aka_tom_w

Full game movie replay is OUT. its official Dan says so here and I Quote: re: Full Movie Play back... "KwazyDog Administrator Member # 302 posted July 15, 2002 10:05 PM Sorry guys, this one didnt make the cut. Actually, Charles looked at this one for CMBO and decided that it would take a lot of work to get right, and thus we have never had high hopes of it making it into CMBB. There were many more important features ahead of it...I think everyone would prefer better combat modelling over playback. Something we will definately be looking at again for the rewrite though! Dan "

Its sort of hard to believe no cares about the horrors of Absolute Spotting any more? -tom w

Wasn't there a "rumour" about BFC taking pre-orders some time in mid- late August when they might be ready to do so? I'm surprised this is not more "official" or is it just an unsubstantiated rumour? -tom w

LOL thanks for the non-NDA clarification Rune ! -tom w

oh ok Sorry I thought you were the Art Director on those Backwards R's? (oops) Sorry I now feel TOTALLY free to blame the External Artist for those crazy backwards R's. Thanks for the post, keep up the GREAT work Thanks for all the info in those sneak peaks, they were great! Thanks to Kump for his GREAT 3 page web site review/report of his sneak peak in SC. -tom w

Think: "Moore's Law" every 18 months CPU's get TWICE as fast, they still cost about the same but they go twice as fast. NOW think Mar 2005 for the release date, by then average computers should be between 3 and 4 times more powerful than they are now. CM II with Open GL which will run under Mac OSX and take advantage of Dual Processors, (which by release in 2005,) which your "average computer user" might well have by then. CM II should be programmed to do some REALLY COOL stuff! I would hope! -tom w [ July 15, 2002, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Does that mean you know for sure Fionn? Or does it mean you are not constrained by NDA and you don't know? Just curious -tom w

"I don't know about you but, fixing things in mac os X is so much harder." Oh yeah! ROGER THAT! (I know a little Unix but only enough to get me into trouble) I prefer to fix things in 9.x as Well! I'm happy working on a lab of old Blue and White Mac G3's right now (they are in their last academic year of service) -tom w

I just think we should go easy on the critism here because the same guy that is working his ass off to finish all the textures on all the 300+ vehicles is DAN and he was apparently the Art Director (and Designer BTW) on the Backwards R's so I just think we should cut him some slack. -tom w

Apple of course claims OSX is GREAT on a FAST machine, like it works REALLY well on a Dual 1 Gig G4. Right so its another marketing scam to sell more Hardware and Software, of that I have no doubt. My everyday all around use mac is a 400 mHz G3 and I think running OSX would be a total waste of my time. If you are not running Mac OSX on something faster than a 500 mHz G4 you are wasting your time as 9.x will do evertything faster. OSX is nice and it is pretty, but on old Macs it is slower than the operating system is it replacing. At work we know all our Macs will upgrade to Mac OSX in Sept. 2003 for sure, but by then there will be newer and faster macs in all the computer labs and the slowest Mac we will be running will be a g4 500 mHz tower, and some old G3 laptops. I'll be happy enough if 2 - 2.5 years from now CM II comes out on Mac OSX(?) (OSXI). But for now booting into 9.x is no big deal really. -tom w

Hi Anyone who does KNOW is not talking. It might be the NDA thing Andreas was talking about -tom w

I wouldn't examine the "30" too closely. I just pulled it out of my ass. Seriously, though, I think it is probably on the high side as well. I just took the number of people on the forum who said it was a deal breaker, added another one for good measure, and multiplied that number by 10, figuring that I at least wouldn't undercount that way.</font>

It's only "charity" if you're not going to play the game at all. And of course you shouldn't buy CMBB if you won't play it; no one should. I doubt that the absence of OSX support will noticeably affect the sales of CMBB, since I suspect there are, at most, 30 people for whom this is a deal breaker. And while I'm sure that BFC would like to have this extra $1,500, this amount of money won't come close to making up for the six extra months and ten of thousands of extra dollars that making an OSX version for CM would cost. This is probably the same reason that there is not a Linux version of CM.</font>

Sorry but my guess is its too late. If they have used that graphic with the Backwards R's in Magazing ads and on the internet advertising already, it is a SURE bet that you will see it on the cover art of the CD and Game Manual. Headcount, your points are well taken and the backwards R's were complained about the minute most folks here saw them when the cover art grahic was released more than a month ago. (it was not all that pretty then either) There's been alot of bitching about the backwards R's but I think we are stuck with them IMHO. Oh well... if messing around editing and redesigning the backwards R's in the CMBB logo cover art delays the release of CMBB I don't think any one here would suggest that. So lets be happy we will see the release of the game Sept 20. and while the backwards R's are questionable, the fact is they at BFC make GREAT games, and to critisize the backwards R's is to be also be critical of Dan (Krazy Dog the texture Artist) and he is busy designing and cyber painting textures on over 300 vehicles, (most single handedly I understand) so the last time this came up Dan replied and said he had 24 - 48 hrs to whip off that Cover Art Ad and in that time the backwards R's stuck. Deadlines are like that sometimes. Bottom line: The CMBB GAME will be GREAT! so I think we can live with the backwards R's We all know they will be modded out quite quickly upon the release of the game. -tom w [ July 15, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Maybe its as simple as the printed game Manual won't be back from the printers before early September and it takes a week or two to pack all the manuals and CD's together to get them ready to ship. :confused: -tom w

First there was Chigaco.... then South Carolina, there was one in Southern California and Utah, then, London England. Now Wellington, Melbbourne and Sydney :eek: ! What gives? AND still nothing anywhere near Southern Ont :confused: bah! -tom w

Yes that is exactly what I see as well. I'm using netscape 4.7 on a Mac. But it works fine in EI -tom w

I think this is welcome news. This was gleaned (ok I copied and pasted it) from Kump's great CMBB preview page and his notes about game play issues that impact C&C and radios. If any of you recall the discusion in the Relative Spotting revisted thread you may recall some suggestions to limit the "borg like" nature of absolute spotting in CMBO. from that thread Steve said this: "Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ). Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem. Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes. I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional Steve " And "You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm? (I think I got a lecture here ) Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels." -Steve So Kumps reports we see these changes in CMBB THEY Sound GREAT! The interface is still undergoing work, such as the new large 'in command' indicator that apparently was just introduced, as well as the unit leader rank indicator. All in all, a very professional looking interface and one I wish I had in CMBO. Unit Radios Units may have radios now. Vehicles can now be in or out of command, which effects movement delays, capabilities, etc. That means radios are very important and gives 'in command' even though there is no LOS. This gives big benefits to radio using units. Forward Observers (FOs) also may have a radio or use wire. If using wire communications, don't expect to be embarking FOs on vehicles to rush them to that forward hill. Unit Command Delay The unit command delays have been reduced. This means units will start moving quicker. However, this is countered by the new additional delay rules. The normal unit quality has an impact, but as stated, reduced. You now have fitness of troops that impact the delay. If units are 'out of command', then additional delay is accrued. And most notable, the more waypoints you plot for a unit, the greater the delay. The reasoning is that the commands are more complicated. Overall, I love this change. Those sound like sublt ways to reduce the "ugly-ness" of absolute spotting as it impacts play in CMBO! Who else CAN'T wait for extreme FOW in CMBB!!? -tom w [ July 14, 2002, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

You gotta See this: Kump's CMBB SC Sneak Preview Report (articles AND pics!) Many thanks! -tom w

WOW Gary that was GREAT! that was one HELLUVA a preview, nice job on the web page. That was FAST and it was VERY informative, the pics and articles were GREAT. BFC should use that preview web page has a form of advertising as it is THAT good and professional looking. If you have not seen this site, and the preview pics get on over to Kump's site right away! Its a REAL treat Great work and many thanks for the effort. Those of us who could not make it out to any of the sneak peaks thank you immensely ! THANKS! -tom w (P.S. yes I found the site is only viewable on my Mac from E.I. so yes Netscape does not show the files..... oh well.) [ July 14, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

IIRC no one (in authority) has said yes and no one has confirmed it is out. It "might" be one of those "surprises" they want us to wait for? Call me "doubting thomas" but I'm not sure that this one, will in fact, be one of the "surprises". I would be thrilled to see it in CMBB but my guess is that it won't be available until the FULL rewrite of the game engine (i.e CMII) -tom w [ July 15, 2002, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Great Link thanks this is some of what it says: Microsoft responded to the increasing use of OpenGL for Windows games by creating DirectX, which is focused on games on the Windows platform. However, games that use DirectX are more difficult to port to non-Windows platforms, which boosts the attractiveness of Windows for gamers. Supporters of Linux, Mac OS or other operating systems are, therefore, wary of any move by Microsoft to interfere with OpenGL. OpenGL owes its current success to an unrestrictive licensing system, which allows developers to write to the API without a licence, and which carries no royalty fees. This benefits the makers of graphics hardware, who would otherwise be stuck either paying royalties to patent holders or supporting a number of different proprietary standards. But the system only works if companies that hold relevant intellectual property agree not to press their claims, in return for the benefits of a free, unified standard. [ July 14, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

that sounds pretty serious is there a web site? Does Apple have a response to this? -tom w

Wow thats a new one on me! Very interesting thanks for the AAR Wasn't that Oddball's CO, ("Ya, he got decapitated by an 88, he was just trying to get us all killed anyway") maybe that was not the exact quote, but I'm sure someone here knows the entire quote. -tom w [ July 14, 2002, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I'm on the wife's Orange Clamshell iBook now 300 mHz G3 4 megs of VRAM I have Played CMBO on it and looks pretty good. There are different kinds of Clamshell iBooks. The first generation were turquoise and orange (4 Megs VRAM) and Graphite, the Grpahites were the Special edition and I think they have the 8 megs of VRAM then there were lime and deep blue Clam Shell iBooks and a Graphite SE version and those had Fire wire ports. I think this second generation had 8 megs VRAM in the base model and (maybe?) 16 megs VRAM in the Graphite SE? -tom w [ July 13, 2002, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]