CMAK VISTA 1.04 Patch compatability with 1.03 version.

[Moon]

2 Forum ID's is subject to banning, yes?

Our forum rules allow only one account per person. Usually only one account gets banned immediately if we find out that someone is using two accounts, but in this case Steve had additional reasons.

[Sequoia]

I knew his time here would be limited when he insinuated modern soldiers were cowards in the CMSF forum.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

I'm not so happy about the banning you just did.

The guy was being a troll and that in and of itself warrants banning. However, that was not what he was banned for. He was banned for having two concurrent accounts. This is a cardinal sin here on this Forum and there are NO exceptions to this when it is deliberately concealed from us.

Now, the fact is the two issues are related because his being such an arse caused us to get suspicious and therefore we checked things out. What made us most suspicious? Someone with "30 years of gaming" experience, who clearly knows the games inside and out as well as this Forum, is a Junior member with 17 posts to his name *and* a name that is in and of itself a red flag? ("Killroy was here"). Who here believes this is Killroy's first foray onto this Forum? Not us, so we checked, and sure enough it wasn't. We were expecting he was a previously banned guy (and probably is).

And you should double check his posts. I did before judging him so you should check them out before judging me.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Actually...

Both accounts are banned immediately unless there are extenuating circumstances. Those generally include people who lost their passwords or forgot their user names, yet didn't email us or take other actions to resurrect their earlier accounts. This is easy to verify because the two accounts don't overlap and the earlier one isn't banned. If the accounts do show concurrent posting and/or one account is banned, and the person doesn't identify himself correctly and consistently in both accounts, there's no hesitation on my part because it's clear the person is doing this to undermine the rules and trust of the Forum.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Charles has just confirmed that CMBB is OK and CMAK needed at tweak. The tweak has been made but it's late here on the East Coast so no testing will take place until tomorrow. Then we have the fun of recompiling the installers and uploading them.

Sorry about that guys!

Steve

[Gumboots]

Just to let you guys know, you have made me a very happy bunny.

I have no problem paying this amount. I've wasted a lot more on other games that only lasted a couple of weeks on my shelf.

[Jaws]

Kill-roy, Kelley's Heroes.. I know a guy named Headshot..... He terrorized the forum and PBEM games a few years ago and was banned too. Wouldn’t be surprised if this is the same guy.

[Ted]

I’ve been playing CM since the first alpha demo and have followed it’s development long before that.

I belong to a club, The Band of Brothers, and am currently playing in three separate tournaments.

I believe I’ll be playing CM1 well in to the future.

I know Battlefront has said before that it will no longer support, or patch, CMBB/CMAK which given it’s age and their focus on the future is completely understandable

So, this patch comes as a great surprise and if all it costs is the small sum of $5 then I am more than happy to oblige.

It looks like a third party did the programming with the help of Battlefront and I’m happy to help compensate anyone for taking their time to create a patch of any kind for CM1.

In fact if other patches can be done, i.e. CMBB Fortification VP penalty, I would be more than happy to pay for them too.

One of my fears is that people complaining about a few dollars for an upgrade may discourage BF from any future patches.

I for one would just like to say thanks to Steve, Martin and all the guys at Battlefront for putting out one of or the best tactical war games on the market today.

And thanks for thinking of the people who bought this game so many years ago and helping us play in to the next decade.

(Along with CM2 of course )

Well done guys, keep up the good work.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I doubt this is part of the patch, since it is a Vista fix, but, by some random miracle, is the text problem for ATI fixed?

I have no problems with BB or AK on Vista 64 with an ATI 4800, except that I had to download the bmp text fix, which works, but is quite irritating, visually.

[sfhand]

Lurker765,

The guy was being a troll and that in and of itself warrants banning. However, that was not what he was banned for. He was banned for having two concurrent accounts. This is a cardinal sin here on this Forum and there are NO exceptions to this when it is deliberately concealed from us.

Now, the fact is the two issues are related because his being such an arse caused us to get suspicious and therefore we checked things out. What made us most suspicious? Someone with "30 years of gaming" experience, who clearly knows the games inside and out as well as this Forum, is a Junior member with 17 posts to his name *and* a name that is in and of itself a red flag? ("Killroy was here"). Who here believes this is Killroy's first foray onto this Forum? Not us, so we checked, and sure enough it wasn't. We were expecting he was a previously banned guy (and probably is).

And you should double check his posts. I did before judging him so you should check them out before judging me.

Steve

And all this time I was reading his name as Killjoy... <rimshot>

[Lurker765]

Lurker765,

The guy was being a troll and that in and of itself warrants banning. However, that was not what he was banned for. He was banned for having two concurrent accounts. This is a cardinal sin here on this Forum and there are NO exceptions to this when it is deliberately concealed from us.

Now, the fact is the two issues are related because his being such an arse caused us to get suspicious and therefore we checked things out. What made us most suspicious? Someone with "30 years of gaming" experience, who clearly knows the games inside and out as well as this Forum, is a Junior member with 17 posts to his name *and* a name that is in and of itself a red flag? ("Killroy was here"). Who here believes this is Killroy's first foray onto this Forum? Not us, so we checked, and sure enough it wasn't. We were expecting he was a previously banned guy (and probably is).

And you should double check his posts. I did before judging him so you should check them out before judging me.

Steve

Steve,

I did double check his posts and didn't really see much outside of his going ballistic in this particular thread (at least nothing that stands out from the norm for an internet forum IMHO). I mean, how much damage can Killroy have done if he has 19 total posts with six of them in this thread and the others mostly complaining about Vista since his account started in April of 2008?

Maybe I looked at the wrong KellysHeroes (there are three of them with slightly different spellings), but the one I looked at didn't seem combative and the other two haven't posted in years. The only Kellysheroes that has posted lately has only one post since March and that is in the TOW2 forum.

Not that my opinion matters -- it is your forum and you can do what you want. It just strikes me that you got mad about losing this debate and banned him in a fit. Not a good impression.

BTW, I have two accounts. My original one is 'gravburg' with my last post from 2007 (two that year and before that one from 2003). I forgot the password and just set up a new one when I started posting again a couple years ago. I have no idea how to remove that old account, but if you care you can delete it.

Anyway, thanks for upgrading CMx1. It is appreciated.

[Jose Carlos]

Obviously you have not read a single post from this thread, nor perhaps any other thread in this forum?

Yes, I have.

I know I haven´t posted many times in this Battlefront´s forum. Sorry about that. I have posted about 930 times in another Spanish website well known for you ("Punta de Lanza") because I love "Combat Mission" series. But believe me: you are in "My Favourites" at my web browser, and I read you very often

Sorry if I said something that you didn´t like. It was just an opinion: don´t like to pay for a patch at all. But it was just me. Don´t take it very serious, and keep fighting. You are doing good!

And please, let me give you just an advice: probably you´re very young. I´m sure, younger than me. But this is for Steve and you (Moon) and then I´ll go for good): just try to be polite with customers (or potential customers). I repeat: economic situation isn´t good (as businessman know that), and you´re working "in front" of a company (a very good software company, I add).

And because that, you´ve to try to avoid being rude with customers (or potential customers). What I mean to say is: if somebody is bad-mannered with you, you´ve to try not to step at the same level (or even on a low level). You are administrators. I know it´s very difficult. I know it´s more difficult if you´re young and with blood in your veins. But you´ve to try. It´s a question of self-preservation and surviving

It will give a better company image to Battlefront.

That´s it! Sorry for boring you.

Good bye now, and good luck!

[Sequoia]

Steve,

I It just strikes me that you got mad about losing this debate and banned him in a fit. Not a good impression.

.

Steve lost the debate? Not as I see it. Did Kilroy really convince any one the patches should be free? And at least half of what Kilroy was saying wasn't even true. IIRC Paradox has not released any patches to games 6-8 years old (i.e Crusader Kings or HoI II or Victoria) but only to for expansions to those games that came out much more recently.

[Lurker765]

Steve lost the debate? Not as I see it. Did Kilroy really convince any one the patches should be free? And at least half of what Kilroy was saying wasn't even true. IIRC Paradox has not released any patches to games 6-8 years old (i.e Crusader Kings or HoI II or Victoria) but only to for expansions to those games that came out much more recently.

I think this is my final post on this since I honestly don't particularly care and the derailing that this thread took was painful.

But, if the argument was about Killroy naming one software product that was still receiving patches 6-8 years after it's release and if Killroy could indeed name one that was a computer game then Steve would print out this thread and eat it....then, yes, I believe Steve lost the argument.

He pointed out that StarCraft just received a patch more than ten years past its release.

He also mentioned Steel Panthers which prompted Moon to agree that he had 'won'.

He also mentioned HPS issuing patches to remove the CD checks for their games, etc

Plus idsoftware releases all the source code for their games after five years which is even better than a patch.

And when Steve mentioned any software company releasing free patches for a 6-8 year old product I would imagine that Microsoft XP would also qualify since it was released back in 2001. Same for Internet explorer 7 which is still receiving free patches.

So, yes, I do believe that Steve was incorrect in his statement and that Killroy was right. When Steve tried changing the subject to say that this is unusual he was correct, but that was not the argument that Killroy was running into the ground.

[Melnibone]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1083771&postcount=25

Strange man

[GenSplatton]

I think this is my final post on this since I honestly don't particularly care and the derailing that this thread took was painful.

.

That's putting it mildly. So what is the status of the CMAK version issue? Didn't see anything on the front page yet.

[British Tommy]

Been reading this thread with interest and thought I would share my views

I must admit I was surprised to see BF charging for patching AK and BB. Both games are old but much loved by many players worldwide. It has been the players (and clubs) who helped extend the life span of both games by giving away for free scenario's, operations, mods and articles explaining about tactics, weapons etc. Part of my surprise I have to say is the complete turn around by BF. Countless times players mentioned the Vista problem and every time we were told, 'it's an old game and there will be no more patches'. As a self confessed fanboy of the CMx1 games, I just glad BF has seen the light and made it possible to play the games on Vista but charging for the patch? Hmmm....

[Jaws]

I give up. For all those ppl who play the CM series, who have power supply, a internet connection and ..... and enough money to buy a new system with Windows Vista...... and then start whining about 5$. Shame on you. It would be good for you guys to take a holyday to Afghanistan and see what the real problems in this world are.

[WWWolf]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=34829

• Starcraft: 1998; Latest Patch: 1.16.1 (2009) - 11 years.
  
• Diablo 2: 2000; Latest Patch: 1.12a (2008) - 8 years.
  
• Neverwinter Nights: 2002; Latest Patch: 1.69 (2008) - 6 years. "adds a dragon's trove worth of new content and bug fixes to the game". FOR FREE!!
  
• Doom: 1993; Source Code released: 1997 - 4 years.
  
• Morrowind: 2002; Latest Patch: 1.2.0722 (2008) - 6 years.
  
• Daggerfall: 1996; Entire game released for free: 2009 - 13 years.
  
• Elder Scrolls Arena: 1994; Entire game released for free: 2004 - 10 years.

I count four companies and that's just off the top of my head. Blizzard obviously win the patch game however id Software win a prize for releasing source code and making everyone code their own patches. Also patch-wise are BioWare who are doing pretty good. Bethesda surely have to take home a special prize though for releasing two entire games for free. Who else does that? ZOMG NO-ONE THAT'S WHO. YOU SHOW ME ONE OTHER GAME COMPANY THAT DOES THAT EVEN ID SOFTWARE MAKE YOU BUY THE GAME TO GET THE CONTENT IN THE WAD FILE. :rage:

Yeah, that's not really an argument. He should charge more and see how that works out for him.

You mean an extra $5 on top of lunch I've already bought because it's not compatible with my fork? I mean okay, sure, he can argue he doesn't owe anyone **** but really. It goes beyond that. Good customer service. Loyalty. "Hey guys, here's a patch for a ten year old game that makes it work on Vista for free. How awesome are we? Tell all your friends!" works a lot better than "Suck it. I don't have to do this, I can charge for it so I will. ALSO MAKING GAEMS SUKS ASS LOL AND I SHULD B A STORKBRAKER".

The guy's not really enjoying the whole game programming thing, is he?

Except in that case, the actual Vista patch itself would need to be released free with the extra content being an extra $5 option.

If I have to start paying for patches with no content... :rage:

[Destraex1]

There is a bit of debate on the wargamer.com about this atm.

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=362271&mpage=2

I have a small question that will probably still some of the debate.

Was it more than .dll issues that needed to be corrected to work with Vista?

Many think that this sort of .dll fixing is just a a quick fix and not worthy of money.

Personally I just wanted to know if their were more issues such as how DEP and others are stricter in Vista. Sidebar interferance or UAC problems?

What interest do I have in Battlefront?

I am actually an owner of the original CMSF and am looking forward to British Forces... hoping for a bundle actually with marines thrown in.

Would you believe I passed on CMAK due to clown heads on infantry and turn based system, fixed in CMSF!

CMSF has most I want including real time. I do miss coop play and better frame rates though. But they are not big deals.

I also own TOW but will prolly pass of TOW2 in favour of British forces after TOW1 frame rate issues on my high end system at the time.

[Jaws]

Seems Killroy is back with 2x new account.

[Redwolf]

Since the contest of "who's patching how long" continue it is also worth noting that many game did not need a Vista patch and still run with whatever patch was released at the end of their lifetime.

CMx1 used some 3D library that locked it into DX5 on the PC and Rave on the Mac. That was a mistake at the time that others didn't do. John Carmack of iD software was bashing game developers to use OpenGL beginning 1996 and arguably if BFC had listened we would have been in a lot less trouble, including the constant ATI problems (there isn't a second fog API that was broken in ATI's OpenGL).

For example, I estimate that all Quake games run on Vista without further patches and without relying on the source code. I'll never have Vista so I can't test, feel free to point out I'm full of it.

[Moon]

As others said, this thread here has been completely derailed from the original topic, I am therefore locking it.

[Moon]

WWWolf - When we ban someone then it is for a good reason and with the intended effect that that person does not post on our forums anymore. What you are doing is effectively getting around the ban, and we cannot allow that. I have edited our forum rules to close this particular loophole. You will only get a warning for now, not an Infraction.

[Battlefront.com]

Oops... I didn't notice the thread was locked. Post retracted.

Steve