aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
Here are some VERY current (last Month) actual stats:
Mac intel is JUST %1.88 of the market:Mac OS X internet usage rises to 6.22%Apple's Mac OS X operating system has seized 6.22 percent of internet usage share for January 2007. The company's Mac OS share climbed to 6.22 percent, up from 5.67 percent in December of 2006 and 4.21 percent in January of last year. Apple's Intel-based Mac OS X internet share rose one-tenth of a percent to 1.88 percent from 1.77 percent in December of last year, while its PowerPC-based Mac share rose .19-percent to 4.35 percent from 4.15 percent in December. Apple's expanding internet share is credited to several factors, including the disputed iPod 'halo' effect -- where customers purchase iPods, exposing them to Mac systems as an alternative to Windows PCs -- as well as the company's Boot Camp software enabling Intel Mac users to reboot into a Microsoft Windows installation on a separate portion of the hard drive. Windows XP holds just over 85 percent of the operating system market, followed by Windows 2000 at 4.93 percent. Windows Vista, which just recently began shipping, gathered 0.18 percent share.
here's the pie chart for January 2007:
(looks like Mac users are screwed
)
[ February 17, 2007, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I would like to suggest that I would guess that #1 is not likely an issue, it "should" be no problem to make the windoze CM:SF play with no issues at all on an intel Mac in boot camp, as other folks here have mentioned that CMx1 games now play with no problems on intel macs. (this does not surprise me)1. How well does it run on an Intel Mac using the various options out there?
2. How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?
If the game runs perfectly fine under Boot Camp, for example, but few of our customers have a copy of Windows... well, then it doesn't really matter how well it runs. Vice versa, if technically it runs poorly as a Windows app it doesn't matter how many people have Windows options on their Intel Macs.
However, that said, the real issue lies with statement #2
" How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?"
Why aren't we asking: "How many of your Mac customers have an Intel Mac that "could" run windoze AND how many of our mac customers have G4 and G5 computers that CANNOT run windoze?" Hard stats from Jan 2007 NON intel Mac OS %4.34 and Intel Macs are %1.88 slightly less then half of all non Intel Macs on the internet. Source here:
Anyone with an Intel Mac can "theorectically" (or at least its technically possible) run XP in Boot Camp. However we then need to ask how many potential CM:SF customers are willing to purchase a WHOLE new operating system just to be able to play the windoze version of the game on their Intel Mac? (Also how many potential CM:SF Mac customers don't have Intel Macs and therefore don't have a choice? = %4.34 or bascially about 2/3 of all mac users on the internet.
All in all, I would like to suggest only a minority of potential Mac CM:SF players have:
i) an Intel Mac (%1.88)
AND
ii) the desire or willingness to purchase or acquire windoze to install with Boot Camp on their Intel Mac (% unknown ?)
That leaves all the rest, the majority of Mac users either don't have an Intel Mac (still runnning G4s or G5s) or they don't have any desire to run XP or Vista on their Intel Mac.
The other reality here is that Mac users make up less then %10 or all computer users and only BFC knows what percentage of Mac CMx1 units they shipped as opposed to Windoze units. My guess would be that that the number was higher then %10 (not much higher?) :confused: but I would be guessing. (Steve notes below in his latest post, that direct sales of Mac OS 9 CMBO (online vis BFC) acounted for about %20 of direct sales.
Hey! 1/5 of all sales to Mac users back in OS 9 days is NOT bad at alk
! )Its never been easy being a Mac user, but now that there are some users with Intel Mac's who are more then willing to run XP in Boot Camp, it has become even more difficult to find OS X only games and/or software for non Intel Macs. Less then 1 year ago the the Quad processor G5 Mac Desktop was a fast machine, as no intel processor was available. (I believe the Desktop Intel Mac only started shipping last August 2006).
(I have a Quad G5 Desktop and G4 Mac Powerbook (3 years old), neither of which can run XP or Vista.)
oh well
-tom w
[ February 16, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
VMware Fusion vs. Parallels review
web page Tale of Two Beta's at Lowendmac.com
In the spring, Apple released the first betas of its Boot Camp, allowing Intel Mac users to relatively easily set up their system to dual-boot to Windows XP SP2. And at about the same time, newcomer Parallels released preview versions of Parallels Desktop, allowing Intel Mac owners to run their choice of Windows, Linux, and other PC operating systems in virtual sessions without needing to reboot their Macs.(I wrote about the early Parallels beta on Low End Mac in Running Windows in Parallel on Your Intel Mac [April 2006] and then returned with a look at their release version in Parallels Revisited: Release Version far More Polished than Beta [Nov.].)
Parallels Desktop works well, running Windows and other PC operating systems at nearly full speed. Released by a small company at a time when Microsoft (with versions of Virtual PC for PowerPC Macs and for Windows) and VMware seemed to be merely making excuses why they didn't have a product for the new Intel Macs, it quickly won favour with reviewers and Mac users.
The New Game in Town
As of this winter, however, Parallels is no longer the only game in town. VMware, developer of the most polished virtualization software for Windows and Linux, released a public beta of a product for Intel Macs: VMware Fusion.
For now, Fusion is available for free download. Would-be downloaders have to register with VMware and receive an installation code. Once installed, like Parallels Desktop, Fusion can be used to create new virtual machines running any of a wide range of PC operating systems.
-
Thanks Steve!
Good Luck with the testing this weekend!
(I wish I could help out)
-tom w
-
This thread was retitled yet again to clear the air.
I am not sure Why but I left his name in the thread title anyway.
Forgive me for I have made a new thread for this because this it the first time I have seen a anything that looks like a real commitmant to release a Mac OS X native version of CM:SF!
Moon Says OS X version is planned in Paradox threadSystem specs should be on the main CMSF website. If not, then they are not yet announced formally. A Mac version is planned but with no firm schedule at the moment.entire quote worth repeating:
(buy early (online) and buy often in store retail verion
says Moon:)zwobot... you can of course simply download from our digital delivery portal, that avoids any shipping cost. If you want to have a hardcopy by mail, that's between $8 and $14 per shipment (not per item) I think (though I am going from memory, you can look up the current S&H on the purchase page).grunt_GI - yes, you can have the game installed and "active" on up to two computers, for example laptop and desktop. If you get a new computer, you would have to un-license from one of those two first and could then re-license on a third computer. The copy you un-licensed can remain installed but would not launch anymore.
System specs should be on the main CMSF website. If not, then they are not yet announced formally. A Mac version is planned but with no firm schedule at the moment.
Juardis, Paradox will be our partner to bring the game to retail shops worldwide. It's not really a big change because most of our previous games are (or have been) available in stores worldwide. To be honest, it's not even new that we announce this kind of cooperation before the game is released by us - we did the same with CMBB and CMAK (released by CDV in Europe and North America).
Of course we will still be releasing the game from here, and obviously we're hoping that many local fans will continue to buy from us direct. The money you spend at your local software store remains to a large % in that store, and most of the rest is scooped up by wholesalers and distributors before a tiny part arrives with us. Good direct sales are a must for small independent developers like us to survive.
Of course the best thing is if you buy a copy from us as soon as it's out and a second copy from retail, too, so you have the nice shiny box to look at
Martin
[ February 26, 2007, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
OK ....Originally posted by Dirtweasle:Not sure if my PC could handle a whole Stryker Brigade reinforced with M1A1s on a map to fit it all, but a smaller - more manageable - slice? Sure, give me a week or so after I have the game to get familiar and I'll be happy to play you.
Well if a brigade is 3 companies maybe that was a little over the top (maybe a Company of Strykers would have been a better suggestion, 4:1 odds sounds about right though
), but it was just a fun example of what I am hoping the the game will demonstrate with respect to Syrian Home Field Advantage and assymetrical FOW settings. (BUT I could be ALL wrong, and for the record I am not a beta tester and I really don't know anything about the game other then what I read here on these forums and I have yet to have the priveledge of being offered a Non Disclosure Agreement or anything like that. ) So its JUST idle speculation at this point.
-tom w
-
How about this for a rumor/speculation.....
One side (lets say the Syrian player) may now be able to play at a different and more "forgiving" FOW level then the other player. he he he
(JUST A GUESS MIND YOU!)
So how does this work?
Well the Syrian player commands a small number of uncon forces like technicals and guys running around with RPG's and machine guns, and plenty of IED's (both vehicle borne and not) thrown in for good measure, BUT this player plays with his personal FOW level set to beginner or "easy" and can see all and know all about the opposing force. (Call it "Home Field Advantage")
So where does that leave the US player, well this player has ALL the technical advantages and a numerically superior force (say 4:1 - 5:1), but is playing under the hardest form of FOW conditions. (OK lets give them a fighting chance, they don't have to use the intel crippling Iron Man FOW rules, which have been variously interpreted to mean the camera can only jump or toggle, at level 1 or level 2, from the fixed perspective of your OWN units as though you could only see through their eyes or their binocs, (and again, perhaps ONLY those in radio contact.) OK so its NOT the new Iron Man FOW setting, but the next hardest FOW down with relative spotting and all that other good stuff thrown in for good measure.
OK Hands up who wants to play the US side? (Ah heck we'll toss in a platoon of M1A1's (with the TUSK thing if you like) and a whole brigade of Styker's, but you still have to assault a medium to large size Syrian town at night time!
Any takers?
(Rune? .... I trust you are on the case to set this one up?
)-tom w
[ February 15, 2007, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I am about this announcement!
This means that players who have hard time finding time to play online or with a live opponent, can be challenged anywhere at anytime (without need for the internet) by the likes of Rune and associates! (only evil scenario designers need apply).
These new "planned" (now with up to five alternative options or strategies or attack or defensive plans!) scenario's will give the solo player a REAL challenge like they are playing against at REAL human opponent (clever, gamey, and tactically challenging) without waiting for the next PBEM to arrive or even waiting for their opponent to complete the move in TCP/IP play.
This is like FREEDOM 55!
Free of time and internet constraints to pit your wits against a HUMAN programed AI and a now clever and deceitful opponent! This is HUGE.
Not to mention the thrill of trying to program or plan one of these scenarios for other folks to enjoy.
I CAN'T WAIT!
-tom w
-
OK that sure does make sense.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The Elite mode is what we're planning on for Iron Man. But the details of each mode hasn't been fully worked out yet, so details will have to come later. The reason why is we want the sim to be done first, then we can see what makes sense to include/disallow for each mode.
Steve
Thanks
As mentioned an "easy" mode or FOW level at the "beginner" end of the spectrum could be called Training Mode so new comers/first timers, can pick up on the game quickly and learn and win an easy scenario with step by step instructions (training scenario) to get them started. I would like to suggest that EVERY attempt be made to design the demo and demo scenario's with ease of use and EASE of learning in mind so that the demo can be downloaded and played with no previous CMx1 experience necessary. I know BFC is a small operation, but most other demo's from most other games (any flavour, SimCity to Command and Conquer to and RTS or FPS) come with a step by step training tututorial scenario, that makes learning the game AND Quickly becoming addicted to it a virtual snap so the player will feel compelled to play it constantly.
(AND of course yearn to buy it and PINE for it while waiting for it to arrive! THAT'S the key part, the pineing for it while waiting to get it!)Just a thought.....
-tom w
[ February 15, 2007, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I was trying to find a reference to NO AI vs AI battles, but its not in this thread.
-
Is there a status update on Iron Man Mode? Is that the Elite Hardness FOW level? (or a subset or option in the Elite FOW setting?)Originally posted by Battlefront.com:All fun stuff to talk about, but we aren't going to go into that level of detail. It's not necessary since it adds no realism to the game. Even in IronMan Mode it is still super unrealistic because the player has the ability to know where everybody is, even if it means double checking because we're hiding some info. And of course he still has control over everything. Things get a lot more intersting for IronMan possibilities when we start talking about CoPlay.
Think of the IronMan Mode in CM:SF as being 1/10th of what you would like it to be, but 10 times more than what is possible in CMx1
Steve
wondering
-tom w
-
An old post from Aug 31 2005 about Strat AI
The StratAI will hopefully be better in CMx2 than in CMx1. But there is only so much we can do with it. Unfortunately, programming AI is akin to filling a leaky bucket with water using a teaspoon. It seems that no matter how fast you go, and how smart you are about it, the level never really gets much higher. And while you are expending so much energy and concentration on filling the bucket, you aren't paying attention to the chicken and steaks on the BBQ. Then you have to remind yourself, people did not come to the party for a drink of water [big Grin]Steve
-
I was searching for a reference to AI vs. AI battles and found this old thread.
-
I am pretty sure Steve is on record somewhere (?) on this forum, as stating there will be NO AI vs. AI battles or capability supported in CM:SF (But I hope I am wrong.)
-tom w
-
"unless he chooses to" (re: get the myriad of details) may simply mean playing the Elite level of hardness and turning on the ALL the hardest and most challenging reality and Fog of War options.
I am guessing.
-tom w
-
OH YesOriginally posted by Dschugaschwili:I'd really like to take a scenario without plans (say, a QB), have two players each make a plan for one side, and have the engine play the game AI vs AI. After some number-crunching and watching the game we'll see who won.
Not that I expect this to make it into the game, but it's a nice daydream.
Dschugaschwili
That's my wish as well, (I don't expect it in the game either) but I would think it would be a BLAST to take ANY scenario and program/plan out the battle plan for one side, and challenge another player to lay out their battle plan, THEN let the AI run Vs the AI without any further player interference.
Programer/planner vs Programer/planner played out as AI vs AI.
NOW that sounds like a great option or alternative to play the game.
(BUT I have no expectation that was a design goal for inclusion this current game, maybe next time around.)
-tom w
-
Secondly, the player is able to choose from three difficulty levels: basic, veteran, and elite. Behind these three labels are some fundamentally different playing concepts. Basic plays pretty much like a regular real-time strategy game. Veteran introduces some profound differences such as relative spotting and command-and-control delays. And elite gives the player a much more realistic military experience with regard to communications and fog of war.
-
from the morale thread
posted February 13, 2007 02:31 PMYes, you can tag individual units with various degrees of value towards an overall score. Such things are called Objectives of a type Unit. The main reason we added it was for the Syrian forces. An entire battle might be fought by the Syrians in order to destroy a single Abrams tank. That's it... that's all they want to be happy. Doesn't matter if there is one Syrian left standing at the end, if they get that tank they'll consider it a victory. Now, if the US forces on the other side are tasked with total elimination of all Syrian opposition as their main Objective, they'll be pretty happy with their result as well. Who would be declared the victor? Depends on how important force protection is for each side. I'd say that in the example I'm talking about the Syrians would likely win, but the details are up to the scenario designer.
Steve
-
What if there is no designer configured plan for instance in a Quick Battle (if there is such at thing as a Quick Battle.)
good point?
How does the Strat AI make a plan?
similar to CMx1 strat AI?
-tom w
-
That ROCKS!
-
That ROCKS!!For example, now you can have a unit with very high Morale *and* high Suppression that is reluctant to move for sensible fear of getting shot to pieces. This was not possible in CMx1. It has a profound effect on the "feel" of unit behavior.Steve
It sounds good, but since we can't play and take for a spin right now, to check it out we'll all just have to trust you
BUT thanks that suppresion morale model sounds like JUST what the doctor ordered to fix some of the issues with retreat behaviour in CMx1!
How about a little AAR of a beta build battle like the Moon vs. Fion AAR of CMBO fame?
-tom w
-
British forces in Iraq have destroyed one of their transport aircraft on Tuesday after it was damaged during a landing "incident" in southern Maysan province.
The Hercules C-130 was destroyed after the "incident" on Monday made the aircraft unsafe to fly again, the UK's Ministry of Defence said.
"We're certainly saying it hasn't been shot down," an MoD spokesman said.
He said there was "no suggestion of pilot error", but said he was not in a position to comment on whether the Royal Air Force plane had been attacked during the landing itself.
The incident, which occurred during a routine landing at a "tactical landing zone", described by the spokesman as something less permanent than an airstrip, resulted in "minor injuries" to two passengers.
-
Great News
OK then, thanks for the update Martin, if you are happy, (and more succe$$ful), you can be sure that will keep the rest of us happy as well.
tom w
-
tell me more?
what's this?
:confused:
)
says Moon:)
), but it was just a fun example of what I am hoping the the game will demonstrate with respect to Syrian Home Field Advantage and assymetrical FOW settings. (BUT I could be ALL wrong, and for the record I am not a beta tester and I really don't know anything about the game other then what I read here on these forums and I have yet to have the priveledge of being offered a Non Disclosure Agreement or anything like that.
The thread that was up until recently called the Seanachai is Challenged OS X thread
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
are these the three options?
i) Windoze/Intel Release (planned) (Mac's use Boot camp to play) ugh (for early adopters and Mac tech geeks this will be the only option upon the windoze only release of CM:SF, but then you may be stuck buying two releases if you want the Mac Intel release IF THERE IS one promised down the road.
)
ii) Mac/Intel later release (?)% extra work (Intel Macs don't need to boot into windows to play!) (NOTE Intel Mac are currently %1.88 of users on the internet in Jan 2007 but growing daily)
iii) PPC&INtel Mac Universal Binary CM:SF release, this one looks like it is prohibitively expensive to develop for what appears to be a shrinking market and very little return on investment.)
(the majority of Mac users reading this would REALLY like to see the release of a Universal Binary for PPC&Mac Intel because the pie chat above indicates 2/3's of Mac users are still using NON-Intel Mac computers.
Hey Steve, is possible to at least get a commitment for an Intel-Mac release for OS X so we don't have buy XP and boot into windoze in Boot Camp?
Please..
-tom w
[ February 17, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]