aka_tom_w

Has anyone connected with v1.04 via TCP?

The issues Adam1 is documenting are not in Hammertime, I am not sure which scenario he is playing. (I am curious?) [ October 03, 2007, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yes I too have seen it BOTH ways (firing and NOT firing) from the Exact same position. The larger roof top further to the left edge of the map in Hammertime gives a FAR better LOS to the RPG in the trench and they always fire, but the more central small square roof (the easiest one to get to off the start) has the problem with not firing sometimes. right?

I'm seeing exactly the same issue, in the same scenario, from probably from the exact same position as you were in. </font>

one issue with the first set of screen shot is the slope of that very flat hill is VERY gradual and it would appear the ame engine is interpretting the underline terrain mesh to be flatter then it appears when you play the game, so it looks like the round go righ through the flat crest of the gentle slope on that hill. That does not means its ok or that makes it right, but that might provide some form of technical explanation about how the rounds are not being blocked by the hill. I find this interesting because my issue is JUST the opposite, infantry units won't fire at opposing units in trenchs because they can't get a LOF form an elevated position like the roof of a second floor building down into the trench in Hammertime. :confused: So these pics are very curious for sure. I have no doubt the game is behaving exactly as Adam1 is documenting it in his pics, because the game engine does not realize the player is seeing solid ground/terrain in between the units shooing at each other, obvioulsly the game engine believes the LOF is clear.

no no no, really, its a texture thing you are seeing ( I think) if you are talking about the line of textures on the terrain that renders on the fly (sort of) as you scroll over it, about 2/3 deep into the map, then that is exactly what Steve is talking about. If I interpret your comments correctly regarding the seam you see its the render on the fly distant terrain that Steve said is part of the FPS speed increase. right? [ October 02, 2007, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

try this to start: web page how to Mac OS X boot camp solution more recent thread here. It works FINE in boot camp, I am not sure about Fusion. (?) Boot camp running Windowx XP with Service Pack 2 should give you no problems what so ever. At least Two beta testers AND Steve are running XP in boot camp on intel macs and playing the game with no problems at all. (really) good luck

yes no problem there is a thread I am looking for it now (something about "space chimp Mikey D) Hold on

the seam you are referring to was described by Steve as the secret as to why the game gives faster FPS rates now. (I will search for his post, it was today somewhere) I think this what you are seeing and referring to: yes? [ October 02, 2007, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

What....??!!!? Since when is reckless not a characteristic of strong and effective Leadership???

Fair enough, red dots also model severly wounded. I believe you are correct.

wrong thread [ October 02, 2007, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

That's a really interesting statistic but I am not sure the game as it is now is modeling one red dot (KIA) for every 9 yellow dots (WIA). But to be fair I have never tested it. My feeling before I read this thread was the US body armour was not effective enough and that there are not enough yellow dots showing up, and for the US with body armour when I play see too many red dots. (But I don't think I can really complain, because I might point the finger at my reckless command style and poor judgement first, because I seem to be able to get all kinds of my troops killed every time I dismount them out of the back of the Styker. I really thought I would see more yellow dots for the US troops in Body armour but the HMG's must be account for the large number of instant red dots I see when I dismount.)

I think some work on this issue or something like this issue is on the list for v1.05 Steve says:

That makes sense but I have never seen that kind of "official explanation" of reverse slope before. Sounds good though.

Hi Jason My understanding is that the body armour is modeled as realistically as possible, as you would expect. "Specifically, if it is armor modeling and whether that armor modeling is sensitive to range and shooting weapon type, or not." If you are interested in running tests you should try to prove this is not the case, the body armour should be both sensitive to range and weapon type. However in testing it may be impossible to account for head shots or isolate the variable of a sniper shot to the unprotected facial area resulting in KIA. You should play the game and adapt your tactics to the most realistic possible modeling of the US body armour, and see how that works. IMO

Its sounds like its not a bug: no leader? no C2 then, no orders maybe its not a bug What level of FOW were you playing under?

Steve suggests the BFC and the beta team will work on these aspects of the simulation next (in v1.05) :

I believe you should see that modeled accurately in the game. IMO On the receiving side playing as the Americans, I have seen MG's tear through body armour resulting in 9 red dots on the ground where my squad used to be, almost immediately upon dismount, if you don't dismount the Stryker with extreme caution.

tentatively means they are still working on it and I am sure they are aiming for a Monday release sometime within the next 7-8 hrs (guessing)

Where is that thread I just read with the suggestion of using a targeting line "like" concept to aquire, without actually send that whole squad into the vehicle?

exactly. </font>

It was that kind of weekend... I'm guessing that was time off, they wrapped up the v1.04 patch last week, and sometime this week, (maybe today) I would guess they will start on the road to beta testing the coming v1.05 patch, at which time Steve might go back to lurker mode and work on the patch. I might suggest Steve's recent posts in this forum are ONLY the tip of the iceberg. Like the Duck paddling swimming up stream you don't see much above the water but the feet are paddling like mad where you can't see them. V1.04 should be considered a susbstantial patch, I'm sure they hope it will please the majority of the dissenters. FWIW [ October 01, 2007, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is reposted here because it is buried in the Split Syrian Squad thread: (As you read this please remeber Steve and the beta team have spent about 4 weeks perfecting v1.04 that comes out today, so please, PLEASE do not post to this thread until AFTER you have down loaded v1.04 and played it for a few days, because the issues mentioned here are what's left over after all the things that v1.04 fixed.) Got it? [ October 01, 2007, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

v1.04 comes out monday, (that's not news now) If that patch does not improve the TCP situation, bump this thread and request extensive beta testing of v1.05 in TCP. Just a suggestion.