Jump to content

Howler

Members
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Howler

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is there an ETA for CMBN on a fix for this issue?
  2. No unit should EVER rush forward and towards known contacts when a simple movement back, away, and down slope from their position (hedges) is but 5 feet away. How is choosing to leave cover to run 20m forward fully exposed to a small rise in the open - EVER a good decision? Speaking for myself only - I still have no idea what factors are evaluated to produce an evasion way point. Until that changes - I can't show a failure. Ergo, there's no fault to correct. Perhaps your response to my question will help me better understand what to look for other than nearby HE, small rises in elevation, and small arms fire...
  3. Load times will improve if you leave 3D Textures to balanced (the default).
  4. I think the OP is observing that 150 rounds don't go very far and doesn't add much to the MG. While, I'm assuming their rate of fire falls in line with the general behavior of a lower rate of fire when engaged beyond effective range - it would be nice to somehow be able to explicitly control fire of the bearers. At the moment - it hurts to see them add their fire to the MG and results in their expending all rounds while the MG still has several hundred left. I believe the OP understands that it is what it is and doesn't expect a fix (it's not a bug - more a limitation of the engine).
  5. I fear too many have done exactly that already. It'd be a shame to loose @RockinHarry and I know you feel that way also... sometimes that darn keyboard is too close in the heat of the moment.
  6. Is anyone able to provide an update to the issue reported by @Falaise concerning a reproducible evade in the CMBN Roadblock scenario? He's able to show US troops rushing forward through a hedgerow gap 10 out of 10 times in patch 4.02. His post ... Is it considered a fault? Of so, what corrective action should be expected?
  7. You're from the UK where reading comprehension is optional.😀 I'll restate - if I want a dropbox/host/etc... to document an issue with BFC --- I'd have one. I'm not opening an account simply to send a savegame to a vendor. I don't even like my first born that much! In any event, I'll spam @IanL with saves until he cries uncle. I maintain that asking every customer to buddy-up with the chosen few is not an efficient means of capturing issues. But, it is what it is and I'll deal with it.
  8. I was fortunate to have @IanL arrange an email exchange for a savegame illustrating the issue. Yes, in this day and age - I don't have a dropbox or whatever else is used by folks these days for moving files. Most people would think a save isn't a priority given that there is no formal way to provide one to this vendor. If saves are so important - could some official means of providing them be established by BFC? We all have accounts on this board and care enough to report which would seem to me that some secure mechanism could be setup to allow it. It could always be shutdown if it becomes abused. There is no sticky anywhere on this board detailing how users should provide these saves. I'm tired of people telling me that saves are required but not telling me how this can be done. Now, that is interesting. I'm my case, the one save sent to @IanL involving the CW 18 Platoon scenario, is fixed. It was always broken (rush forward and back) and is now never forward, sometimes stay in place, or otherwise backwards. So, 4.02 is an improvement.
  9. FWIW, having patched CMBN and played my goto save game many times - the green team (my test case) no longer rushes forward and towards known contacts. Previously, all I needed to do was hit the red button, sometimes repeatedly upwards of four minutes, to see them rush forward. They now, invariably evade back. I'll try replicating other situations in different scenarios. Dunno if it's been fixed but it has improved.
  10. This should bring you up to speed. I believe it will include most of the other threads discussing the same problem... I'm a little surprised that no one has provided any save games showing this faulty behavior. I sent one to @IanL last month. I'd assumed others had done the same. There's even a step by step description on how to replicate this problem playing the 'Roadblock' scenario. What exactly does this hotfix correct if we're still trying to collect test cases?
  11. There is an AMD Video GFX specific issue whereby you need to turn Shaders ON in order to see hit decals. It shows more often as white circles for me. If you are running an AMD card, you can go to advanced options from the main menu and select Shaders ON. Or, do it in-game by using the hotkey (usually Alt-R). This only applies to AMD.
  12. All I'm asking is what are these issues as they relate to CMBS and CMSF2. If we knew what they were - we could help you try to duplicate them.
  13. What does it fix in the modern (BS/SF2) titles? TOE? Faulty evasion? QB or PBEM?
  14. Not wanting to shoot the messenger but I would have thought the more than a single test case would be used to verify fitness. Were any of the save games provided not used for verification? No one has stated that this issue should be completely eliminated. We just want it to be uncommon if not rare. War stories are made of such rare occurrences and something we all appreciate of the game. Being able to see teams cycling to and fro towards danger more often than not - does not make for a good game experience IMHO. I don't see the point of applying this patch until the overarching 'evade' issue is addressed. While I am appointed, I'm encouraged by the timely response.
  15. A tweak is expected. Meanwhile, for your reading pleasure...
×
×
  • Create New...