Sgt Joch

Yes, but if you zoom in on it, it's easier.

good, good, stoop to personal insults, that will get you far. so much for wanting to help you guys.

15 posters repeating the same thing over and over again is not the "community", it is a "fringe group".

Neither is being unpleasant. You guys want tcp i/p wego in the game. We get it. It's just that many of us don't care if tcp i/p wego is in the game or not. Join the long list of players who also want their improvements in the game. Bfc is a small company and they have to prioritize where they put their efforts. Creating a tcp i/p wego thread once every 4 years, demanding action and antagonising other posters will give you squat. You want tcp i/p WEGO in game? follow the example of the "cherry picking" QB lobby who kept the issue alive every week for the past 4 years to the point where Bfc agreed to totally revamp the QB system. That monopolised a good chunk of resources which could have been applied elsewhere. However, you should know there are many other groups that have been pushing for their pet improvements for a lot longer than the tcp i/p wego lobby.

it's on the list. Right before tcp i/p WEGO and right after horses.

It is not fatally flawed for many, it is fatally flawed for very few. The majority of CM players play SP. the minority play MP. In the MP minority, the vast majority play WEGO PBEM, a small minority play tcp/ip. No one over the past 4 years has raised the lack of tci/ip wego has being more than a minor irritant. On the other hand, everyone agreed that the lack of "cherry picking" of units in QBs was a "national crisis" which is why CMBN will come with a brand new QB system. Everyone here, including BFC, knows the tcp/ip wego "crisis" will fade away, like snow in july, in a few weeks.

yes and it won't be for a long time, if ever, so no need to belabour the point.

plan, plan, plan, double check your plan, then expect your plan to go right out the window the minute shooting starts...plan for that too.

We have been lobbying for event triggers and other improvements to the scenario editor for some time. Hopefully, it will be in the next major release.

Oddly enough, I was just running the same tests on the latest version of the game. In CMSF I always used best/best. Since most scenarios featured no trees, it worked well. However CMBN features lovely detailed trees and forests which can devastate your FPS. Running a variety of tests, it also appears that balanced/balanced offers the best compromise or "most bang for your buck". On a large forested QB map, those settings gave me FPS of around 35 when looking straight into the forest vs 15 at best/best. Furthermore balanced/balanced gives up little in terms of noticeable graphical quality. My system: Q9550, ATI 4890, win 7 64, 1920x1200, no FSAA/AA, 27" monitor.

What? Heresy!!!! Actually, compared to some game releases I have seen, including CMSF, the negative reaction so far is very mild. You can tell this is mostly an older crowd chasing after each other in their wheelchairs...

I played a CMSF tournament PBEM game last year on a 2x2 km map with a battalion. Each turn file was 40-45 mb. But it was very playable and we finished the game (100 turns) with no technical issues.

Tcp WEGO. This issue was discussed ad nauseum when CMSF came out. Bottom line: there are many technical and commercial reasons why it is not included in CMSF and CMBN. Will it be in a future title ? Who knows, but it is pretty much at the bottom of the wish list.

Just because we dont reply to every thread does not mean we are not paying attention. :)The issue is being looked at, but no decision yet on what to do about it.

It is just my personal comments to try to help out. Only BFC can make official comments. If it turns out that tons of player are finding the game unplayable because of this issue, BFC will have to decide if they have to delay the release for 6-12 months to recode the entire game.

Its caused when your CPU can't handle all the action on screen and decides to take some shortcuts in the animation.

We have discussed this issue internally and here are a few comments: 1. Wind has little CPU usage and causes little FPS hit. What is happening with wind is that your card is redrawing the trees and leaves more often which could have an impact, although that is usually more consistent. However we have not seen the massive shift Parabellum is experiencing. It could be caused by a particular combination of CPU, graphic card, drivers, etc. 2. I ran some tests with trees, no trees, wind, no wind. Even when looking directly at swaying trees filling my screen at best/best, 1920x1200, the FPS is almost consistently between 15-20, and my system is less powerful than Parabellum's (Q9550@3.1 ghz, ATI 4890, win 7 64). 3. CM has never produced very high FPS. In almost all scenarios I play in CMSF or CMBN, the FPS when I check it is mostly in the 15-25 range. However, in actual gameplay, the raw FPS number has never been has important as the fluidity and smoothness of the image. I have only played one game where the FPS was so low that the image was choppy and unplayable and that was a CMSF PBEM game on a massive Urban map. 4. If you want to consistently increase FPS, one tip is to drop model/texture quality. Going from best/best to balanced/balanced gives me a consistent 10 FPS increase on a forested map with little noticeable decrease in model quality.

Whether or how it can be improved is one topic. But a gameplay tip which has applied to every CM game since CMBO is to keep most of your defensive line on "Hide" and or with a cover Arc command with a few spotters on the look out. This way you, rather than the AI, can decide when to open up on a target.

I said the most important, having a decent graphic card and decent amount of RAM is also important. If you have a puny CPU, getting the latest video card will give you no improvement.

trees dont have much of an impact since you will get similar FPS in CMSF where there are no trees. the factors which have the most impact on FPS are: -size and complexity of the map, especially urban maps; -number of units; the CPU is the most important component. In CMBN as in CMSF, the program is constantly calculating LOS/LOF from friendly units to enemy units, and that appears to be the biggest bottleneck. shadows is very much driver dependent. It seems with each new card and driver revisions, shadows are or are not a problem. On my card (ATI 4890, cat 11.4) turning shadows on/off has no impact on FPS.

strange I have been testing the Demo and game on my rig which has win 7 x64/ati 4890 with no issues. could you guys turn off your anti-virus and retry the demo? also try it without the ATI compatibility fix in the Options. I don't use it and the game runs fine.

some Beta testers had conflicts with Norton 360. Microsoft security essentials appears to work fine.

In CMSF, routing was handled differently. A routed soldier would simply disappear and an orange "!" icon would appear which would fade away after a few seconds.

not directly, you can give it a "target arc" to limit how far it shoots, but not what it shoots at. I usully give it a "hide" command and a short "target arc". Then remove one or both when enemy infantry is near.

you have to be careful with bocage, infantry can only cross through a bocage "gap" tile (recognizable because there is a shoulder legth gap) or an actual opening. If you order infantry to just go straight through, the AI will plot a path through the nearest "gap" tile or opening. Before going through bocage, I go down to the 1 level to spot the gaps and plan the path accordingly.