the proving grounds: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tpg2/
  15. Probably a new thread would work best - so it does not get lost in the uproar that this thread is heading towards
  16. Correct. The sayings and casualty sounds are random at play back not random at event calculation. Sometimes it feels kinda weird watching an even multiple times and hearing different voice sounds.
  17. Yes, lots of good stuff... Prioritization means that some things are likely to just never be done - by BFC. I have no idea if random map generation is one but like that. It is one that could be side stepped by letting other people do it. Whatever way you slice it there needs to be a decent map authoring tool but what if the map format could be opened up a bit (either as a file format or special simplified input options or an API - I'm not fussy which) then BFC could never create a random map feature but someone else could. And someone could create a tool for supporting campaigns that sliced parts of a larger map and someone else could create something that none of us here have though about yet. Etc.
  18. For better or worse engaging with testers and other community members is as close to official as we are going to get. Keep doing it. Yeah, there was a change made. It seems to not have resolved the problem enough. Testers are still working on it. Now one has abandoned this issue. OK but that's not going to happen. We do have NDAs and sometimes that is a cause but BFC also dose not document the full behaviour scope of every little thing. So, it is what it is and it is intentional so there ya go. To bad so sad. Sorry you feel that way but it is how you feel not how BFC views customers. Sorry I cannot make you feel better Yeah, so interestingly enough it was taken seriously and reported and a fix was made (found the but report). So, are you saying you have seen this (mortar round exploding inside bukers) still in 4.0x? If so I will look at reproducing it. If you have a save that would get me ahead of the game. If not can you at least confirm that it still happens in the latest build. Thankfully no one has said that and no one on the testing team will. The fact that you don't seem to want to believe that isn't our problem. I have explained this before but perhaps you have missed this. I get that end users just see a problem with bridge crossing - heard and understood. The fact is that in the background multiple bugs have been fixed. So far every reported and logged bug has been fixed. The fact that it is still possible to find new ways of confusing bridge crossing is unfortunate. If you guys find examples and report them with a save they will be fixed. So, short version there is not one single thing that "just has not been fixed" this is a complex area and multiple bugs that show the same symptoms have been fixed. If there are more we can go after them too.
  19. That could work. If it doesn't try downloading the all in one installer for 4.0 - that will certainly fix it.
  20. It will very likely be totally fine. Follow the official proceedure of watching playback with the old version, saving during command phase, shutting down and installing, then loading the save before completing the turn.
  21. No, several people had test cases using the new 2019 labeled qb maps.
  22. Correct more than one tester could not reproduce the problem using their test case. 4.01 showed the problem for them -> 4.02 did not. The thing with the Tac AI decisions is there is no way to make a "that will never happen again" statement. Having said that - I am disappointed that you were able to hit it so fast.
  23. LOL you think that was hostile that might explain a lot Here are some of the why BFC is not using Steam: And here is a neat summary of where Steam conversations end up:
  • Create New...