aka_tom_w

I was going to ask if anyone had played CM head to head over an Airport yet? what is the bandwidth your airport is connected to? I have a cable modem and I'm converned about commpatibilty? I understand the airport assigns DHCP IP's as it only needs one IP but mulitple computers can use it and network from it? Its good to hear TCP/IP on CM haed to head via an airport is no problem. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-01-2001).]

Good point Sorry it is my wife's, I play with my friends sometimes head to head on it. It was purchased some time last year shortly after they first came out. It is not in front of me now and you may be correct. It may only have 4 megs of VRAM but is looks as good as the G3 400mHz Power book that I'm on right now and I know the G3 has the full 8 megs of VRAM. That tangerine iBook is a quick little computer and it works great, plays CM with all the mods I STUFF it with no problem. I'll have to check, I could very well be VERY mistaken about the 8 megs of VRAM I "think" it has. But if it has 4 megs it works fine anyway. -tom w

Hi Karch Don't forget to configure Combat Mission to use as much ram as you have. Look under the apple menu for "About this Computer" (you must be in the finder to do this) and look at your RAM allocation. how much do you have available and how much is your system using. Then add 5 megs to how much the system using (my rough guess at what "should" be "free" spare ram) and then subtract 5megs plus the Ram the system is using (I'm running 9.1 and it is using 55 megs now) from your available on board RAM to determine what letft over for CM then get info on combat mission and crank up its memory allocation as high as you can by setting its memory usage higher than the "factory default" it comes with, which is generous to start with, (around 35 megs I think). The more ram you can allocate to Combat Mission that happier you will be. any comments from the other mac techs? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-01-2001).]

Hi Karch "They use AGP graphics and can use system memory when it runs out of VRAM. A very slick trick." I thought ALL iMacs and all iBooks could do this trick. I play CM with all the new high res mods on a Tangerine iBook with only 8 megs of VRAM and it looks great. I think that all macs produced in the last year or two since the orignal iMac came out can do this little trick because they are VERY clever those Apple computer designers. I don't think we as Mac users need to worry about that 16 megs VRAM minimum. -tom w

GREAT NEWS! Thanks Can't wait I''m guessing (?) there are game testors analyzing every incident and every circumstance and every degree of unwanted TAC AI hull rotation as we speak (type/write whatever)! -tom w

bump

This may sound rather silly to some here, but I have been one of the people advocating better graphics and more eye-candy. BUT I only have a 400mHz G3 Powerbook with ONLY 8 megs of VRAM in it. And I don't think it is up gradable. Why do I want more eye candy? (other mac users will correct me if I'm wrong here but) 8 megs of VRAM on a Mac is not the same as 8 megs of VRAM on a PC. Its complicated and its technical but I do not fear their new 16 meg VRAM minimum at all. In fact I welcome it. Mac's were designed from the ground up for to be ideally suited for a graphic user interface. I'm not sure exactly how to explain this (I should know because I consider my self a Mac tech geek) but that 8 megs VRAM limitation you are so concerned about is really not the same on a mac because of better graphics handling capabilities inherent in the mac and (I guess this might be questionable) I think other non VRAM ram can somehow? take some of the load off the VRAM and still make it look good and work fast. More VRAM is not the be all and end all of the how great graphics look good on a Mac. Slapdragon? anyone else want to help me out here? Mac don't need 32 megs of dedicated VRAM to look and act the same way as a PC to show graphics. I'm sure Steve and Charles will not leave 8 meg VRAM mac users out in the cold. I think it is probably fine for them to say their new VRAM minimum is 16 Megs VRAM for a video card on a PC, but the same Mac with a build in 8 megs of VRAM should have no problem. I do wish I could explain this in a more techincally sophisticated way. Anyone else? If you are a tech geek mac user and you have only 8 meg of VRAM on your PowerBook are you worried about the 16 meg VRAM min for CM2? I'm not. (for instance.... Take the fastest BEST new laptop Apple Makes the recently annouced Titanium G4 laptop http://www.apple.com/powerbook/graphics.html this right now is the FASTEST best laptop money can buy for about $3,500.00 US Guess what?? It ONLY has 8 Megs of VRAM, but here's what Apple says about Graphics acceleration: "Take the new multiplayer melee combat game Rune, for example. A visceral action-adventure game that combines stunning graphics, Norse mythology and a generous dollop of pure fantasy, Rune requires tremendous graphics processing horsepower to be seen in all its glory. And, turbocharged by the ATI RAGE Mobility 128 graphics controller — with an advanced architecture that delivers spectacular 3D graphics in millions of colors — the PowerBook G4 comes through for you, and then some. In fact, when you become the strapping young Viking warrior Ragnar and embark on your mission to confront the dark forces with your broadsword in hand, you’ll be very glad you took your PowerBook G4 with you. Game fans, start your engines When you’re in the mood to enjoy an adrenal rush between projects — lurching through a virtual world of stone corridors, shall we say, and keeping a sharp lookout for what’s lurking around the next corner — the PowerBook G4 really comes into its own. And with its 15.2-inch active-matrix screen and 8MB of video memory for displaying millions of colors, the PowerBook G4 serves up a visual feast of special effects." -tom w

From words like SAC Strategic Air command and Strategic bomber I figure Strategy is the BIG picture in makeing war and tactics is for little battles like fire fights. I think they are very simliar just that strategic refers to a bigger scale, like the size of a country and tactical refers to a smaller scale like the size of a Large battle field or a city or county. hence the term strategic nuclear weapon and (if you can believe this) "tactical" nuclear weapon for those smaller battles you had in mind. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-31-2001).]

Did Somebody say EYE CANDY???? Check this out for all you PC geeks with fast computers and high end video cards take a look and see what REAL Myst looks like here's their web site for the Demo http://www.avault.com/pcrl/demo_temp.asp?game=realmyst WOW -tom w

Its likely in one of the those big technical posts from our new friend Rexford. It he took BTS to task on their tungsten penetration stats and data and Charles looked into it and agreed he had not correctly coded the slope modifier math/calcualtion for the tungsten rounds and so they seem to penetrate sloped armour better than he intended based on what he and Rexford agree are the correct slope modifiers. Its all just a math coding algorythm thing but it should be fixed in v1.12 which they have indicated they are working on. -tom w

I think that the Panther NOW has a better chance to hit percentage modeled than before. you may suspect the Panther is underrated if you get too close to the enemy (under 500 m) BUT, if you have the opportunity to get your panther hull down and can stand back more than 500 m they will KILL KILL KILL everything that moves in front of them. I think of them as Long range dualin' tanks, once positioned hull down they are NOT at all under rated. Try this Go get Rune's Chance Encouter 2 Scenario (major SPOLILER info HERE!) (don't continue to read if you want to play this one double blind!) OK this time the Germans get two or Three Panthers, but the YANKs get about 27 Shermans. Try this, get those Panthers in Premium Hull Down postions, on that map due do the trees and woods there is NO opporutnity to out flank the Hul down Panthers, I've played it and the two Panthers I had hull down bagged about 12-14 Sherms each, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. The panther is not at all underrated, they may just seem that way if you get forced into close range combat with fast allied tanks that out flank them. The main weapon on the Panther is NOW deadly accurate, even for a reg crew they are getting WAY more first shot hits than they ever did before. I have NO problem all with the stats used to model the Panther as it stands now, AND yes BTS needs to incorporate the correct slope modifier caluculations for the tungsten rounds and that will afford the panther a little more surviability, but just against tungsten rounds. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-31-2001).]

That is also refered to as LOS and LOF thru live and dead (non burning ) AFV's and it has been disccused to death. here is the thread and I highly doubt we will see it "fixed" in CM2. check out this thread and read the posts about Method 1 vs. Method 2 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html -tom w

no problem my pleasure thanks for the pic so this is the "plastic tank" ?? thanks -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-30-2001).]

I'm sorry I'm such a visual guy but... is there a picture any where that we can look at? I'm having a very hard time imgineing a olive drab green/grey plastic tank? any web pics you can show us or direct us to? or is the whole thing TOP secret how does a plastic tank fire its main weapon? is it made out of plastic too? about about the ammo? Plastic? what in the tank is not plastic? the engine? I'm a little confused about this? (mostly because I just can't picture it) thanks -tom w

Hello Thom Yes I totally agree that theoretically it should be possible for CM to handle more polygons because in CM the calculation and the rendering are decoupled, i.e. when showing the movie, the CPU does not have to bother with AI and turn resolution. So as Gremlin points out, why not make the D/L eye candy optional and scalable? If some players would like to wait for a longer crunch time then they could toggle on their optional ray tracing for the render for the one minute turn. Since the ray tracing and the Polygons don't have to be rendered on the fly, it would just take longer in the turn crunch. Thank you also for being open minded enough to look at that demo moive preview and see the D/L effects in Operation Flashpoint I was refering to. The Dust those AFV's kick up is very impressive, I thought the explosions were very WELL done. AND and this is the kicker.... Some how those designers have concluded that the "average consumer computer" can and WILL render ALL that eye candy in REAL real time! So unfortunatly I have to agree with Germanboy when he speculates that there is NO way that that game can do the kind of armour penetration calucalations that CM does AND render all the that 3D eyecandy on the fly. so it is now just a big fancy version of Warcraft or Age of Empires with hit points for tanks. I must admit that I am disappointed by that conclusion. in case you want to see that dust those AFV's kick up try this link, but it is a 25 meg download. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/video/fpinvex.mpeg check it out -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-30-2001).]

Hi My name is aka_tom_w and I'm addicted to CM Ooops wrong thread OK I would consider myself a video gamer and those two catagories of "grogness" seem pretty blurry to me. I think they all look the same to me and they are all GROGS. Anyway, I played board games like WS&IM and Tobruck and Third Reich and Tactics II and several others as a teen (more kids in high school should play these OLD board games, as they give you a sense of history and a VERY good feel for the geography of Europe, I swear I knew more about the European capitals and geography than MOST other high school students strictly because of studying the Third Reich Map and the World In Flames map) BUT I would still say I'm a video gamer, because I desire MORE eye candy and better graphics. What was the question here? oh yeah.... "but we can't forget that "Graphics Fluff", as some people so snidely dismiss it, is an integral aspect of CM and needs to be treated with as much seriousness as historical accuracy and realism." most importantly make it feel realistic AND be historically AND look good too! Sorry just rambling out loud... GREAT post to open the thread though! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-29-2001).]

I would like to suggest you look at Operation FlashPoint http://www.bistudio.com/ http://www.gamecenter.com/Pc/Previews/Of/ http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ if you have not seen this movie yet check it out: (if it is from the REAL game, then this REAL game ROCKS in EVERY way with regards to eye candy and dynamic lighting effects that some people here want!) http://www.flashpoint1985.com/video/fpinvex.mpeg It is in developement now, and it is appears to be MUCH more than just another FPS. Their demo video of the game play, if it is to be believed, shows FULL Dynamic Lighting effects and renders more polygons than CM in a true 3D environment. All we are saying is check out the competition. Thanks possibly to CM's huge success and obvious profitability, I imagine we will see other 3D wargames coming out in the next 6-18 months hoping to cash in. Operation Flashpoint will maybe one of them and it think it might actually be compteting with the release of CM2. PLEASE, please look at what other developers are bragging about now before you tell us dynamic lightling on a 3D battlefield is not technically possible. It is hard to believe that it is being done now AND being done WELL on the Sony PS2 but our own (not exactly state of the art) consumer level home computers cannot render D/L and a higher polygon count than we see in CMBO now? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-29-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-29-2001).]

bump

same topic as another thread both are now at the top -tom w

Except to INCREASE sales.... and keep up with the competition I would suggest it would not be unreasonable to expect to see 3D rubble and special textures and 3D models for buildings in at least 2 or 3 different states of partial destruction in CM2. We already have the * and ** astrick system to "sort of " show us that the building is damaged, so the game engine knows that, why not (with the NEW 32 Meg VRAM min) code in some additional 3D rubble grpahics and a few different states of building destruction. I do hope we see this kind of attention to graphics detail in CM2 and yes I amd one of the folks here who believe nicer graphics and more eye candy in CM2 is a good thing -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-28-2001).]

To be fair to CMBO this DOES take place already to a very limited extent. Bridges can be destroyed and a whole new broken down bridge graphic replaces the old one. Perhaps this is a little too "large" or global for your liking but it the same idea you suggested only for bridges. And buildings, they too blown up and fall down, only they are simply reduced to a 2D flat picture of a hole in the ground or a "rubble" tile. As an inbetween step with out altering the graphic code Charles coded the * and " ** " rating system to determine the damage level in buildings as there was no way in CMBO to show buildings in a partial state of destruction, I think it is fair to look forward to some form of graphics for partial building destruction and 3D rubble graphics in CM2. BUT that is ONLY my uninformed opinion. Now we have something like that when tanks are KO'd the turret is set off kilter and the main weapon droops sadly. So these things are in the game just not to the very refined extent you are suggesting. the concept of grpahics textures being swapped for pictures of the damaged graphics does happend in CMBO but we are all hoping it will how happen (with the new 32 bit VRAM memory min for CM2) in the more nicely refined manner you are suggesting. Rememeber the min VRAM standard they programed CMBO to meet was very limited. Was it 8 or 16 Megs of VRAM? can't remember. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-28-2001).]

Baltimore 17 New York 9 Ravens to beat the 3 point Vegas spread Put yer money down now gentleman. -tom w

GREAT Point! There are many here (myself included) that enjoy games in MANY forms. I still play old style cardboard board games with old friends one evening every two weeks. I enjoy Age of Empires and Warcraft, and for awhile I was alomst as addicted to SimCity as I am to Combat Mission. There are ALOT of gamers on the board that BUY other games besides CM. I imagine I will be flamed for saying this but the wargame ONLY grog types here who like Combat Mission "should" be EXTREMELY grateful of the large non-grog Mass appeal of Combat Mission. It is now sold out for the third time, AND it is NOT sold out becuase it ONLY appeals to grogs, if it did it would not even be half as sucessful as it is. The fact that it is sold out three times in a row says something about its mass APPEAL, to the non-grog video game fans. There alot of us and because we have helped make CM so profitable, (and it is we who are suggesting and requesting even further graphics refinements and MORE eye candy in CM2) (Ok FLAME me NOW!), all the, true historical wargame, ONLY grog, types here on the board should thank the majority of us here who are not grogs for contributing (by buying CBMO) to the huge profitability and sucess of CM in numbers larger than the entire grog market put together. Here it is simply: If CMBO ONLY appealed to the VERY narrow hardcore wargame as an historical simulation grog market, would CMBO be half as successful as it is and would Steve and Charles be expressing the SAME level of confidence about moving ahead with their dreams of an even bigger and better Eastern Front version of CMBO in CM2??? Seriously? Again Gremlin makes a GREAT point... "7) CM’s graphics should only be compared to previous wargames. Why? A great number of CM players have broader gaming backgrounds than just wargames, and understandably compare CM to games in other genres." We are talking about market competition and today video games are a MULTI BILLION dollar market and the non-grog part of the market accounts for a MUCH MUCH larger part of that total market than the narrow wargame only grog market. So... Making a pretty game with lots of eye candy and graphics appeal (never at the expense of the historical accuracy of course) CAN ONLY be MORE profitable because that's what the MAJORITY of the market wants to see. And yes to someone earlier in this thread who accused me of trying to sell the sizzle and not the steak, they are mistaken. I am suggesting selling the sizzle to the BEST steak you can buy. Damn right lets ask for better, more state of the art "eye candy" high tech graphics, why not? We KNOW BTS will deliver the steak (historical accuracy, and all the goodies you can't see) why not ask them to present the very BEST sizzle on the market as well? So I say YES to both MORE SIZZLE and MORE STEAK in CM2 And of course I wish Steve and Charles and MadMatt and KwazyDog all the very best in their attempts to deliver CM2 on there own timeline and at their own pace. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-28-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-28-2001).]

Thanks guys Well I did the install now and I'm back up and running and it does feel a little zippier. I will play CMBO over the weekend and see if I notice anything different -tom w

What a great community of wargamers! I must comment on Circus Maximus A true classic to be sure! We still play it for a FUN evenings entertainment, for those who don't know, think of that Chariot race in Ben Hur then think a board game where you play what amounts to a demolition derby with chariots drawn by four horses around an oval race track and try to ram your chariot in the other guy's chariot to break his wheels amd injury his horse legs and make him wipe out in the corners. Its actually REALLY fun! -tom w