aka_tom_w

from: http://www.appleturns.com/ scroll down to "The Next Big Thing" "So here's the thing: over the past several months, we've been steeped neck-deep in dirt about the PowerPC 970, IBM's shiny new processor that's supposed to put Apple back in the game as far as raw computing power is concerned. There was Ars Technica's ridiculously comprehensive report on the chip. There are new 970-related rumors flowing out of MacBidouille at the rate of approximately six per minute, the latest of which implies that the Power Mac 970 has a fiber channel port for connecting an Xserve RAID, or perhaps a bonnet-style hair dryer. (Our French is a little rusty.) And now Mac OS Rumors has just kicked in its own expectations for what technologies the 970-based Power Mac will include. Yessiree-Bob, there's certainly no shortage of information (albeit of questionable validity) about the 970. The upshot of which is, of course, we're already sick to death of the thing and it's not even out yet. Oh, the tribulations of being a rumor junky. We're considering applying for some sort of federal aid. It's a good thing that Mac OS Rumors is looking out for us, though; in addition to the 970 Power Mac specs, MOSR has also started dishing dirt on-- are you ready for this?-- the PowerPC 980. Yes, folks, if you, too, are so jaded beyond recognition by all the 970 speculation that you can't picture yourself deigning to buy one because it already feels like last year's model, the solution is simple: just start looking forward to the 980 instead. After all, if MOSR is even remotely on target, there's a heckuva lot to look forward to. Apparently while the 970 is derived from IBM's POWER4 architecture, the 980 will be based on the POWER5-- which, as anyone can see, is one louder. And as if that weren't exciting enough, just take a gander at the projected clock speed: "4.5 GHz to 5.0 GHz +." Couple that with "a much more powerful Altivec unit, a high-performance on-board memory controller, and countless other improvements" and you wind up with a nitro-burnin' funny chip with "performance levels well in excess of ten times today's." And when will all this magic come to pass, you ask? "A little over a year from now," we answer. Or, rather, MOSR answers. We're just pipe-dreaming right along with you guys. All of which means, of course, that the only people who will buy a 970-based Mac instead of waiting another year for a 980-based model are lame-os, squares, and the feeble-minded. And lest you think that we're only saying that to drive down demand for the upcoming 970s in hopes of spurring an early round of price cuts for our own personal gain, we assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Nope. Nuh-uh. By the way, the 970 also causes baldness. And weight gain. Massive weight gain."

Very Nice! can't wait until they are available for download. and when would that be? -tom w

oops that is interesting especially after what Redwolf posted -tom w

yes well the images are small and the one mentioned above "picture on page 2/10" really is just a grey box the screen grabs in the strat guide have been downsized and they lack good contast so what has happened is they wash out in all grey. If I may post an example.... this is one of my own screen shots from CMBB this one is NOT in the Strat guide Colour original down sized . first Black and White with out correction, all colour removed (FLAT grey like in the book) . black and white after small photoshop contrast enchancement hows that? -tom w [ May 28, 2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I had no idea they were banned :confused: were they? Didn't US chopper pilots in Vietnam use sawed off shot guns all the time? I thought the sawed off shot gun was the weapon of choice for chopper pilots in Vietnam? Maybe that is just some crap I picked up watching too many war movies. -tom w [ May 27, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"Following roads would have little practical benefit for me, since I prefer to avoid the roads whenever possible. Follow vehicle, on the other hand would be an excellent thing. Actually, if I could select a company of infantry and have them "follow" a recon squad, that would be fine enough for me. No need for group movement then. I could just plot one path and have the follow ups follow." that is a good point I could live with a follow command taking the time to give one unit a tedious path of a whole bunch of way points would be NO problem if you could simply tell other units to follow that unit :confused: as it is now what happens is that you give a group order for the first way point then click every unit in that group to set additional way points I am glad to read that I am not the only player doing this. the issue is that it is tedious to plot the SAME path for every unit in a group I am not sure that a "stay on the road" order is needed I think the "follow this unit" and do exactly what it does (behind it like in a column) would cover most of the problems in this thread. Group ways points beyond one would be nice but I don't think that is what the good folks at BFC have in store for us (ever!) -tom w

see my Signature line is not directed at you either (but it is a little long winded ) -tom w

OK thanks for the update -tom w

I am using a TiBook and the screen ratio is 1152x768 the game will show what ever the video card or VRAM can push out. if you used an Apple wide screen cinema display you will see a wide screen game. I hope you are not asking for black bars on the top and bottom of the game, I do not think that is the solution. :confused: -tom w

I am playing elvis we are both using v1.03c the latest public beta He has LOTS of Panthers I having nothing that can touch the panthers except air support the CAS has not really hurt his panthers AT all (that I can tell anyway) for the record he has plenty of air support as well. and yes the CAS almost ALWAYS seems to target the HQ tank units, I would say the choice of target in this regard is not random the game is almost over and I will surely lose in a BIG way the end score could be as bad as 80 to 20 pts for him but we have never seen so much air support in a scenario it has been interesting -tom w

"Towed guns, on the other hand, were not scarce. They were spread all along the line. Typically they lived in strongpoints or strings of strongpoints of 4-12 guns, but they were set up to interlock their fire, to prevent anyone just waltzing through in a halftrack. There were enough guns running about that modest levels of armor support (the "combined arms" setting in CMBB terms) could be met by serious AT." interesting post that all sounds VERY realistic are there any GOOD historical (or even fictional) attack/defend premade scenarios where you can see that kind of TO&E and distribution of forces for the attacker and defender? what is missing in this game (or I have simply not looked hard enough for it) are the scenarios where the attacker is attacking because he has a local superiority of armour and the defender has plenty of AT guns and inf. dug in I don't play any QB's but I admit MOST PBEM's I enjoy are pre made scenarios that are meeting engagements and usually both sides have plenty of armour. I think I should try somthing different for a change like a scenario where the attacker has plenty of armour and the defender is dug in with AT guns Any suggestions for scenarios? the oringal post makes a good point Thanks -tom w

thanks I just downloaded the mac 1.03c public patch and I think they are still available. thanks -tom w

this is the thread for the OLD public beta 1.03c patch -tom w

any news on the REAL 1.03 final patch? :confused: yeah yeah yeah "when its done" I know -tom w P.S. Are we there yet??? are we there yet???

This is a good point. A player can already do a group select to make the first waypoint, then it is just a matter of spending the time to set and place all the other way points after the first group select, and this is just plain tedious. -tom w

What he said. </font>

ok Hotmail has been very problematic in the past with attachments. getting your oppenent to use hotmail is not likely to solve the problem because I think it has been established the Hotmails attachment protocols have been quite problematic in the past. Using the above mentioned winzip or some other compression will be necessary think if it as a digital enveloped, signed and sealed. If not using compression on attachments the data in the attached PBEM file somehow :confused: get lost or messed up. this is a known problem. good luck -tom w

OK Thanks for the clarification: "Potholes on roads, even stones getting into the threads or just a bad link on the tracks - and so on. So in a way, one could say that bogging does represent that occasional technical failure if you want to think about it like that." I would guess that is the final word on this one. -tom w

I find this very interesting I think it is correct that BFC have always said that mechanical breakdowns in combat and within a scenario are NOT modeled... BUT what is that funky gear crunching sound the KT makes when it grinds to a halt in CMBO? :confused: I don't play the germans much and I have never heard it BUT there is a gear grinding sound file in CMBO that only the KT makes and then it becomes immobile as I understand it. I think it is correct to state that the guys that designed the game always claimed that bogging and immobolization have nothing to do with mechanical breakdown but for those of us who play the game a break down sometimes seems like the ONLY way the vehicle could have become immobile so as a player it seems logical to jump to the conclusion the mechanical breakdown occured. IMHO -tom w

Doh! oops I misread it too.... I will leave my long winded answer below anyways even though it does not address the question. Yes, as mentioned in the posts below I believe it does indicate the actual historical name of commander being modeled in an historically accurate scenario. this is my "other" answer: there are four "special" modifiers the star is for command range I think the lightening bolt is a Combat Multiplier meaning they aim better the heart is for moral and the Question mark (?) is for stealth the Stealth bonus means that unit and those in the command radius are harder to spot the moral bonus means that unit and those in its command are less likely to break or route or panic the star command bonus means the C&C range of the little red line is longer (How and why I never could figure out? :confused: ) the BIG one IMHO is the lightening bolt as it is the COMBAT bonus which might increase the accuracy and fire power effectiveness of those units in its command radius The combat bonus and the Stealth bonus I think are the most handy together. IMHO there are three levels of bonus none (no Symbol) bonus +1 just the symbol alone (as picture in your screen grab above) and Bonus +2 which is the symbol in a yellow square box ok? -tom w [ May 22, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

is one person on a mac and one on a PC? Netscape on a mac sends a mail file attachment that is a little tricky for PC users to open. one of you needs to change to another e-mail program just for swapping PBEM files seriously if you both use the same "brand" of e-mail client it will be a snap I suggest you both you a well know microsoft e-mail app for PBEM maybe you BOTH need to adopt Outlook express for PBEM perposes, if you both use Outlook express or you both use the identical e-mail program it should be no problem stay away from netscape navigator 4.7 though ok? -tom w

"I have never been able to use CMBO on this particular system. My problem comes from the fact that I recently upgraded my Powerbook G3/333 to a Powerbook G4 12" which only boots into OS X - and doesn't run CMBO as a result. In order to be able to play the game I have transferred it over to my G3/233 beige minitower which is still running OS 9.2.2 but then I discovered that a RAVE 128 with 6 MB of VRAM won't run the program either. So, to make a long story short, I picked up at cheap Voodoo3 card (the ATI's were MUCH more expensive) to see if I could make it run with that." I feel for ya! REALLY I am in the same boat Many Mac users here MUST upgrade their laptops to a new OSX only version, (I too MUST take a new G4 12inch at the end of May). I am a Mac Technologist and as far as I can tell there is no solution to the no RAVE on OSX problem. I am now on the Mac Game Developers Mailing list and I posted a question or request to have RAVE work in OSX and all those programers LAUGHED AT ME, I mean they really thought I was NUTS! This situation is very frustrating, I wish you all the best of luck with your Voodoo card on that biege G3 . -tom w

OH yes in the CMBO demo "the Valley of Death" that bunker was near impossible to take out no amount of Arty would kill it. I remember bitching quite loudly about how indestructible that damn CMBO demo bunker was. Maybe thats the way they should all be? :confused: I don't know I don't have any experience with concrete bunkers in CMBB? oh well :confused: -tom w

Ditto here The Public Beta of a 1.03c patch works quite well with no real noticable issues -tom w

this is a known TCP/IP connection problem and it remains unresolved you might change the title of your thread to say TCP/IP connection drops in the game or something like that if you search this tech support forum you will find plenty of posts about this issue there is a "sort of" work around but there is NO fix or patch that deals with the issue -tom w