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

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Content count

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About IICptMillerII

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,068 profile views
  1. Safe to Apply ver 4.0?

    I would recommend staying at game engine 3 for now. The bugs in the TacAI logic make the game infuriating at times to play, and at the least it just becomes a massive headache. If you would like to see for yourself, I made a thread and a video discussing the current issues with v4 in the CMRT forum that I'll link here for your convenience. Take a look and see what you think.
  2. CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

    It does appear that we have shed light on the issue and it is being considered at this time. I and others have been in contact with some of the testers/content creators here on the forums and they report the same. As I mentioned earlier, its likely we haven't heard anything from the devs because they are backlogged and trying to work through that at the moment, which is completely understandable. An update on the second video I had planned. I think for now I'm going to hold off on making it. I feel the first video is more than adequate at illustrating the primary issue, and a second video would be a bit overkill at this point. My primary intent with the video was to show 1) there is a problem and 2) what that problem is. If the devs were to say that they needed more evidence of a problem, then I would go ahead and make a second video, but at this point I am content that its been seen and understood. If others have further evidence/examples they would like to post, feel free to use this thread as a place to put it.
  3. Future US AFV development

    Now you're hating on the children? Is nothing sacred to you? And FYI, I do have a poster of the M113 helotank, signed by Stormin Norman and McMaster, as well as a challenge coin from each. McMaster signed it "Logistics be damned, on to Moscow!" Truly inspirational to be honest.
  4. Future US AFV development

    Fuel efficiency at its finest right there! Legend says Putin himself goes to bed every night, cold with fear over this majestic beast. Sweden did not purchase it unfortunately, due to complaints about its lack of ability to swim underwater and torpedo enemy merchant vessels.
  5. Future US AFV development

    Mirror much? Every single point you have made in this thread have been addressed, yet you refuse to accept any of the explanations given, while flat out ignoring others. I'm not the one being a 'little child' over things I don't want to hear. That would be you. The Abrams does not have an exhaust port that the Rebels can exploit with X-Wings to catastrophically blow it up. The Abrams does not consume all of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves every time it drives to a battlefield. Your opinions are wrong, and you clearly do not know "for sure" what you are talking about.
  6. Future US AFV development

    Yes, when you continually refuse to acknowledge the very valid points brought up to literally every single one of your "complaints" it goes from a 'mature discussion' to bashing your head against a wall. Frankly, its time to stop.
  7. Future US AFV development

    Lmao uh what? This myth that the Abrams is completely useless because it "guzzles gas like a typical Murican abomination" seriously needs to die. Sweden bought the Leopard 2 over the Abrams because it was significantly cheaper than the Abrams, and the Abrams variant Sweden would have gotten did not have the full armor suite. This ridiculous notion that Sweden bought Leo 2s because "muh gas" and "muh armor" is absurd. The Leo 2 was cheap, plain and simple. Ahh yes, I forgot that the US Army only ever trains for the best possible case scenario. Nevermind all that stuff Panzer said about NTC being "hard." What does he know anyways? I think the solution here is obvious; the US Army needs to get rid of all these gas guzzling tanks and replace them with the latest model of Prius. Just slap some 4x4 tires on em and have an infantryman riding shotgun with a Javelin. Boom, problem solved. It can drive half way across Europe on one tank of gas, and has perfect anti-tank capability thanks to the Javelin. Hell, put another infantryman in the back seat with a Stinger. Now you're protected from those dreaded KA-52s you mentioned! Check and mate, pesky Russians. Remember, the only thing worse than a WW3 scenario, is a WW3 scenario that also is heavy on carbon emissions!
  8. What is going on?

    My understanding is the vehicle pack was made for CMBN to add a small collection of specialty vehicles that were used in the Normandy timeframe, but there were not enough new vehicles to warrant a whole new module. None of the other games need a vehicle pack at the moment. They are either complete (CMBN) or have future modules planned that will add new vehicles and formations to them (CMBS, CMFI, CMFB, etc) What I would like to see are more battlepacks. They are a great way to extend the life of the various titles. For example, I like the US campaign from the CMBS battlepack more than the base campaign that came with the game. I'm hoping we start to see more battlepacks come out regularly for all the titles now that the concept has been tested and proven.
  9. CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

    My guess on when we can see this addressed is when the 4.0 upgrade comes for CMSF. To me, that seems like the most logical point, as they will have the code cracked open so to speak in order to apply it all to CMSF. Should be the easiest time for them to make the fix and include it in testing for CMSF2. Let me be clear: I have no insider knowledge on this. This is just my best guess. While it would be nice to have a hotfix sooner, I don't think waiting for CMSF2 is that bad. BFC is a bit backlogged right now, but we know that they are planning to have CMSF2 out by the end of the year, based on their revised business model of 2 modules and 1 title/major upgrade per year. Steve mentioned this in the Lend=Lease thread here in the CMRT forum if I remember correctly. Seeing as how they are currently backlogged, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait a bit longer, say Q1 2018, for CMSF2 and a possible fix to the 4.0 behavior. Not that bad all things considered.
  10. In CMSF, if the temperature is set to the hottest setting, it causes your men to fatigue much faster. Not entirely sure what all the various temperature settings effect, but temperature is simulated as a factor. The blizzard setting is mostly just a setting for the rate of snowfall, not necessarily a full blown blizzard. If you set the snow conditions to max (ground completely snowy, very cold weather, blizzard rate of snow and fast winds) you'll see line of sight impacted a lot more than if you just set the snowfall to blizzard.
  11. I should have posted this a while ago. This thread slipped my mind. Apologies for that. Here is the link to my thread on a video showing the current TacAI behavior in v4 compared to v3: Its in the CMRT forums because I used CMRT to make the video. Its been up for two weeks now, so you've all likely seen it, but I figured I would post the link regardless for those who maybe do not frequent the CMRT forums. Everything else is explained in the thread/video.
  12. CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

    Noted, and noted! Thanks for the input!
  13. CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

    RE Trees; Please take this conversation to a different thread. This thread is specifically for the new TacAI behaviors, and has nothing to do with how trees are modeled in game. Back on topic, if there are any ideas anyone has for the part two video that may help to better showcase the current issue, I would appreciate hearing them. As of right now I have a few ideas that I've picked up from this thread. Hoping to include a few more in order for the second video to be substantial and worth the effort. Any and all suggestions are welcome.
  14. CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

    Not sure. When the behavior works as intended (such as an infantry team getting out of the way of a tank) its a welcome addition. The skill level, or difficulty setting does not effect the TacAI at all. Skill level determines things such as how much information you get on enemy spotted units, and on the lowest setting it allows for borg spotting, which means if one unit sees an enemy, all other friendly units immediately know where/what the spotted enemy is. There are other effects, such as the rate of buddy aid and C2 effects, but none of it effects how the TacAI behaves. No need to apologize! Its a good question that I'm glad you asked. Hopefully it will help clarify for others who may be wondering the same.
  15. CMRT TacAI Engine Comparison

    Thanks for the positive feedback! I'm trying to keep all of this as constructive as possible, both because I hold no ill-will over this, and I understand that going about this in a constructive manner is the best way to go forward. I haven't tested this extensively yet. I've only observed it happening a few times in the same battle and chalked it up to a new side effect of the displace behavior. I'll do more testing on my own to see if I can replicate it, and if I can I will include it in the next video.
×