aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
-
If you want a good laugh read the whole article in the link
that guy is pretty funny and sarcastic about war games all at the same time
!
-tom w11. Gamers complain about bad "pathfinding" (that is, your units wandering around the map and falling into the river against your orders). Well, I want worse pathfinding. I want entire platoons who wander into the mountains because somebody bled on the map. I want tanks to get stuck turret-deep in mud flats and have to be rescued by helicopters while snipers pick off soldiers trying to keep their boots from being sucked off their feet in muck.
12. I want mutinous units that chainsmoke hash and frag their Sargents and sell Heroin on the side and rogue commanders who go mad and shave their heads and set up fortresses in the jungle decorated with human skulls. I want to have to send a CIA assassin in to take him out. And then they chop up a donkey, for some reason.
[ December 01, 2005, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
OK then!The revolutionary fire control system for the XM25 employs an advanced laser rangefinder that transmits information to the chambered 25mm round. As the round flies downrange to the target, it precisely measures the distance traveled and detonates at exactly the right moment to deliver maximum effectiveness. The XM25 increases the warfighter's probability of hit-to-kill performance by up to 500 percent over existing weapons. It also extends the effective range of the soldier's individual weapon to more than 500 meters.
So in CMx2 will our digital soldiers have this unique weapon to attack with?
interesting
-tom w
-
WOW! [ Huge Smile ]Will troops be shown dismounting through opening hatches/doors and what not?Yes. !!
Will the time to dismount be related to the vehicle type and not generic for all vehicles?
Yes. !!
that Sounds GREAT!
-tom w
-
if you are reading this thread you might find this link interesting
this looks like a new one:
$7.9M for Shoulder-Fired "Bunker Defeat Munitions"Posted 05-Apr-2005 08:02 | Permanent Link
Related stories: Americas - USA, Contracts - Awards, Missiles - Anti-Armor
Small business qualifier Talley Defense Systems Inc. in Mesa, AZ received a $7.9 million sole-source modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for M141 SMAW-D Bunker Defeat Munitions (BDMs), field handling trainers, and training materials. The M141 BDM a disposable version of the USMC's Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) that includes a night sight mounting fixture, weighs 15.7 lbs. and is 32" in length. The BDM system can destroy earth and timber fortifications, breach 8-inch reinforced walls or 12 inches of triple brick, and defeat lightly skinned armored vehicles at effective ranges of 15-500 meters. A thermobaric version of the BDM is in development, as is a thermobraric version of Talley Systems' lighter M72A7 LAW rocket.
Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ and is expected to be complete by May 30, 2006. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Picatinny, NJ issued the contract (DAAE30-00-C-1103).
[ December 01, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Great articleOriginally posted by vincere:Link to a recent article about 90% of casualties surviving because of better aid being given in the first ten minutes, aka the 'platinum 10 minutes'.
I thought it was worth posting here...
With respect to combat action within the Game, in Game time A LOT can happen in those Platinum 10 Minutes....
quote from the link above
World War II Gold Turns Into PlatinumNovember 28, 2005: The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has brought about a major change in how the United States deals with combat casualties. The result is that over 90 percent of the troops wounded, survive their wounds. That’s the highest rate in history. There are several reasons for this. The main one is that medics, and the troops themselves, are being trained to deliver more complex, and effective first aid more quickly. Military doctors now talk of the “platinum 10 minutes,” meaning that if you can keep the wounded soldier, especially the ones who are hurt real bad, alive for ten minutes, their chances of survival go way up. Medics have been equipped and trained to perform procedures previously done only by physicians, while troops are trained to do some procedures previously handled only by medics. This skill upgrade is made possible by a number of factors.
First, over the last few decades, there has been continuous development in methods and equipment for “emergency medicine” (ambulance crews and staff in emergency rooms.) This stuff had slowly been coming over to the military, but with the fighting in Iraq, it has nearly all been adopted by military medical personnel.
Second, there’s the high intelligence and skill levels of the volunteer military. High enlistment standards have largely gone unnoticed by most people, but within the military, it’s meant that combat troops, who are much brighter than at any time in the past, can handle more complex equipment and techniques. Getting the combat troops to learn these techniques is no problem, because for them, it could be a matter of life and death.
Third, medical teams, capable of performing complex surgery, are closer to the combat. These teams, like the medics and troops, have more powerful tools and techniques. This includes things like “telemedicine,” where you do a videoconference with more expert doctors back in the U.S., to help save a patient.
The “platinum 10 minutes” is part of a century old trend. During World War II, the "golden hour" standard of getting wounded troops to an operating table, was developed. Antibiotics were also developed at about the same time, along with the helicopter (whose first combat mission, in 1945 Burma, was to recover injured troops). So these new developments are not anything exotic.
Finally, the military medical community has a track record of success that the troops know about. So everyone realizes that if they pitch in, chances of survival are good, and they are.
-
This whole WIA/KIA/ wounded left behind or med evaced thing (?)and HOW to simulate it in the game is sure to be ONE MASSIVE head ache for the BFC boys.
I wish them the very best of luck sorting it out in the game....
-tom w
-
Good Post Big Duke, very insightful
.... but,What about the four permanent bases in Iraq?
Camp Anaconda will never be evacuated will it?
The Americans have a foothold in Iraq and with some REALLY large military bases there, they are sure to stay in those bases forever somewhat like bases in Japan and Germany after WWII.
Is that not correct?
-tom w
web page about "enduring" bases in IraqThe supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in the Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planed to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah.
But other reports suggest the U.S. military has plans for even more bases: In April 2003 report in The New York Times reported that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."2 According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," to serve as long-term encampments for thousands of American troops.3
As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases (twelve of which are located on the map) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.
Click Here for more details about the bases identified above
[ November 28, 2005, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I agree
Running windows on the mac without ANY extra software or hardware will expand Mac sales not that other way around.
I FULLY expect the next generation Intel Macs will attempt to market themselves as the "Swiss Army Knife" of computers with the ability to natively switch Operating systems (including Windows and Linus and BSD Unix under OS X) as EASILY as Mac's now switch users in the 'Fast User Switching" software.
Sure there will be few bugs at first, but they will fix them and they WILL sell more computers that can run Windows and OS X simultansously on the same CPU.
What it could mean is a near death experience for ALL Mac gaming development, but that is a WHOLE other story.
-tom w
[ November 23, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Every time Steve tells us something like....Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Yes, buildings can take variable damage unlike CMx1's overall degrading damage modeling. Not sure how detailed we can make it right off the bat, but the basis for simulating very detailed damage modeling is already coded.
Steve
"Not sure how detailed we can make it right off the bat, but the basis for simulating very detailed damage modeling is already coded."
This HAS just got to be one of those things what should just SPARKLE in that WWII ETO Title that is on deck (in the game development sense!)
Every time he Steve says, something like we have the pieces in place and the coding foundation to "allow this to work" or permit this to happen" or facilitate this feature or that, I think to myself that CMx2 WWII ETO title is going to be one JEWEL of a game, because we already know they have all the vehicle data and specs from the CMx1 series and armour penetration and the rest of it for WWII all were pretty much tweaked out and worked VERY well IMHO by the time they said they were FINISHED with CMAK!
Which BTW is still my favourite video game of ALL time ! STILL
(even though I have to play it on a "special" dual boot OS 9 capable "legacy" Mac in that is over 4 years old!)
The CMx2 ETO Title is going to ROCK! no doubt about it!
(Did I hear Steve hint at "Co-Play" (Mulit Multi Player for CMx2 ETO!?? he he)
thanks!
The future looks bright!
-tom w
[ November 24, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Me too!Originally posted by kipanderson:Hi,
As one of the loyalist of loyal sycophants
I have to say I think the above is a great post, great cartoon .If truth be told a lot of people will cheer up when matters move onto WWII. My attitude is that CMSF is a “bonus” game, part of the learning curve for the games of mass slaughter in NWE and on the Eastern Front to come
.Just relax and enjoy it while waiting for your first love which is WWII.
All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.
I agree with every word of that post! The future of CM gaming looks bright from my perspective.
I still think CM:SF is just the working prototype or the proving ground for the game engine of our dreams in ETO WWII.
-tom w
-
Wow! :eek: that says a lot right thereOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Damage modeling, in 3D respects, is still an unknown. ...
snip
.... Having said that, basic levels of damage, such as a flat tire or a blown track, should be doable for CM:SF.
Steve
-
OK then
Perhaps you need to talk to some Real Life Stryker Mechanics (somehow) who maybe (somehow) online line in Iraq right now so they can tell you how often Styker mechanical and electrical and digital components breakdown in regular use and service?
Its a good thought, but it might be tricky to actually pull off.
Somebody, somewhere that fixes those things on a daily basis could provide you with WEALTH of information about how why and when what breaks down and fails the Stryker.
(the concept being that at least if you talked to just one mechanic you would have an "instant source" and real world reply to all the folks who complain their equipement is breaking down WAY TOO often.)
Now this whole idea may be somewhat hard to pull off with regard to speaking to Syrian mechanics, but hey, we all know that stuff is going to break down all the time AND/OR get all shot up and destroyed before it has a chance to break down so talking to RealLife Syrian AFV mechanics shouldn't really be a big deal anyway.
thanks!
-tom w
-
web pageNovember 04, 2005MacTel strategy includes Windows and Linux
Posted by Sandy
Here's some new ammunition for those who think Apple's move to Intel processors is about building computers that can run both Mac and Windows applications.
Apple's U.S. patent application 0050246554 ("System and method for creating tamper-resistant code") describes scenarios in which the user would choose a "first operating system" and a "second operating system" from a set that includes Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, and Linux.
There's also mention of a virtual machine, and the option to choose between "Macintosh computer" and "Windows PC."
I realize that patent applications try to anticipate every possibility, but this is a very plausible strategy for Apple's Intel machines: embrace and extend what its competitors' computers can do.
When Windows Vista ships, Microsoft will encourage users to upgrade. Many home computers will be unable to meet Vista's minimum system requirements. (For example, Vista will need a dedicated video card, not just "integrated video," but many current PCs do not even have an AGP slot.)
Apple has more than a year to come up with a competitively priced computer capable of running both Mac and Windows applications. It could run both systems at once, or -- as the patent seems to suggest -- run one system natively and the other in a virtual machine. (Users could choose which OS should be the dominant or "first" operating system.)
Michael Dell should be concerned. So should HP, Gateway, Lenovo/IBM, and every other Windows PC maker. Apple controls OS X, and does not license it to others. Therefore, only Apple can build a personal computer capable of running Windows and Mac OS X.
Microsoft's OEM partners could ask Microsoft not to license Windows to Apple, or to offer them better license terms, but would Microsoft go for it? I suspect the company's consent agreement with the DoJ would make this difficult if not impossible to do.
Very interesting. Stay tuned...
-
I am still betting that the new intel Macs WILL run PC apps natively on Windows running natively on the Mac intel CPU.
this OLD news is just speculation from a Mac gaming web site:
web pageThe problem here, of course, is the unknown. There have been several doomsday scenarios already played out in the online community regarding Mac gaming. The first scenario involves running Windows games under a Mac Intel machine. If PC games can run as fast on these new Macs as their PC counterparts, where will that leave porting companies such as Aspyr and MacSoft? The key here is how well these PC games would run under dual booting, emulation layer or virtual box. Beyond speed, there will be other determining and important issues such as stability, easy of use, and technical support. I can't stress that enough. If PC games don't work well under Mac Intel, you can bet there will be customers clamoring for Mac native games.That to me is the biggest question. How well will PC games run on Intel Macs? Although we won't know for sure until the machines are released next year, I'm sure the upcoming development kits that Apple is providing Mac developers will be telling. This will give developers and hackers a year to play around with the possibilities of PC gaming on the Mac. Between now and then, we will have a pretty good idea as to where the Mac games market will be headed. However, if the hardware in the development kits are just that, development kits, and the actual Mac Intel hardware released next year are Apple motherboards with Apple parts, and so on, then getting Windows to run on these Intel Macs will not be easy. Look at it this way. If Apple were to use off the shelf PC parts to build these new Macs, then Apple would release the Intel Macs in 3 months, not a year. Apple will make Macs that act and feel like like today's Macs, not like clones.
Let's speculate for a bit here. Let's just say that you will be able to run PC games on Intel Macs by either booting into Windows or via virtual machine ware on OS X. If this scenario comes to fruition, then I don't think there will be any doubt that Mac gaming, as we know it today, will change dramatically. Companies like Aspyr may slowly abandon ports since you'll be able to readily play thousands of PC games on the new Macs. How likely is this scenario? Given the facts as we know them today about these machines, it's very possible. However, there's one part about this that just doesn't convince me. While I know that Apple said they "won't do anything in the hardware that would preclude from someone using Windows", the simple fact is that if Windows is allowed to run as good on a 3.6 GHz Mac as an equivalent PC, you can pretty much kiss the platform goodbye. In essence, PC developers will have little to no incentive to port their stuff to the Mac. And I'm not just talking about games. I'm talking about important, must have software. Remember, the Mac experience is not just about the cool hardware and the flashy OS, it's about the thousands of developers who create original titles for the Mac or port their stuff to the Mac. Is Apple really going to let Windows run "great" on Intel Macs? Is Apple really going to even let dual booting be an option? I seriously doubt it.
-
um...Yes, the end product of CMx2 damage modeling is quite a bit like DropTeam's.Does that mean, yes this feature will appear in that way in CM:SF??
or sometime in some future release of the CMx2 game engine
(ETO WWII hint hint) ???
thanks
-tom w
-
WOW
good point
Great photograph to illustrate the point as well!
-tom w
-
Thanks!
that was the BEST laugh I have had all day!!
ROTFLMAO
Truly a work of brilliance!
I could be wrong but I considered it a form of satire or satirical comment.
Very nicely done!
-tom w
[ November 18, 2005, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
This is COOL
and check this out (just a NOTE here, looks like what you are asking for in the original post is now technically feasible in REALTIME as least for this game.)INTERNAL COMPONENTSPhysicalObjects may contain any number of embedded items called “InternalComponents.” These are items of interest that reside inside of the PhysicalObject, such as engines, ballistic computers, gunners, drivers, fuel tanks, ammo magazines, etc. When these items are inside of a PhysicalComponent and are functioning correctly, they imbue the PhysicalObject with capabilities that it wouldn’t otherwise have. For example, a ballistic computer inside of a turret allows the turret to automatically calculate trajectories for its guns. If the ballistic computer is destroyed, then the turret loses this capability.
InternalComponents have an actual position and size within the PhysicalObject that they are within, a rating of the component’s “toughness” and tendency (if any) to burn or explode when hit by a projectile, and certain properties related to its GUI display for a user who may be in control of the PhysicalObject containing that component.
To view some vehicle internal component schematics, click here!
PROJECTILE PENETRATION AND DAMAGE
When a projectile strikes a PhysicalObject, the engine first calculates whether or not the projectile is able to penetrate the object’s armor. If the projectile isn’t able to penetrate, then it will either ricochet off of the armor (potentially hitting something else afterward) or it will explode, depending on the type of projectile. If it does penetrate, the effect of the penetration is modeled in detail.
The decision about whether or not a projectile penetrates is based on 3 factors: the projectile’s penetrating power, the thickness of the armor being penetrated, and the angle at which the projectile has struck the armor, each of which is covered below.
PENETRATING POWER
There are 3 types of projectiles modeled by the engine: high velocity armor piercing slugs (AP), high explosive anti-tank (HEAT), and high explosive (HE.) Artillery and mortars combine multiple projectile types in one attack (their blast is modeled as HE and their fragmentation is modeled as a high number of small AP projectiles.) Each type of projectile has its own means of penetrating armor.
-
I think Steve said this aspect of the simulation will be improved upon in CM:SF.
I can't wait to see what they can do about this for the CMx2 ETO WWII game on the distant horizon.
-tom w
-
-
Pzman
Maybe you did not understand this was taken directly from a Patent approval...
However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS. In the patent application, titled, System and method for creating tamper-resistant code, they describe the process as thus:22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
Believe it
its coming
their new intel computers WILL support mulitple operating systems running at the same time. Not in emmulation mode, NOT Virutal PC... but running on seperate paritions both running on the same CPU at the same time. That is what the Virtualization Technology that Intel has in its server chips now is all about.
Just read that patent approval above.
-tom w
[ November 17, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
More here
The big news yesterday (Nov 7 2005) was the discovery of an Apple patent that allows the computer maker to protect the installation of Mac OS X. In this case, really limit it to just Apple-produced hardware. However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS. In the patent application, titled, System and method for creating tamper-resistant code, they describe the process as thus:
22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
Preliminary Comments
Feel free to read the patent yourself. There is a link to the patent in this article here. For some reason the same link doesn't appear to work from our site. (US patent number: 20050246554). There are several interesting aspects to it, including the discussion of hardware serial numbers, virtual machines and the all important discussion of "tamper-resistant techniques" including the use of obfuscating a first object code block that determines a secondary code block. There is the discussion of operating systems being able to access core service calls based on a tamper-resistance policy.
Apple itself has said they will not prevent other operating systems from being installed on future MacTels. However, this patent seems to indicate a way the company will prevent Mac OS X from being installed on other hardware, while simultaneously dealing with multi-OS startup and the use of Virtual Machines on future Mac OS X systems.
-
Another interesting web page:
Virtual Worlds - Multiple UsersToday Apple has mastered the art of moving from one computer user's space to another with its graphic cube effect. This is commonly known as Fast User Switching and is a system preference in Mac OS X. This feature, unique in OS X, allows a truly graceful way in which multiple users can utilize one shared computer, and Apple's Expose technology is at the heart of this interface transformation.
But imagine a world wherein you can cube the cube? Imagine that each user account can have multiple instances of operating systems (perhaps OS X and Windows, or Linux and OS X) running simultaneously. From the Apple menu a user would select an OS environment and an Expose cubic switch would literally swing around a different OS environment, just like today's Fast User Switching.
Much like Fast User Switching, accounts and applications stay active and running in the background. Instead of seeing a different OS X environment, you might see SuSE Linux or Windows or Solaris. The bottom line is: Apple already has the interface technique in place and the technology to make this happen in Expose. What it lacks is the ability to run multiple operating systems side by side. That it can now get from Intel and its virtualization technologies inside of future Pentium and Xeon chips.
Mactels may offer us not just smooth multiple user environments, but multiple OS worlds as well.
Intel's Future VT Chips
Intel is creating VT technology for a multitude of reasons. Virtualization can solve a multitude of problems confronting personal computer users. For starters, critical applications can be partitioned into their own containers, protecting sensitive data or processor intensive applications from going down. The ability to run multiple instances of the same operating system can benefit servers. And naturally, users will find great delight in the ability to run different operating systems on the same computer, each in its own independent partition, complete with crashing protection due to somebody elses wayward OS.
An interesting fact about VT in Intel's chips is that data inside a given partition can be completely erased after use. Information such as banking data, personal identification, codes, et cetera, can all be deleted after a given session. This may tie in to what Apple would like to do with video via it's iTunes Music Store. Critical code attached to a downloaded movie or television show may sit in a separate partition that is erased after the movie or TV show is played one time, thereby ensuring that customers get what they pay for and no more. And also ensuring that hackers don't try to reproduce video content.
I have to say I think the above is a great post, great cartoon
Cobra CAS footage, aka the Syrian armored forces should just go home.
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Carzy is right!
-tom w