Jump to content

CarlWAW

Members
  • Content Count

    247
  • Joined

Everything posted by CarlWAW

  1. Good to know, what you have planned. The upgrade interests me the most by far. If the programming will start in January, when can the upgrade be expected to be available? Which family will receive the upgrade first? How much will it cost? Thanks in advance!
  2. Am I the only one who finds the above sentence, which sets a hostile ad hominem tone of the reply, completely unnecessary? And IMO it's also twisting of words for the cheap effect to make a hit ad hominem possible. At least to me it is obvious, that he did NOT want to talk about his problems. I was asking myself why is here such an agressive hostility torwards customers who demand something (which is the most common thing in the world), or make suggestions for improvements, or show a problem? Not enough to say "...why your definition of what a game..."? Is it possible that this kind of subtle attacking of others, is creating the quite strange climate on this forum? I am no longer wondering, why Steve's followers also use this ad hominem style all the time. Just a few examples from a handful of the following comments: I thinks it's quite unique, that IMO such a bad behaviour is even supported by a company on it's own forums.
  3. Strangely I cannot sense humor from you or some other old forum members when it's about criticism of CM. You sir have apparently no sense of humor but demand it from others...
  4. A civilized but critical customer is being threatened with banning and every word is weighted on the gold scale but a permanent provoking and trolling of old forum members is accepted here? Even joking about injuries of others to provoke them is accepted here? I must say that as customer I am shocked that a company tolerates that.
  5. Asl Vet., please no distractions. Don't you find it interesting that there seems to be no correlation between the flash and the spotting of these units?
  6. Ah, the next one jumping in to attack those customers, obviously disturbing a self-imagined elitist circle of inbred fans. I guess you mean with "we have not understood and accepted" that we were too stupid. Only stupid people would raise criticism about the feature set, if the holy company in it's eternal wisdom had decleared long time ago, that CMFB does not need gameplay improvements! Who dares not to agree! I am wondering if that is a reflection of your own mindset if you cannot understand the criticism of customers, only because the developer has decided otherwise?
  7. Wow. You seem to have a problem understanding business in a free market economy, don't you? It are the customers posting here which are paying Battlefront's bills, ok? Attacking customers for not hailing every business decision IMO is not a good business strategy and is not serving companies. Sometimes I have the impression some of you could be hired by a hostile company: to frustrate and expel as many customers as possible.
  8. ASL Veteran, I think in the case of muzzle flash things gladly are not too hard to nail down: the flash is immediately reflected in the graphics and reaches every unit's eyes with the speed of light. So if a flash is shown and if it creates a reaction, then the reaction function must be highly correlated to the flash event. I did some testing and here is the (for me not really surprising) result:
  9. In the starting post I think I clearly described the problem I see and I presented certain concrete examples. I even offered a video example with some extreme examples to everyone who wants to see can see the huge impact a muzzle flash SHOULD have on spotting. The fact that in game spotting chances go up, if a unit opens fire IMO is NO indication that the muzzle flash effect is modelled at all. How do you come to that conclusion? It just means that the spotting chance goes up, if a unit shoots. Nothing else. If the muzzle flash was modelled, how is it possible, that guns firing at 1000 m distance are much worse to spot than guns firing at 300 m, if the muzzle flash is clearly visible from both distances? IME spotting is working proportionally to distance. Therefore nothing works better than getting eyes as close as possible. If muzzle flashes would be modelled, that would dramatically change, as soon a gun is fired: it would become potentially visible from much further distances and potentially could even be spotted beyond normal LOS because of the light intensity if the flash. And before the next strawman is raised I want to make clear: no, I don't mean units should be spotted immediately. But if a muzzle flash was spotted, then at least a unit marker at the potential location should appear almost instantly for the unit which saw the flash.
  10. Did you read the first post at all before posting?
  11. Good point. Maybe modelling muzzle flashes could even be applied to infantry units?
  12. I think the spotting system works surprisingly well, except in one situation. Sadly this situation is probably the most important one: when guns open fire. Since I saw the movie about the "Wittmann's Demise"-scenario the shown battle scenes have been staying on my mind because they gave me for the first time ever an incredible insight how important the muzzle flash must have been to spot a gun. Two scenes from the video that portray exceptionally well the importance of muzzle flashes: @ 5:00 and 7:50: Wittmann's Demise movie The further the distance and worse the vision, the more important the muzzle flash seems to stand out to spot a threat nevertheless. Maybe the unit can't even be seen, but the flash! Currently the muzzle flash seems to be ignored. The best way to spot a gun is to have eyes as close as possible on it. This leads to the IMO quite gamey but hugely successful procedure, to scout ahead with infantry for tanks. Because the spotting distance to the gun does matter much more and the muzzle-flash effect does have no effect, while in reality can be seen from very far away. The worse the visibility, the worse the capability to spot the unit itself, the more important the muzzle flash becomes and stands out (woods, cover, night, haze, distance). Are there discussions or plans to improve spotting in this regard? Honestly I do not like the gamey necessessity to have infantry "sensors" as far as possible ahead of tanks - instead tanks being able to spot muzzle flashes even from far distances very well on their own very much anymore. IMO hidden and camouflaged AT-guns can be spotted too easily: getting enemy units close enough is the main factor. But if the muzzle flash would be modelled, hidden and camouflaged guns could receive a much higher concealment bonus, therefore becoming extremely hard to spot even when passing by a few meters, but without the negative effect to become too hard to spot once they open fire.
  13. I didn't want to start a new topic but it loosely seems to fit here: I think I have spotted Michael Wittmann in a colored video! At the 2m24s mark!
  14. That's a hugely impressive list! I have searched for H.Dv.s for years. Have you ever thought about scanning and uploading it to archive.org? I recently had to buy a new Canon Lide scanner and compared with my 15 year old scanner, the scanning process is very fast and can be setup that way, that it automatically combines the scanned pages into a single PDF. Very convenient to share i.e. historical books or documents with the world.
  15. AFAIK the Panther frontally was very well protected against Heat because of the very high angle of it's hull. For a steeper angle at impact the howitzer's distance needs to be so far away, that the hitting probability is getting very low. I don't think Bil made a mistake. Another reason why I believe Bil has a big advantage which so far nobody has mentioned: the dangerous penetration zone for the Panther against the 76mm gun frontally begun at 700 m, while the Pz V could destroy any Sherman at least up to 1000 m. The snow removes this tactical advantage of the Panthers. It seems this battle's parameters were quite well chosen against one poor sob. To showcase CMFB's tactical capabilities and the formidable power of the Jagdtiger at it's time, I think a wide open map with LOS of 3 km and 5 km in depth, with a company of JTs in defense and facing a MASSIVE Alliied onslaught with 1-2 tank battalions, infantry, heavily supported by artillery and the USAF would have been extremely .
  16. My bets are clearly on Bil. I have doubts that the Axis attacker even has any chance with his force composition. Baneman should be the one who is able to develop initiative and determine where to strike. IMO he is lacking artillery, tanks and especially mobility for a German styled attack. Additionally the map is quite deep (compared to LOS), which IMO demands even more mobility. Ironically I think that Bil seems to apply a much more German style (except that he is splitting his tanks from the very beginning and chaining them to infantry). Worse, the attacker can't use the Jagdtiger in it's needed role. Distance, LOS and the intended tactical environment IMO forbid to use it here. So the points are almost wasted. And the JTiger is not even needed against the US armor Baneman can expect at these very short distances. Does anyone know how many Panthers could have been purchased instead of one JT? Because of the the action and because I am keen on CMFB it will be fun to watch, but from a tactical point of view, honestly, I don't like it.
  17. RockinHarry, attaching single tanks as infantry support in an attack AFAIK is strongly against German doctrine. Using single Jagdtigers that way I think even was explicitly forbidden.
  18. Was the tank your purchase or is it included in the original TO&E?
  19. Skwabie, thanks for your efforts. JonS, IanL, I don't understand your logic and complaints. Sticking the head into the sand is no solution. Who knows how many players have been cheating and told nobody about it? If Battlefront wants to prevent cheating in H2H games, they can implement an anti-cheat mechanism.
  20. Kevinkin, there is a lot of PR going on in this area. It could become the next tech bubble. IBM's Watson, for example. If you dig deeper into it, you'll notice that it's by far not the progress of AI (but IBM tries to suggest so) - it's primarily calculation power... The same trick IBM has been using in the past with Deep Blue beating Kasparov. They just built the fastest computer, not the best chess AI. But the PR worked... For example: Watson can search around 10 millions personal illness records with statistical data classification within a few seconds. But IBM sells this as AI, helping doctors with better diagnosis. IMO this has nothing to do with AI, because no doctor will EVER look through millions of records to make a diagnosis. This is statistical analysis sold as AI. Don't forget, that with worldclass PR people like Gates, Jobs, Musk, Bezos or Zuckerberg and with absolutely zero knowledge of the public and politicians about computer science, it's quite easy for them to sell spectacular stories. If Musk can sell his battery cars as environmental friendly, then everything is possible. Imagine the billions the military industrial complex could grab with promises of AI soldiers or intelligent weapons. I finished a study a few months ago and until then there was NO SIGN of any kind of real AI, that would be capable to model human thinking (civilian research, I must add). All models that are built on psychology do not work if one digs deeper and the other that more or less work, are based on huge data bases and statistics. Nothing of that has anything in common with intelligence or self awareness. If you read or hear about another "huge success" in this area, first always look into the details (which mostly are very technical). What were the assumptions? What was the environment. What was the data, it was fed with? What was the software, working with the data, expecting? I can make the grasping task of a robot look like a breakthrough, if I only put the machine into the correct environment. Politicians will never question the assumptions, because they are not engineers. I can tell you, there there are many, many university institutes researching and claiming claim progress for fourty years - to keep the money flowing... Until the spring of this year, there was not even one solution for such a simple task like an autonomous household robot bringing someone a glass of water, based on AI. There are many ways, to make a machines seem intelligent, but it has nothing to do with self awareness or learning by understanding the meaning of the data or information.
  21. I am in the same camp as sonar. I think the impact of - for example - changing the "sharpshooting" with machine pistols into a much more realistic hit pattern, would have a bigger impact on tactics than all snow in all scenarios of CMBF combined. Or the dispersion pattern of mortars to name something else. Their ability to be able to knock out single units like ATGs or HMGs has nothing to do with reality. Or what about the HUGE impact of gun flashes and gun smoke to spot a threat? Or improving tank gunning by implementing range estimation techniques, dependent on the equipment or if the tank knows the distances because he has been stationary? Or make recon vehicles behave like recon vehicles. I am impressed by the look of the snow landscapes of CMFB, and I will definately buy it, but I agree, that the tactical substance of changes seems to be rather small, compared to the HUUUGE development effort, this release seems to be.
  22. I think movie lighting looks excellent. Have shader values from the community been used? Look at the cold color of the turret's steel! Wanna lay your hand on it? Or the dark shadows with the hard contrast to the snow. It must be cold out there... Highly saturated orange-red burning flames should make a great impression by contrasting the cold environment with such spots of extreme heat. But sadly the back of the vehicle displays that Movie Lighting still deactivates Anti-Aliasing?
  23. Although I am mostly interested in gameplay and realism improvements I think I will buy CMFB. German W-SS and Mountain units and their TOE, tank riders for all and some new vehicles on both sides, should offer new tactical experience. Hopefully a new game engine will lift this already very interesting title to a new level in the not too distant future?
  24. Otto Carius, who used Jagdpanthers at the very end, does not mention any problems with bad armor quality in his book Tigers In The Mud. In fact he mentions the opposite: that their German steel was soft because it was rolled and not cast steel.
×
×
  • Create New...