aka_tom_w

just a note to make that link work the comma needs to be removed web page in link above, its from a slide show from a video gamers conference.. [ October 08, 2007, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

The idea of more flexibility with respect to time has not gone unnoticed. I think in this thread both Huntarr and Rune have said its being discussed. I would suggest you could now interpret that as Heard Understood AND Acknowleged HUA! So I will say it again, the issue has gone up the chain of command all the way to the TOP, so therefore I would suggest an appropriate solution and response is being formulated. (so maybe just give it some time, because what ever they decide will have to be tested to see if some beta tester or beta scenario designer (more importantly ) can break it, abuse it, or find some gamey exploit )

Programers have a saying, a Creed if you will.. I think it goes something like this... "The LAST bug will not be fixed until the LAST user is dead" so for now CM:SF is a work in progress the Marines Module willl improve CM:SF (probably with a new pay to play game release and a small patch to update CM:SF for free with new "marine module" fixes and updates, BUT NOT new Marine module centric units (you pay for those). so if the core game engine is patched or upated the patch will be free, IF new units are added to the game you will pay to update the units you have available in both games (CM:SF and the Marines module) I hope that helps [ October 07, 2007, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think you can figure that there is work and testing underway for a v1.04 demo release ETA? No idea (within the next 30 days, probably would not get me in trouble if I made a guess like that in a public forum like this) (I hope)

higher FPS was the goal in v1.04 for sure, sometimes you have to give something away to get something better... (Graphics look a little worse but FPS is up)

Is there an AAR on the web somewhere to read about the engagement? It sound utterly unbelieveable.. (NOT saying its not true, I am sure it is true, I would just like to read more details about the encounter/ambush).

I suck at math but, this sounds good to me: "Closing off a typical tic-tac-toe grid equals 36 independent square-corners" but only "16 shared corner points." 16+9-center equals 25 LOS checks versus 9 of the present center-point action spots. In this model, this equates to 5x the LOS checks (four corners, one center) for the price of less than 3x the "LOS computing power." Bottom-line, I have no idea if this is easily programmable but I assume that such a map-grid LOS table-check would resolve a huge number of LOS issues presently observed.... " I like the suggestion

I hope this is on the priority list for v1 .05

Bertram is this your explanation of current system of "Action spots"? THe 8x8 tiles used for spotting and is this action spot map at least a part of the cause of some of the other issues we are seeing? In the action spot is not the LOS *spotting) generalized and abstracted to a single point in the dead center of each 8x8 tile like the printed center dot in the middle of the hex in Panzer Leader/Panzerblitz map board? IF that is the case I am wondering if that is not causeing at least some the problems we are seeing?

That is COOL! And I have never seen it, but I have never tried to test for it or look for it either... But I will be looking for that behaviour now! Thanks

Which scenario and can you repeat the slow motion trick. Can you summon it to fly flat low and slow on demand? (set up the circumstances so it can be replicated?)

I think this thread should be re-named: "My Personal Attack Thread" So where did all the praise go?

how about this... The more time Steve and the beta testers spend dealing with this "stuff" the less time they have to work on v1.05. Oh you say.... Are they actually working on v1.05 already? :confused: Well what do you think? I think that might be a higher priority and a more effective use of their time. :eek:

Can anyone here tell me how to take a screen grab (print screen) in Windows XP using the Mac keyboard on my laptop? Thanks

" I can get it with an nVidia 8600M." That would be a good choice. I am running CMSF on a MacBook Pro with the nVidia card and it runs great! (2 gigs of RAM)

rest assured, its an issue. Some folks who design scenarios (and other folks who play them) feel that the hard limit of 2 hrs MAX time needs to be expanded to allow more flexibility in the design and playing of the scenario. (at this time there is a 2 hr. hard limit on the longest scenario time)

There are three Fog of War levels the impact spotting (and the answer to your question) Basic Veteran Elite Which level of FOW are you referring to?

Clearly, you MUST admit it must be the developer's choice to determine and establish which bugs are "important" in the data base. Remember there is only one brain in a Jar, its not like they have a huge vault somewhere full of brains in jars. (the bugs are fixed by just one person, the old fashioned way ONE AT A TIME.)

two year old thread might be interesting to re-read

this may be worth looking at one more time now

in the next few days.... (!) think about it

This may be one of the most enlightening nuggets of wisdom Steve has offered. Everyone reading should know it is absolutely, completely true. "and they do get entered into the bug database if they warrant inclusion" So what does that mean, it means the bug needs to be able to be replicated and it needs to be deemed an actual bug meaning the behaviour in the example is not what was meant or intended to happen in the game by the designer/developer. You if can let them know which scenario it happened in and under which SPECIFIC circumstances, then they can test it and replicated and note for fixing. [ October 03, 2007, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yes

bump

...this was a known bug sometime ago, but it should not show up in V1.04 I thought it was fixed [ October 03, 2007, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]