Sgt Joch

I guess no 1.04 this weekend. That suits me fine however, I broke down and bought a Duo Core 6750 + Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R motherboard + 2x1gig DDR2 800 @ 4-4-4-15 ram combo for a grand total of $ 417 cdn (before taxes), so I will be spending the weekend building my new rig.

...err, hmmm...no, better not... (cut to Sgt.Joch biting his tongue until it bleeds as he thinks of endless replies, half of which would get him instantly banned from the forum)

first impressions, I tried 163.69, on my 7900 GTX, I seemed to have picked up a few FPS but visual quality seems to be worse. Of course, I still have no problems running CMSF.

White2Golf, welcome to the forum. Yes, lack of artillery delivered smoke is a problem, hopefully it will be added in the future since it would be available in RL.

Band of Brothers we are always looking for new victims...I mean opponents.

Thanks Bil, glad to know it's on the "to fix" list.

I have noticed that you can only order a stryker to open up/button up when it is carrying a unit. When it is empty, the order disappears and the vehicle stays buttoned up. At first, I thought the open up order only applied to the passengers, but when the vehicle is occupied, the open up order is available separately for the vehicle and the passengers. I see no mention of this in the manual. Is this intentional behavior? and if yes, what is the rationale or is it a bug.

seems like a fair review to me, BFC positioned CMSF as a "mainstream" game and it is being reviewed in that light, like GRAW 2 for example. CMBO,CMBB and CMAK were positioned as serious wargames and were reviewed as such, which is why they received such great reviews. When you look at CMSF as a mainstream game for casual gamers, it has shortcomings, the graphics are 1-2 years behind the current crop of games, the single player AI is average, there are technical issues with certain hardware combinations, etc,.. Let's face it, only "detail obssessed wargaming grogs" appreciate the potential of CMSF and CMx2, but we are no longer BFC's main target audience...

could be, I dont have a ATI myself but I still see posts with users having issues. I am just waiting to see which card ultimately handles CMSF better before making a decision. based on this, it looks like both the 8800 and the 2900 should handle open gl games well: AMD-ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT Performance Preview

but which ATI card? there are posts about high end ATI users having problems in CMSF and I remember posts during the beta testing where ATI cards had more problems than NVIDIA cards. reports of 8800's having problems in games other than CMSF have also appeared repeatedly on the web since the cards came out (part of the reason I have not upgraded yet). on my system (opteron 170/7900 GTX/XP PRO), CMSF runs well. I would actually recommend waiting a 1-2 months before upgrading, by that time we should know if BFC will be able to workaround the NVIDIA/ATI driver issues.

This can't be good news for VISTA owners. It is getting to the point that now that I have CMSF running well on my system, I am afraid to upgrade any component lest I screw things up.

good news indeed, looking forward to 1.04. it's the red wine consumption that makes all the difference... [ September 13, 2007, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

sounds like The Shining , those boys need to get some fresh air more often...

WHAT!?! ONLY 16 hours a day! :eek: they are slacking off!!!

time to dust off the refresh minkey... it's already been two weeks since the last patch, is BFC slacking off? :mad:

slowmotion, in a perfect world there would be no delay since of course, if a sarge says "put some fire on those woods", his grunts can execute in seconds. the problem is, in the game, the player is an omniscient all knowing god like entity. In this scenario: ----squad"A"---BUILDING----tank"B"------- -squad A takes fire from enemy squad in building; -tank B has LOS to building but has not spotted the enemy unit because of relative spotting; in RL, tank B would not be aware of the enemy units in the building until it receives a report/order which has gone through the chain of command "enemy unit in building to the left", in the game, with relative spotting and C2, this should work like this as well, after a certain number of minutes, tank B should (once the Tac Ai is up to speed) spot and engage the enemy unit. however in the game, what will normally happen is that a few seconds after the enemy squad opens up on squad "A", the player will order tank "B" to area fire on the building, thereby negating the effect of realitive spotting/C2. The question is whether anything should be done to limit the gamey exploitation of this feature without unduly restricting the player's freedom of action. martin, I'm a bit slow today, I still have trouble getting my head around the concept of "action spots".

"Area fire" can be exploited in a gamey fashion to circumvent relative spotting, but the problem I see is that many players, including me, use "area fire" to shoot at suspected/likely enemy positions even when no enemy units has been spotted. The way I would like to see it handled would be to build in a command delay, much like air/arty fire, (but obviously shorter) before the order is executed representing the time between some sergeant saying "we should lob a few shells in that building, it looks like a good place for an ambush" and the wet behind the ears LT replying "good idea, sgt joch". even an arbitrary across the board one minute delay to any "area fire" order would eliminate most of the gamey exploitation. [ September 12, 2007, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

MikeyD, good point, if they started with CM:BAGRATION, most of the work on the german side would already be done, cutting down on development time and costs.

Steve has mentioned in the past that East Front games are not huge sellers in the U.S. because there are no americans in it. To me the East Front announcement is the biggest news in that thread since it is my favorite WW2 theater, although I see it more as an expression of interest at this point rather than an official announcement. If they keep to their one major title per year schedule, we may be playing CM:KURSK in summer 2009.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002776;p=3 I am not Steve, but I did stay in a holiday inn express...

This is the text of the Inquirer article Rune referenced, it would certainly explain why the 8800 get such poor framerates and why the alt+tab trick works. I have never had any problems with my 7900 GTX in CMSF.

Knac,I was being ironic . I am very glad to see the rapid improvements being made to CMSF even though it means I keep restarting the 1st campaign mission each time a new patch comes out to test out the new goodies. I am also not playing to go deeper into it until we get closer to the final patch.

...now I have to put the campaign on hold..again..so I can restart it in 1.04, will this never end!

It would be a good idea to have a comprehensive bug/issues list, right now it is spread all over the forum, i.e.: pathfinding, tac AI... ...we can even add Molotov_Billy's "my_squad_running_blindly_into_an_ambush_gets_whacked!" bug p.s.(just joking )

Could not have said it better myself, would also love to see your tutorial Capt., MOUT combat is much deadlier in CMSF than in CMx1, any help in improving our tactics would be much appreciated. I am in agreement with that comment as well, in CMx1, we got used to scenarios 30-45 minutes long since WEGO tends to compress battles, in CMSF, the same scenario should be longer, say 90-120 minutes, to more closely reflect real time combat. GeorgeMc's comments on his new scenario "Hammertime" reflects this, it is 1hr50mins long.