Thomm

In my humble opinion, the hull-down order DOES über-magic on the Zitadelle map!!! A very useful command indeed! Regards, Thomm

Is the tank in Hunt Mode while moving??? Regards, Thomm PS.: Did Charles like my idea?

Thank you sooo much Dan! I am hoping for the best (one rectangle moving from point A to point B should be a breeze for Charles, considered how he creates and animates polygons on the fly, see, for example, explosion debris)!!! With the proper amount of transparency/filtering, it might even be aesthetically pleasing (like a rising water level, for instance)! And if you think of the interface in terms of your favorite 3D drawing program, then the concept of an "auxiliary plane" will be both familiar and well-established! Thanks for your attention!!!! Thomm

Last bump ... promised!

I hope you do not mind my bumping this ...

Yes, exactly! It is a very nice command and it is fascinating to see it work! Regards, Thomm

When I first opened the Zitadelle scenario I just saw a big contourless beige polygon! Now here is an idea: For high view levels let a hotkey activate the following function: a) Create a solid rectangular polygon at the "base" of the map, that is, the lowest point of the map! "Sweep" the filled rectangle vertically from the point of lowest elevation to the highest point of the map (at a fixed reasonable relative rate, e.g. 2 seconds from top to bottom). What would you get by this: Well, the filled polygon would intersect with the terrain to create (temporary) terrain slices and, therefore, terrain contour lines at almost NO COST (everything would be handled by the Z-buffer of the 3D cards.) The whole process would be similar to what you see when scrolling through a human CT or what you would see if the terrain stood in a box that is slowly filled with water! It would be very easy to understand the general layout of the maps, for example, how many ridges have to be crossed. Furthermore, it would combine the precision of setting waypoints offered by the top-down views with the information given by view-level one, without requiring additional measures like grid lines! Regards, Thomm

This is also my humble opinion on the subject!

Ahh, you are right! I was so convinced that the Hull Down label would appear at the location of the CURSOR that I did not even notice the label at the center of the tank from which the LOS line emerged! So NOW I suggest to move the Hull Down label to the other labels beneath the cursor (distance, terrain type, etc.) Regards, Thomm

I am still "evaluating" the CMBB demo! Using the new Hull Down order a question crossed my mind: what is the hull-down status measured against for the seek hull down order? a) terrain level or average height of enemy tanks turret/gun I suppose that in flat terrain this distinction will become important! And the suggestion: if the tank is already in LOS or hull-down to the selected point then, by all means, CANCEL the order upon execution or refuse to accept it from the beginning! I was shocked as my tanks started advancing towards the horizon in enemy territory after I misjudged their initial hull-down status! Regards, Thomm

I like(d) the CMBO shockwaves very much! They visualized the "force" of the blast very well! Regards, Thomm

Is it just me or do the infantry pics at the top not clearly show the lightinhg effect of starshells (dark background, bright foreground)? Regards, Thomm

The Panzer Elite Damage Model is described at: http://www.wingssimulations.com/damage/damage.html Regards, Thomm

Panzer Elite is supposed to be more accurate geometry-wise because it models both individual armor plates and the path of the shell after penetration. I do not know about the actual penetration algorithm itself, but the penetration "environment" is more detailed than in CM. Regards, Thomm

Lord, I needed that laugh! Thanks a lot, Thomm

What a nice puzzle!!! Wild guessing, I insert: Either somebody is severly pissed off now or laughing his behind off! Either way, the customers will win! Regards, Thomm

Several AA towers in Vienna, too! At the south face of one of them they installed a 35 m climbing wall with a horizontal 4 m roof at the top! In the middle of the city! Pretty nice view from up there, also! Regards, Thomm

Well put, Bruce70! I enjoy watching wargames evolve, because they are very challenging testbeds for AI development! With regard to the CMBB AI, nobody has yet answered whether the AI supports covered arcs on its own, and, if not, whether they can be pre-set by the scenario designer. Also, does the AI use the Hull Down and Scoot and Shoot commandos; both of which imply better AI tactics per se. Regards, Thomm

Doesn't this sound like relative spotting being implemented for tanks?!

Rocco Siffredi, obviously!!

... with kind regards to The Hardcoder!

Please do not forget to tone down the skin color of the hands! It still stands out as way too bright! Regards, Thomm

Does anybody know whether the AI makes good use of the `covered arc' order itself? With every radically new feature I am concerned that it might not get supported properly by the AI ... Can covered arcs be set in the scenario editor? Regards, Thomm

Yes, this is beautiful! Very careful shading and edge enhancement! I particularly like the transition from the turret roof to the commanders hatch! Regards, Thomm

Cool: o MG barrels, o 3D details (smoke dischargers), o Overall impression of the Ferdinand tank, o transparent walls o more detailed 3D faces o the bush in Helmet Closeup 1 Not So Cool: The tank in http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmbb/bones/7_02/pages/damage.htm shows almost no shading. This is not good (see George-III)! The drop shadow interferes with the doodads in a somewhat peculiar way! The hands of the tank commander in http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmbb/bones/7_02/pages/tankerscap.htm are way too bright. There is a single sided polygon problem on the front section of the fender of the Ferdinand! The lower side hull (behind the wheels) should be the darkest section of the tank, in my opinion. The uniform textures in the helmet closeup pictures look very blurred and like a pencil sketch. I think the addition of 3D objects like binoculars or flashlights without a underlying 3D structure should be avoided. The transition from the neck to the back of the head is too low! What I'd like to see: Even more polygons on the soldiers' faces. They are worth it!